This transcript appears to be from a **Hastings City Council** meeting regarding new cannabis regulations. Based on the names provided and the context of the dialogue, here is the attributed transcript: [0:01] **Mary Fasbender:** Time being 7 o'clock I call the Hastings City council meeting to order please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you and let the roll reflect that we have a full council with us tonight. Council members are there any corrections to the November 12th special meeting and the council meeting? Okay, comments from the audience at this time we'd hear comments from the [0:47] audience anyone wish to speak to and no one on Zoom. All right, council items to be considered. Council, any items to be considered? Okay, Council, we have been um advised to take item number seven is not ready for consideration tonight so we should remove that from the agenda. With that Council, I would accept a motion to approve the remainder of the consent agenda. Councilmember—I'll go by hands—council member Haus and council member Fox. Thank you. Any in discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye (Aye). Oppose that motion state by saying nay. That [1:34] motion prevails. Tonight under Community Development we have a first reading to amend the city code chapters 34, 39, 59, 81, 17 and 155 cannabis regulations and we have with us our City Attorney Corey Lan. Welcome Corey. [1:50] **Corey Lan:** Which microphone? Oh, you can just flip right through here. Yeah, I just... the Council is over here so I want to address you with this microphone if that's okay. Um, all right so we have had two workshops. Planning Commission has had a public hearing. Zoning ordinance city code revisions—this is a first reading tonight. But for the listening audience, those in TV Land who don't know what all [2:19] of this new cannabis stuff is, we're going to have a little bit—not nearly the in-depth discussion we've had in the past—but just a little bit of a summary of why we're doing this and what's going on. We're going to have one zoning ordinance amendment that addresses both the existing uses that we have, kind of updating the language, and then incorporating the uses into our code. Then we have three city code amendments. The first is to repeal the licensing provision that we have today for CBD, which is the old version of cannabinoids, the low potency hemp edible products today—that's what they're known as—and then adopt a registration process instead because that's what the legislature has authorized cities to do. The Office of Cannabis Management will be taking over [3:07] all of the licensing of cannabis and lower potency hemp edible products. So the cities cannot do that because they have completely taken over that area, but they are allowing cities, if they choose to, to register these businesses. So that's what we're recommending is enacting a registration ordinance. In addition, because there's a registration process, there will be some staff time to implement that. There will be compliance checks that have to be done of the retail establishments, so there's a registration fee that can be imposed. In addition, there is a special event organizer permit—not a registration, but a permit—so that again, staff time, so we will be imposing a fee for that as well. And we'll have a permit process that's sort of baked into the registration ordinance because it's an [3:53] exception to registration, but it needs to be addressed as to what those permit applications will need to look like, so there's the permit fee as well. Then in addition, because there are some tangential issues that we want you to be aware of with cannabis uses—especially with manufacturing, but also sometimes with the retail establishments or cultivation—there tends to be an odor, not just from the plants but from the process. And so we want to make sure that these businesses are good neighbors, as well as any business frankly that is a manufacturing kind of business, that they are not producing an odor that is, you know, offensive to its neighbors. So the odor ordinance is not strictly designed for cannabis; just the timing of it seems to be a good time to implement an odor ordinance. So that is on your [4:39] agenda as well. Just to refresh your memory, we're not dealing with the zoning provisions with the business names; that's a licensing provision for the Office of Cannabis Management to go through of the 13 different licenses that they will be licensing. When you're talking about land use, your planning, your zoning, you're talking about the specific use on a specific parcel. So what we did as kind of an analysis is go through: what are the 13 businesses, the licenses, and what do they do? Then they have different uses behind those licenses. We've kind of categorized them into the lower potency version, which is the current CBD product that is lower than 0.3% THC in [5:27] the products, and there's different dosages all laid out in the legislature, but it's basically the legal product today that is being sold as edibles and beverages. So those are the lower potency hemp edibles. They come in both, as I said, beverages and edibles. So that's one category. Then there's the cannabis, which is the over 0.3% THC per product. So there's cannabis retail, otherwise known typically as a dispensary—those would be kind of a standalone business. And then there's the manufacturer, which could be either the lower potency manufacturing, or it could be the adult-use cannabis manufacturing—we'll deal with those uses separately. And then there's the cultivation, indoors and outdoors. As you can see, there's a lot of [6:13] different kinds of uses, but the general categories are your retail, your manufacturing or industrial kinds of uses, and your egg uses or farming cultivation uses. So then we take those uses and we plug them into the zoning districts. And so this is the overall chart. If it was in one big giant chart, which eventually it will be when we redo that and revise the code, but this is what it would look like in the categories. For example, the lower potency hemp edible beverages: the Council discussed this and determined those should be permitted uses. If you have an off-sale or on-sale liquor license, that is a permitted use. And other than those businesses needing to register with the city so that we [6:59] know that they're selling those products and conduct compliance checks, they will not need any land use approval; they won't need any approval from the zoning ordinance. And these are the zoning districts in which those uses exist today, so we're not making any new territory here. The lower potency hemp edible retail not associated with a liquor license: so these are the ones that are sold typically at another kind of retail store as an extra product. Tobacco stores, for example; there are other kinds of stores, massage therapy places—they will sell sometimes these hemp edible products. So these are the zoning districts where they will be allowed to do that: the C3, the DC, and the C4 zoning districts. Then there's the [7:46] cannabis retail, which is the dispensaries, also in those same zoning districts, but those would typically be a standalone store because of all the security requirements. I don't think they're going to be selling, you know, just your other kinds of products; they're not going to be selling gum, they're just going to be selling true cannabis products. The manufacturing, kind of the industrial, is going to be in the I1 and I2 appropriately placed. The lower potency manufacturing must be associated with a brewery or a distillery, so this is those zoning districts where those are allowed today. So again, we're not trying to make new territory here for the existing things. And the reason that lower potency manufacturing is allowed at breweries and distilleries is because you're taking a liquid to a liquid. You can't mix alcohol and [8:34] cannabis; it must be like a seltzer kind of product. So it's taking a tincture of a cannabis product and mixing it up in a vat of seltzer, and so it really doesn't have any kind of tangential issues that it's going to be bothering its neighbors; you won't even know they're doing it. And then cannabis wholesale is only allowed today in the I1 and I2, so we felt it appropriate to allow cannabis wholesale there as well. And then the cultivator, if it's an indoor or outdoor—so indoor would be through some kind of a greenhouse, a hoop house, or even just a fully enclosed building, or an outdoor like a farming operation—those will be in the I1, I2, or the Egg districts. Let's look at the maps. [9:21] You've seen these before. This is where the lower potency hemp edible retail sales and then the manufacturing brewery or distillery happen to be in the same locations. Other than—I didn't show them on the map—other than the I1, they're also allowed there, so just to mention that. In the C3, C4, DC lower potency edible retail sales, like at your tobacco shops, like at your chiropractors or your massage therapy places—those will be allowed in these zoning districts. There's a 500-foot buffer between uses, but otherwise there's no other buffers. And when I say buffers, state law allows you to put distance restrictions from schools, from daycares, from parks where minors [10:07] are the attraction. But there are no buffer zones other than from each other just so they don't congregate all in one central block, just to kind of keep a little bit of distance between them. So the buffer zones for cannabis: as I said, you can impose the 1,000 feet between uses, which is what we're recommending. 500 feet from schools, 500 from residential treatment facilities (these would be overnight treatment facilities), 500 feet from residential properties just again to protect the residential from a more commercial use or manufacturing use. Now we did remove the 1,000 feet from daycares in a commercial zone; it's allowed by state law, but you at the last workshop decided [10:54] that maybe that buffer zone was a little too restrictive. 1,000 feet from an attraction, a park. Now we did make some exceptions to that and we have to make some decisions for some of these as well. So what you determined at—and the Planning Commission recommended and the Council agreed—they would be exempt from the downtown core, a very geographically located district. We have geographic boundaries for it—it's not all of the downtown core zoning district, but it's parts of it—so there's an exemption from the park buffer for that. We reduced it to 500 feet for the manufacturing uses, and then we were looking at options for the buffer zones for the retail. [11:42] And what I think one idea that was brilliant was to stop the buffers at highways. I mean, you have two very, very large highways—why make the buffer cross that distance? So we'll take a look at the two options. One is to keep it at 1,000 feet for the park attraction but stopping at the highways, and the other is to look at what the map looks like when it's a 500-foot distance. So I have those options for you. The original version of the map looked like this, and as you can see, even though you wanted it in the C3, C4, and the downtown core, it pretty much covered up a lot of the red and the darker red that you wanted to see these uses allowed. So that's why you requested a [12:28] couple other options. So Option Number Two: this is where we've stopped the buffers at the green buffer—so this is the park buffer at the freeways or at the highways, so at Highway 55 and Highway 61. And as you can see, the central corridor along Highway 61 is pretty much opened up. This is with a 1,000-foot buffer from the attraction of the park. So the central 61 is opened up a lot, and even opened up a lot of the Highway 55 commercial. I think it accomplished the Council's goal. If you wanted to go even farther, here's Option Three, and I've circled the parcels that have opened up between Two [13:14] and Three. It moved from—if you can just take a look at the bottom circle along Highway 61 there—you can see half of it's covered up in a green bubble, and now all of it is opened up, just as one example. So it did open up a few spots on Highway 55, not that many; a couple more along Highway 61. Again, just by reducing the park buffer to 500 feet as opposed to 1,000 feet. So this is one your Council needs to choose. Do you want to go Option One, which is the most restrictive; Option Two, which is a 1,000-foot buffer and still opens up a lot of it; or Option Three, which opens up even more? And I might remind you that we do have in the registration portion of the [13:59] program we put a cap on the dispensaries at one per every 12,500 people that you have, residents that you have. So right now you're only required to have one. So all this does is open up all of these properties for that one to operate, but once that one operates, you don't have to allow another one till you get up to 25,000 people. So it would open it up, but again, I think either Two or Three accomplished what the Council's goal was, which was to allow more opportunities for this type of use to locate. I'm going to pause for a second so we can kind of figure out which map you want to go with. [14:48] **Mary Fasbender:** Sure. Thank you, Counselor. Council? Well, Councilmember Leifeld. [14:57] **Lisa Leifeld:** Well heck, um, so appreciate this. Thank you. We talked about this in our last meeting and we all were like, we saw one big green blob basically over the city. As a Council, one of the things we agree on—a lot of things we don't, but one of the things we do agree on is we don't want to make it harder to do business in our community, right? That's been an ongoing thing that we've talked about and we want to make the process easier, we want to be more transparent. So to Counselor, to your point, you said one dispensary per 12,500 people. So that's the state [15:37] requirements? Please explain that piece a little bit further. And then in that, the reminder is, do we think somebody's going to want to open a dispensary here? Yeah, probably, right? How does that process work if we get additional applications or business requests? [16:03] **Corey Lan:** Two things, let me clarify. The state law says cities *may* choose to have a cap; you don't have to have a cap at all. If you choose to have a cap, you have to allow one dispensary for every 12,500 residents. So I just copied the language from the statute that said you will allow one for every 12,500 residents. It doesn't limit us from... well, you could allow more. [16:34] **Lisa Leifeld:** Does that in essence then allow for, let's say, communities like Vermillion and Miesville and New Trier, for them to be able to say "No, we don't want a dispensary in our community"? Is that kind of what that's designed for? [16:51] **Corey Lan:** No, the state law says you can't prohibit the use, but there's also a county cap. So once the county reaches one for every 12,500 residents of the county, then a city could start to say no, the county has reached its quota, if you will, of dispensaries. Because Eagan may allow—who knows—they may allow 20, I don't know. [17:09] If you do get a larger community that has the capacity to have more dispensaries, then once you reach that one per every 12,500 for the countywide, then cities can start to say no. But until it reaches that, they can't say no. [17:28] **Lisa Leifeld:** Okay, great information. All of that being said, are you—are we looking for a motion to move one of these options forward? [17:39] **Corey Lan:** Yeah, well I don't need a motion, but I need a consensus as to which version you want: the 1,000 feet or the 500 feet. So I know how to... the ordinance as written today is 1,000 feet with the highway buffer zones. [17:53] **Lisa Leifeld:** Based on the information that you've presented to us over the last number of meetings, my personal recommendation [17:56] would be Option Three. We're not talking three dispensaries, we're not talking eight dispensaries, we're not talking 10 dispensaries right now. We are literally talking about one dispensary and where can they put it. My recommendation, and again I'm only one of seven here, but my goal is Option Three. Thanks for this information. I know it's been a horrible process; the state hasn't been very vocal in what's going to happen, there's not a lot of direction, and we've kind of been chasing our tail on this and we don't want to be in that position. So I really appreciate your [18:41] making this all make sense to us. So again, that would be my recommendation. [18:46] **Corey Lan:** Yeah, and your honor, I know we still have to figure that out, but let me just put one more answer because you also asked: what if you have two people at your door? I'm hoping that doesn't happen. I don't think it will, realistically. I don't think two people will be ready at the same time because they're going to have to go through their Office of Cannabis Management process. They will then pre-approve those applications. It will then come to the city for a zoning letter. My guess is nobody bothered to check with the city to find out if they comply with zoning, so they're going to have to go through a conditional use permit. So if they get all their stuff together for a conditional use permit—again, I can't imagine there are going to be two people knocking on your door at [19:28] exactly the same time with the right process and all done and ready to go. So I don't think it's going to happen. If it does, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. [19:35] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Councilmember Fox. [19:37] **Jen Fox:** Thank you, your honor. I totally agree with Councilmember Leifeld, particularly because of what we've talked about in meetings in the past and how we've framed this as a pro-business model for allowing—not refusing—taking the opportunity to put this one dispensary that we cannot refuse in place. It just allows a little bit more space. What if they own the right thing at the right time and it's the right business and they can figure out a conditional use permit and work through [20:14] our zoning, which we're cleaning up very nicely? But so I agree, Option Three. I also want to be really clear that we do hope that people want to make businesses here and want to bring business to Hastings because industry and our local business economy is going to be what carries us through in the next many years. But I would like to point out all of the work that Counselor Lan has put into making sure that our voices are being heard, public safety's voices are being heard, and our committee voices are being heard so that we have [21:02] really strong standards for business so that when the right business comes to play in Hastings, they will be good actors and good arbiters of this new industry—new ancient industry. So we're really grateful for that. But we do want to see business, and there's a lot of opportunity in this corridor that we will be talking about, or future councils will be talking about in many years to come. And hopefully that we can fill vacant spaces, and now we have more opportunity to fill those spaces with Option Three. Thank you. [21:05] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Fox. Councilmember Haus. [21:07] **Angie Haus:** Thank you, your honor. Corey, thank you so much for all of the work that you've put into this in the multiple meetings; it is very much appreciated. I know that this is not an easy task. I too am in support of [21:47] Option Three. Something that I want our residents to know too is that there are no buffers or boundaries on anything like this for alcohol or for guns, and so this is exclusive to cannabis. So we do want to make sure that we are keeping areas open for some businesses without making it so restrictive that there's not any area for one business to go to, which is why I'm in support of this option, but it does still allow for safety areas. [22:30] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Haus. Councilmember Leifeld. [22:34] **Lisa Leifeld:** First, Councilmember Haus, thank you for bringing up that there are not buffers like this for alcohol consumption or purchasing or gun purchasing. It completely slipped my mind, and I think that is food for thought for people to just sort of hear and go "Okay" and then just, you know, move on. So I would like to take this opportunity then... make a motion... No, I don't need one? [23:09] **Mary Fasbender:** Yep, as long as I'm seeing enough head nods... [23:12] **Lisa Leifeld:** But I really want to make a motion! I wrote it down! [23:14] **Mary Fasbender:** Fine, hold that thought. [23:17] **Corey Lan:** Okay, so I will modify the ordinance when on final reading to say 500 feet. Now, cannabis manufacturing, cultivation, and warehousing: again, only allowed in the I1 and I2. This map did not change, so it's the same one you discussed last [23:20] time. And then cultivation: again, just adding the Egg, no buffer zones, just 1,000 feet between uses. We don't necessarily want all of these to be, again, taking up all of your Egg. So a conditional use permit will be required, but otherwise that map is the same as well. Moving on then to the city code amendments: again, there's a registration process, the fee schedule, and the odor ordinance. There are now... we can talk about businesses because we're talking about the licenses that will be issued by the Office of Cannabis Management that then will be forwarded to the city for a registration. As we've discussed before, the Office of Cannabis Management will process these applications, make sure that the business, the licensed applicant [24:06] qualifies for that particular business license. After they get through that pre-approval process, they will send a zoning letter. We get these zoning letters all the time with a property owner that wants to—or a potential buyer that wants to buy a property—they want to know if the use that they want to put on that property is allowed. It's just called a zoning letter. So we assume that the Office of Cannabis Management will be sending the city a zoning letter saying "Is this property or this business allowed on that property?" Hopefully that licensed applicant did their due diligence, went to the city first, got their conditional use permit, and then we can say yes. But if not, we will say no and here's the deficiency; they will have to go back and correct that deficiency. And once they get their conditional use permit, then we [24:52] can say yes, and now they will get their official piece of paper license from the Office of Cannabis Management, march over to Kelly at the city clerk's office and say "I'm ready to register." So now we need a registration process. So that's what this whole timeline will involve. City Council approval is required for the registration, so it's not going to go... I haven't quite figured out if this will be a consent agenda item. Maybe. Maybe the first few we want to discuss, I'm not sure. We don't know what all this is going to look like or how it's going to unfold, so we'll just play it by ear, but it will require Council fingerprints on it. In the ordinance, I put the registration term would be consistent with our license [25:38] term, which is the calendar year. Well, Kelly pointed out that in the FAQs—not in a rule, not in the law, but in the FAQs from the Office of Cannabis Management—they said their license term will run whenever they get approved. So it could be mid-year, it could be end of year, could be January 1st—probably not. So it doesn't make sense for us to have a different registration term because they're always going to need to then update with the current license that they have. So we're just going to have to keep track when these businesses come and register with us; we're just going to have to calendar it for "that's their registration term," and it might be, you know, March 15th to March 14th of the next year. [26:25] Fine, we'll figure it out. There aren't that many today. Obviously, we know that there aren't that many low potency hemp edible places that have a registration—or they have a license today but a registration tomorrow. There will be the alcohol places that do, anybody with a liquor license, so we'll have to add those to the list. And then if we end up with a manufacturing or dispensary or cultivation, we'll have to just keep track of those. So a little bit of a logistic issue, but we'll figure it out. So the ordinance will be modified because Kelly notified me of that cute little—again, it's an answer to a question, but we don't know where that rule is going to show up or what that's going to look like in the end. But I'll change that for final reading. Registrations are non-transferable from [27:11] person to person, so they can't be sold. That's important—that people don't... it's not an automatic pass just because I have a registration I can sell that right. They have to come in and get a new registration, and you can't move it from place to place. We approved that location; we didn't approve you to just move it to another location of your choosing. We will have fees in there, and there's a little bit of funkiness with the fees. Obviously there's caps, which I outlined for you last time and I have a slide on that as well. But the initial fee must also be accompanied by their first annual renewal fee. So they get to play for two years whether they stay in business two years or not; they get to pay for it for two years, and it is non-refundable. Then if they come back [27:56] the second year to renew, they owe nothing. So then they wouldn't owe again; we're just going to have to keep track of where everybody is in the process. If they come back the third year, then it's a renewal fee. We did put in there the cap on the number of dispensaries. And then separate events are a special permit. So this is all in the registration. So the yellow columns are the ones that matter to us. Those are the fees we can charge. It's either half of the OCM license fee, or for an initial fee $500, or the renewal fee of $1,000—that's our cap. Regardless of the fact—and we're just going to ignore the fact that the OCM gets $70,000 for a medical combo license renewal [28:41] fee—and we're going to accept our $1,000 and say thank you. We are recommending for the permit a $250 permit application fee and then just a $5,000 basically a security deposit—but it's an escrow. We don't use it, you get it back, but if we needed to have for some reason extraordinary city costs involved in your cannabis event, then we would take from that escrow. So this is the language from the statute that says you can have one for every 12,500 residents, but that is only for the dispensaries. You can have as many low potency... you can't put a cap on the number of low potency hemp edible retailers or the medical combo business license with the retail endorsement. [29:29] So the cannabis event permit: we discussed this at the last workshop and I think where I landed on this—again, the state law is not perfectly clear about what a cannabis event organizer looks like and what they do—but I think the way to interpret it is as you suggested: it's not just going to be a cannabis event where you have basically the weed dabbler. Well, that's all it is. You're going to have the beverage guy that wants to come to one of your events, the Rivertown Days—they're going to want to come and have their cannabis beverage tent, or there may be several of them that want to come and have a vendor booth at your events. So I put it should be [30:15] on private property unless approved by the Council. So you have the ability to say "Nope, this event is too family-friendly, we don't think it's appropriate to have it at here." You can choose for specific reasons; obviously you have to have something to support it, but you could choose maybe this particular park you want to have it in doesn't have the ability to get the kind of security that we need for it for whatever reason. If you choose that there isn't a good location in a public place to have a cannabis event, you can say no. You will have that ability case-by-case. So that's thing one: so it can be on public property but it requires your approval. And the permit must come [31:01] from the special event organizer, so it's not the vendor who wants to come and say "Hey, I'm going to have an event, I want to have a booth at the event." They don't get to apply for the permit. It has to be the special event organizer that has a license from the Office of Cannabis Management. So they have to submit everything to you that they had to submit to them, and there's a very long laundry list of logistical things that they have to provide for that event: exit and entrance for the event like how people are going to be getting in and out, what you're going to do with your waste, who's going to be at the event, what vendors are you specifically going to have. It's a case-by-case basis. [31:48] Unfortunately, the way the law is written, the Office of Cannabis Management sees the license application of that organizer; they have to see it after we've seen it, because one of the things that the organizer has to submit to them is proof of local permission. So you have to give it first, which is good because you know your park better, you know your properties better, you know your events better, you know what will fit, what conditions should be put on that event. So you have to review it first. So everything that they would have submitted to the Office of Cannabis Management, they submit to you. So the laundry list is kind of long, and it is longer than probably what an alcohol or a beer tent has to submit, but [32:35] that's because we have to... they're going to be submitting that to the state. We don't want the state deciding what's appropriate for our parks. So that section has grown as every time I read it, every time I review the statute, that special event permit section is kind of long and we're going to have to have a special permit cannabis application that fits with all the things that they have to submit. So that's all outlined in the ordinance. They can have an event for up to 4 days—doesn't have to be, but that's the maximum amount it can be. So we're going to ask, you know, how many days is it going to be? Is there going to be on-site consumption? That again is up to the Council's discretion; you don't have to allow on-site consumption, but you can. And then as I said, an escrow fee for unforeseen expenses, and then there's a [33:22] nice generic "or other conditions as approved by the Council" because it may just be a case-by-case basis. One size is not going to fit all for every event. So this again could be for a cannabis-only event, or it could be a vendor who wants to participate in a larger event. Either way, that permit is separate from the Rivertown Days; it could be at the same meeting, but it would be a separate permit within that permit. Does that all make sense this time? And that—I feel like that fits with what your intent was. Okay. And then just because we think that it's good, again, non-discriminatory [34:10] odor ordinance applies to anybody that stinks. We don't want our businesses to be affecting other businesses, especially in the industrial park or even in any commercial area. It will require a specific, very objective technology to be used. I've put in there the "Nasal Ranger" because it is, as far as I know, the only kind of odor technology there is out there, but if there's something else, we'll use something else. A certain number of violations then designates them as a significant odor generator; they have to try to correct it. If they can't correct it, we can impose lots of administrative penalties. Now I leave this—this penalty number is an option. The reason that it's high: normal administrative citation penalties are about $200. A $200 citation does not go [34:57] very far with a business; they will pay it and they will continue to smell bad. Case in point: there's a significant odor generator in South St. Paul—cross the bridge, you'll see, you'll smell them. They don't care about the amount of administrative citations we issue to them; they just pay them and they continue to smell. So you've got to make the number... they have to feel a little bit of pain. So we're recommending a minimum of a $10,000 administrative citation penalty. You're allowed to establish any fee that you feel is appropriate, but I'm open to suggestions. [35:43] **Lisa Leifeld:** Council, can I backtrack one second? You brought something else up about—very organized notes—about medical marijuana. Does that follow the same 1,000-foot rule? If you have a recreational marijuana dispensary and then a medical dispensary comes in as well, they have to be 1,000 feet apart, right? [36:09] **Corey Lan:** Okay, but we can't say no to the medical is—right, there's no cap on medical. [36:15] **Lisa Leifeld:** Okay, but it does go into our zoning number. [36:18] **Corey Lan:** Yep, the buffer between businesses. [36:20] **Lisa Leifeld:** Awesome. Secondly, anybody watching: Google "Nasal Ranger," not "Nozzle Range." We checked this out, it's [36:31] amazing. And it literally detects the level of odor in the air, similar to what I think Mr. Stempski is aware of with checking lumens like when people complain about neighbors' lights—we can check how bright lights are. This does that for odor. It was amazing. Can I make a motion now, or are you going to talk some more? [36:51] **Corey Lan:** Well, are we okay with the $10,000 number on the administrative citation? Because I didn't add that to the fee ordinance. So does anyone have any opinions on that? As far as—should that be a second... [37:05] **Lisa Leifeld:** Like your first citation is "Hey, you guys, we're getting complaints, there's a problem here." At least give them the ability to do what's right. [37:13] **Corey Lan:** Under the ordinance, first step is to notify them that they've reached the maximum number and make them meet with the city to try to come up with a solution. It's when they fail to comply with that solution, [37:25] that's when the administrative citation... so we've already tried the negotiation and "let's work it out" and, you know, put some kind of mitigation technology in your system, filters, whatever it is to make you stop stinking. And when you refuse or the filters go out and you don't change them... [37:44] **Lisa Leifeld:** Awesome. Because that then goes with what we've been talking about—we don't want to make it hard to do business here, right? But we want you to do good business; we want to be good business neighbors. So that being [38:04] said, I'd like to make a motion—I know, I know, you wanted to say it but I'm sure it meets all of these things. Well, what I'd like to—my motion would be to approve the first reading of zoning ordinance amendments and city code ordinance amendments for cannabis and lower potency hemp edibles as outlined by Counselor Lan. [38:39] **Mary Fasbender:** I know I need to... we have to still have discussion. Councilmember—thank you, M. [38:43] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Corey, very much for all this extensive information. Two things I just wanted to clarify here. The slide prior, when we are talking about the odor ordinance, that only [38:50] applies to manufacturing, correct? [38:51] **Corey Lan:** No, it's an odor ordinance for any business in town, but the way that we're thinking of this is that's where it would most likely affect. No, it actually... the plants can have a pretty pungent odor when they are blooming. And so it—for this particular industry, there's two versions of odor. There's the obvious smell of a marijuana plant, and we have discovered with real-life experience at Leafline Labs that they have both odor issues with the—because they do indoor cultivation and so it permeates out out of their walls [39:37] or doors. And then secondly, the manufacturing process itself smells like a skunk. [39:48] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Okay, which notes... and then a couple of slides—thank you for clarifying—and then a couple of slides prior where you were talking about manufacturing and the minimum parcel of land or area that was—was it 10 acres? Is that what was listed? [40:11] **Corey Lan:** Cultivation? Yeah, cultivation is 20—20 acres. [40:17] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Thank you, honor. [40:19] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Vihrachoff. There is a motion on the table. Councilmember Haus. [40:24] **Angie Haus:** I have a question. (Seconds?) [40:26] **Mary Fasbender:** Discussion Council. Councilmember Haus. [40:27] **Angie Haus:** To Councilmember Leifeld's question here: that ordinance, however, the smell is going to—it's not up there—is going into the ordinance for all businesses, right? We're bringing it up now because it's come up in connection with marijuana, but going forward, I mean... and just thinking things like the Purina plant, the Malt-O-Meal plant, right? So things—other things smell within a community, correct? Just clarifying that, just to add it to the whole thing. [41:07] **Corey Lan:** If you had a rendering plant, for example. Exactly. [41:09] **Angie Haus:** Thank you. [41:10] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, your honor. Councilmember Fox. [41:14] **Jen Fox:** Thank you. Is there—I'm so sorry—in the um odor ordinance, is there something about "malodorous" or just *any* odor? [41:25] **Corey Lan:** It is—as Councilmember Leifeld [41:48] pointed out, it is an odor that reaches a certain sense on the Nasal Ranger that is offensive. So it's a measurement; it's not—it can't be subjective. They're not like, "Well, I don't like how Cheerios smells," right? Cheerios or donuts or, you know, you fill in the blank, right? This ordinance, I think as I indicated to you at the workshop but just for again everybody to know, was challenged by a very large global company and they took it to the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, and it withstood the initial District Court. They appealed the decision and the Federal Appeals [42:02] Court said not only is this ordinance non-discriminatory, but it is constitutionally valid; it has an objective test, it has due process baked into it. And so that is the model that we're using. So it is—I feel like it has withstood some pretty good judicial scrutiny. So if we... should be fine on its implementation. I feel like it's a good process. Again, it will require a little bit of, you know, technology; we got to figure out how that... how we pay for that. But once implemented, I feel like it will be a great tool. Not that we want any code violations, but if we do... [42:50] **Mary Fasbender:** Looks to cover the nasal odometer? What's the question, I'm sorry? [42:52] **Jen Fox:** The fee that we're administering. [42:53] **Corey Lan:** Yeah, actually one citation would cover the cost. [42:54] **Jen Fox:** Yeah. Thank you, your honor. [42:55] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Fox. Any other discussion? Councilmember Pemble. [42:58] **Dave Pemble:** Going through the whole process and looking at what we've come to work through in this process and move ahead, not only just as the buffer areas, but the need that we have in this community to—along our corridors Highway 55 and 61, we have properties that are available [43:38] for businesses. And I think what we've done here so far tonight, up until voting, is that we've created a situation where we can be able to entice a type of business to come to our community, and these are the areas along the main corridors. My only concern in all of this is as we put this all together, the legislature is going to meet again on January 20th, and after the last two sessions—the last two year-sessions—and how things change, that we'll be coming back to deal with this somewhere along the way, I'm [44:24] almost positive. But I do support moving forward with this. [44:28] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Pemble. Motion, first and second. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye (Aye). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. [44:50] **Corey Lan:** Thank you, your honor. The only other asterisk that we need to put on this is because the Office of Cannabis Management is not ready to issue any licenses, we're not ready to register any businesses. Only a few have come in for conditional use permits. We do have some outstanding licenses—what do we do with them? So I'm going to recommend at a final reading that we just extend their existing [45:10] licenses. They already have conditional use permits so they're good and valid. The off-sale/on-sale that are selling it today, I think we just let them... if they are operating and selling, I don't think we make them comply with any kind of a process because there isn't one from OCM yet. So we will, when OCM is issuing those low potency hemp edible beverage retailers licenses, then we can register those businesses. But until then, I think we just let them be permitted uses and just let them do their thing. And for the existing licenses that we have—whether three or four, I forget whatever how many stars were on that map—we just extend their licenses until the Office of Cannabis Management gets their act [45:55] together. Oh, is that out loud? Okay, thank you Counselor. [46:00] **Mary Fasbender:** Okay, at this time we will have a closed meeting pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 13D.05 subdivision 3c2 to develop offers for purchase of real estate property located at 1292 North Frontage Road. We will meet in closed session to develop offers for purchase to real estate property, Water Treatment Plant 2 at 1292 North Frontage Road. Afterward, we will return to Open Session and may take action. [46:42] Closed session meeting is authorized by Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subdivision 3C. We will therefore seek a motion to move into closed door session at this time. Councilmember Leifeld, councilmember Pemble. Additional Council discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye (Aye). Oppose that motion state by saying nay. Okay, City Council will now move into closed session. No voting will occur and no action will be taken in the closed door session.