foreign so is [Laughter] all right i'm calling the wednesday june 29th 2022 photography task force meeting board at 5 30 pm the clerk will know if the following members are members of the public may attend in person or participate online at zoom dot us slash join meeting eight three seven five three four two zero eight nine seven once you log into the meeting please use this feature to tell the moderator more information is available prison first item uh tonight is the adoption of the agenda city clerk does staff have any changes nothing from staff doing tax board members have changes may have a motion to adopt the agenda in a second motion by donna seconded by sarah to adopt the agenda all those in favor please stay on raise your hand those posts say name and raise your hand all right item two of the agenda is approval minutes from may 25 meeting the staff have made changes to the minutes did note that the roll call showed that josh that um joshua walls was both absent and present he was here i i think he came late and so we had him as absent and then marked him as president yes we can correct that may have a motion to approve the minutes as amended i moved to approve all right one second all right move by sarah seconded by all those in favor please say aye and raise your hand almost close name raise your hand the motion carries uh reviewing of outstanding items study staff for any updates uh thank you chair um i can report that the city council did approve chap title 3 chapters 2-19 per year recommendations on june 7th and they also approved title 3 20 chapters 20-22 at the june 21st me um there are no final review items tonight so we will move to item five which is questions and comments from task force in public for title three chapter 23 or questions all right we will move to reviewing title 3 chapter 23. i i saw that you joined us sir in the gallery are you are you here to speak to an item or just listening okay i wanted to make sure i didn't enjoy it thank you um item five the agenda is questions uh sorry item six of the agenda is review title three chapter 23. this chapter was included in the meeting packet with suggested edits so we will go through the packets we have here uh we'll do it kind of like last time where we'll take a page in the page go through the comments and yes tim i do have one overarching question about this uh section here and that is if you go to a smoke shop here in town right now there is a product there that falls into a very very gray area that's uh d8 joint uh does the d8 does anybody know what d8 joints are or is the city is this totally new what's that yeah have you guys had an 88 it's got a thc of less than three percent of it i think it's kind of controversial in the state right now yeah so what they do is they synthetically take the thc9 down to eight and they spray it on hemp and you can buy it anywhere so it's really an unregulated product right now that is readily available um they do do the food flavors that kind of stuff i just want to make everybody aware of it that as we are talking about this there is a huge different segment of a market that is kind of coming up right now that i don't really address me at all that i don't know if the city's ever even had complaints or even addressed it or not but i don't know a lot and i think that's as i've talked to other people um and as i've talked around uh very very few people are actually aware of it thank you uh so we'll start on uh page one and a couple of comments that the section's been renamed some definitions have been changed and you'll notice a small edit by striking of the term the phrase common with regard to lucy which i had not um maybe an old reference i think so i think that's what eric garner was killed over in new york city yeah i just haven't heard about referred to as loose um so through the rest of the definitions section on to the back side are there any questions or comments i don't see it in these lists of definitions but throughout this sometimes it's referred to as tobacco shop and sometimes a smoke shop is there a difference between those two same and then i do see a question um from shelly on tobacco shop about what is the reason for the door directly opening to the outside um task force members the that section and that provision derives from a similar provision in chapter 461 of state statutes that our tobacco ordinance kind of dovetails with and it is a is a provision that the legislature added originally with the idea that that would allow people to observe who comes and goes more than internal access stores and as a design mechanism to eliminate or limit underage access to the back or that you couldn't sneak in through a side door or a hidden entryway whether it's effective or not is subject to debate but that's the reason that was put in the state statute is why we picked it up and have it in our city code okay and when you see in that section the exceptions on tobacco shops that's also why it parallels some of the language in chapter 461 if you want to do a cross reference or you can just look it up online um does that satisfy your question yeah it satisfies my question i guess my issue is more with state code at this point i mean i just wanted to clarify that you know in a mini mall situation you could still access from the inside and have an outside door so this is doesn't necessarily preclude a smoke shop being in a mini mall correct okay if there's no questions on terms or definitions let's move to 320 oh sorry just one other question just um is state statute pretty clear do we need all these this is very wordy even even though it's been redacted i'd say there's not adequate state law that we could just reference and skinny this up significantly well we try to do that mr chair members when we did with the liquor issues as you know and then people were concerned that we didn't know what liquor licenses we could actually issue for so we put the put the laundry list of licensed capable establishments back in our in our city code i had the fight 30 years ago with the department of labor and industry or at the time i might have been in a different agency with the building code because the state agency required cities to administer the state building code and then argued in force that we would have to pass an ordinance adopting the state building code which seemed to me to be unnecessary second step but i lost that battle then um i continue to lose battles regarding just adopting matters by reference one of the long-term city attorneys from a downtown minneapolis firm that i highly respect dave kennedy used to argue that he could adopt an ordinance that says we will adopt the state statute by reference as well as any amendments there too and that last part is unclear on your state law but it certainly makes sense if you're going to adopt something by by reference when the legislature updates it it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to go through the protocol of updating to reflect the 22 19 to the 20 22 statutory amendments indicating you're going to administer your state status or when the legislature says you've got administrative state statutes so it's a very you know kind of inside the game legal question but yes where we could do it it's it's beneficial sometimes to adopt by reference but then it forces people that want to read the ordinance and understand how it works to open up the state statute and read them concurrently and that's difficult for a lot of people to do and particularly if you're training business people and others having it all kind of in one spot seems to be the preferred approach from a learning or education perspective kind of in the middle of page two i was just chuckling to myself that says what is it tobacco tobacco products chairs um cavendish i don't even know what that is it was tobacco fine cut you know it's just like and those are listed those are verbatim out of chapter 461 so that's a complete length and we could say tobacco bodies of tobacco related products as defined by state law but then that raises a question then people would have to say okay as state law is b8 you know delta a part of that and then you'd have to look to so if you're going to regulate it in that respects that's kind of the policy question for task force or anybody drafting codes has to address do you spell it out or you dot by reference i'm on building code for instance it's the building code is so large you don't pick it up and recopy you do adopt it by reference here this one the wordy is still probably manageable to to reprint it i think i agree with what you've done now that i understand better if you're going to train somebody here it is versus okay i got to go to four docs nobody's going to do it so thank you that was helpful okay uh moving forward to 320 3-3 um is is the new point b the city shaw issuing a license uh is that is that new i see it that's been moved i'm confused with the coloring is that is that still current not going to edit it okay but not added but not or deleted because i i'm having a hard time distinguishing between that and the red below okay so the majority of the section has been moved to different parts of it which takes us to 322 3.31 on this page which appears to be more moving similar to other sections we've just tried to organize it in a more understandable fashion yep uh and as we finish off three two three three there is a question again from shelly on b one educational materials why is the city regulating this do we require training materials for liquor license applications which are potentially more dangerous would the city have a comment on that all right where are you uh b1 yeah right there educational materials 2333 yeah i'm having trouble finding it in this document down on the bottom twenty three three if you look right above twenty three three twenty three four you'll see it yeah so i um that the training materials is that part of the best practices program which we don't conduct anymore we don't have a best practices for that anymore but the state does the state require that i think so when i when i was comparing other cities as well other cities did require their educational materials be submitted so this is the uh you can check this this is the applicant submitting educational materials or they're requesting it no they have the applicant if you look above you on line six above that in the paragraph proceeding on the initial application the copy of the education materials for apple the applicant intends to use to educate employees is to be included they don't have to do it on renewal but i think we're picking up uh ordinance provision from that staff is identified as having some merit that other cities have that then allows us to screen or see what the applicant intends to do regarding training clerks as far as their obligations or how to read an id to determine whether or not someone is of legal age or not those educational materials are available in different forms now too a lot of them are online they're actually really good aid for not only training staff but the consequences of poor decisions yes i guess since this is my question this kind of seemed to be a theme throughout this whole chapter and i made several comments this is a regulated substance obviously alcohol is also a regulated substance and arguably more dangerous if in the hands of a minor definitely would require training it seems like we're focusing more in the code on people who are selling tobacco products than we are alcohol and i'm concerned that there is overall a bias towards people who are selling tobacco products that we're not applying equally across the same sorts of regulated substances that pose potentially a community hazard are you suggesting that uh tobacco in this context is over regulated or that yes okay over regulated compared to alcohol which is also just as dangerous definitely not approved for minors um there were a few examples yes task force member ward and members the uh if you can remember when we were talking about the the liquor licensing right um we i remember remember neiston brought up the point of why are being we being so prescriptive on on how they do their their training their education and that and that was because that was in state statute so there is specific and even more specific than what we have here for for liquor and that was set out by that we copied from state statute and is part of our best practices program which i thought i just heard we don't do anymore for tobacco tobacco okay so we used to have one for tobacco it was eliminated because so many of the best practices procedures were already then incorporated into statute that it didn't make it make sense anymore so then my question is we require these because a lot of other cities do for the training materials with regards to tobacco it's not a current practice does anybody actually look at these or is this just kind of an extra hassle that license applicants have to go through when i receive the applications i do look at it i do go through the material that they submit would you ever turn down i mean if it's just like management's just a post-it note that says we say don't sell the miners for example for some of the renewals some of the applicants took photos of the signage in their stores something like that a post-it would not be sufficient okay at all okay and but then you would you would deny or you would send it back to them and say this is insufficient right okay yep thank you i'm looking to see if there's something in statute to reference it as well i think to your point shelley when you see items that you think are overly prescriptive i think just continue to call them out and handle them on a case-by-case basis um any other points or comments on that section before we move to the new 323-4 the granting or transfer of licenses all right moving to that um there's many questions uh one is if someone has to fill out a new application is it really a transfer why not just state the licenses are not transferable [Applause] similar to that but maybe we'll just start there why are we doing transferable licenses versus just requiring new licenses in the event of a well i guess this would be b transfer it says it says it won't be allowed transfers no it's without the approval of the city clerk and without a new application having been filed so to me that just seems i agree we should edit that potentially so would we just say licenses may not be transferred would that be so remove transfer at the in the title we could just granting up licenses and in here we can reference that no transfers transfer is not allowed if that's what the city i mean that would make sense and if you had a new applicant you wouldn't you wouldn't just transfer it from one they would need their own liquor their own tobacco wise that's great perhaps this had to do with potential buyer or change i mean it's not the whole license it's the trying to find a description for this because that does happen yeah i'm thinking about uh you know there were there was a time when it was very common that um any store shop owner would then transfer the store to their children you know upon their retirement or what have you so that may be kind of where that transfer came from but we're saying if you're a new applicant it's not really a transfer you you still need to as a as a new as the new owner of the establishment you're going to need to file for your own application so yeah we can we can definitely change that if if we do make that change um i know that there's a distance restriction so if there are if there are locations that would be you know grandfathered in today and then they turn over the establishment to someone else would they still get that exception or would that have to be approved specifically by the the uh city manager i don't remember a distance i thought i saw one i think you're right yeah for tobacco shops all right and for my own head are we talking a freestanding tobacco shop are we talking cigarettes at walgreens is that a tobacco shop no that's over the counter so like a tobacco shop is strictly tobacco products yep which up until a year ago we had none so we have the like the burn cigar shop um and um yeah um it seems like the thing so it made it more visible to me anyway if you predominantly sell tobacco and and nicotine related products if that is your main product um like you could sell to back tobacco and then sell like cigarette papers that kind of thing that would be incidental to the main purpose of your shop and if your main purpose of your shop is tobacco then you would be considered a tobacco shop and there's in here somewhere isn't it about the definition of what is the difference between tobacco and over the counter no so how do we how do we regulate the walgreens or the gas station differently from a shop that just sells tobacco products sure here's the difference this is the easiest way to visualize it is if i go into a retail tobacco store and i want to get a pack of smokes or something like that i usually have to go to the counter and ask for it now if i go to a tobacco shop much like a liquor store i can take the products i need off the shelf bring it up to the counter does that help visualize that a little bit i understand the difference okay uh i just want we i guess i just wanted to make sure that these regulations apply only to the free standing place and and it then perhaps we don't regulate anything about or kind of over the counter at gas stations does the gas station require a license to sell segments and it's under this chapter that it's licensed and some of the rules are the same and then some of the rules for tobacco shops are different okay regarding the transfer issue mr chair i don't think there's a different legal effect of whether you will authorize a review on a transfer just say they're not transferrable i think the end result is same legal effect and i don't think it affects the distance requirement issue um with the exception that if you don't renew and somebody else comes in then the question is whether you've secured your your flag in the ground to know your place of business in effect but i don't think that would change much on the transfer versus a new application dan so joel how probably you treat the vape shops where that we have in town are they considered like tobacco shops as well yeah because almost all of them dan have tobacco related products to hook them right but even if they didn't actually sell cigarettes for instance the tobacco-related product aspects would get them under this licensing regulation so a vape shop couldn't be next to a tobacco shop correct that the separation requirement would click with that so it seems like the license is tied as much to the person or more so than the establishment when you're issuing a license based on the application criteria is this not something where if we can say they're non-transferable however anything previously approved makes the establishment eligible to continue to be used for that purpose if we've previously issued a license that was an exception to the three-quarter mile mile rule for example so um if if i may chair um our staff is proposing that we eliminate the three-quarter mile distance separation okay and that would make the point moot if if the task force agrees with that recommendation so maybe to skip forward just briefly with the show of hands are people on in favor of removing the three-quarter mile this is not a binding thing but if if you're not then we should have that conversation at length so i would be in favor of it uh in theory i am in favor of it okay i just personally find the vape shops quite offensive in all their signs and their flags and their whatevers which i assume they're following are sign ordinances which in the past have been quite strict and i know that they've loosened up over the years um but i i'm not going to say therefore you know if if we can have fewer of them by that that would be a good idea but no i'm i'm for not having just a little clarification on the sign issue um the city did adopt a moratorium on sign enforcement during covid and that has not been lifted might i suggest a possibility of going through this process right now all right steve what are the other cities around us do in this question on this three quarters of a mile none of them have a distance requirement okay thanks okay so generally i'm in favor of removing it sounds like some of the people might be in theory in favor of it could i just kind of see if you are again it's not binding but if you think you might be in favor of it remove them of removal yep of removal okay so we're split so then we'll have to have the conversation i'm ambivalent i could be convinced [Laughter] well then uh i think that once we get to the distance thing then if we have to come back and change things we'll have to do that um do we have consensus on as far as b just saying the licenses are non-transferable and apparently licenses are issued to people not businesses corporations individuals sole proprietorships llcs corporations yes so um you know speedway or holiday they also have a tobacco license um it's not transferable we did just have the speedways come in and buy all the sa gas stations um those licenses are not transferable the speedway did have to apply for their own tobacco license okay so then the death of a licensee is only for so sold proprietor corporation dies i don't know if they can you know they are people they they do sometimes have to update their operating managers and those types of things okay i'm not hearing any objections to the removal of the to sorry to to changing b to say licenses may not be transferred okay moving forward so death of the licensee one of the questions i had was that uh it looks like it gives a temporary license for a period not to exceed 90 days but we would in effect have people potentially running businesses for those 90 days who wouldn't actually qualify um and remember warren asks should a personal representative be identified as a representative appointed by probate proceedings or will this is on c that gets to be a mess so how is personal representative over here so i just claimed that i am joe's personal representative and he died so i get to have the business for the next 90 days well if there's a will the personal representative would be named in the will if there isn't a will the personal representative could be a person that seeks that status through probate at which point you could ask for documentation a lot of times it probably would be a family member and we would probably look at going through the transfers as now a new application to see if that individual meets the qualifications for the new ad for the new license of age et cetera background check joel how long does probate take is that the 90 days or years months so that's how long does it take us to process the license that was the next yeah okay it depends it depends on if it's filled out completely it depends on if it needs other departments review it depends on if they need to make modifications to their buildings or their structures so let's assume that the building is fine because they're inheriting it and that they filled out the paperwork appropriately how long would it take us generally what a week if if everything is submitted properly and the application and all the information is cracked and i have no questions about a week okay um chris mr chair uh and task force in almost 30 years i think this is i've only had one instance this has been an issue i mean this is a rare case when you say it's been an issue you mean that the person that took it over has been disqualified or that just no one's died in 30 years nobody's died and we're probably due to knock on wood here you adjaced it now in which case in my experience uh the the shop did close up until they had this all worked out okay so it was fairly simple to handle too they and there was no action taken it wasn't at this city um that had just been done okay let him go 90 days um so yeah i guess personal representative is a is a defined term legally and we're using lower case here and i think that's my question overall and i think you kind of alluded to that mr chair with the who is the personal representative thing is this something that we should add a definition for or just adopt uppercase letters and for personal representative there so let me ask this perhaps contrarian um why do we allow a business to continue to operate for 90 days even if that person hasn't been licensed i would propose that it's necessary there's bills that's been there it's part of the community that people rely on being there they may be in transition there could be a variety of reasons to allow a business to continue to operate as long as they're within the bounds of the law and the business probably has business debts that they need to pay through the sales of the business sure is 90 days seem like a reasonable period i thought it was too short a time i did too that it may be asking a lot for a family a personal representative whatever to make a decision about perhaps going forward with the business or not or selling or all sorts of things now that you could say well if you think you're going to go ahead go ahead and you know do a new license application what's the cost um 380. 380 okay i i wonder if you know if we say extend it to say 180 days a full half year then what's the purpose what's the point of licensing then right oh these are annual licenses um it's going to come around again either be renewed with updated information 90 days is generally i would say people are going to have a plan in place they may not be all done but if they they're informing us what's going on they've got maybe an attorney who's pr going through the process on there i don't think it's unreasonable and i think that whoever is dubbed as i don't know if you would say power of attorney next of ken personal representative however you want to state that i think that within 90 days the city would want to see some action from them that they are in the process of of transferring not transferring to getting a new license because this and this is only going to happen in a the case of a sole proprietorship and also adner too that a lot of these spaces are leased space so they're going to have agreements with their leasing agents in the event something happens okay i can live with it i can live with it as well i think they have a process in place and i think it's good to remember that this is more so um to protect the city for somebody who's being negligent in a a situation and just not wanting to do anything with it and just try to let write it out and not get their own license this is to kind of force their hand to make them step up and take responsibility and it's not so much as if somebody came to us and said you know we still have this issue with probate court do you you know it's going to take us an extra month it's not like something that we would try to shut them down for it it's it's a matter of you know being reasonable and taking different situations and into account i guess the wording if you're saying if they're being reasonable when it says not to exceed i think then if you really would make an exception if they were responsible struggling with probate or whatever that we should put some language that says at the discretion of the city manager or clerk whoever so that you could question um how do we how is the city notified if that person passes away they monitor for bodies every day in the street you know like can someone just kind of float onto the radar for a while and then just kind of go oh you know like that's entirely possible yeah right so it doesn't matter and i i think that that's one of the another one of the reasons why the city's put this language in there so that so that the licensees know that within three months we can understand the first month maybe the second month but within the third month you need to contact us and let us know that something has happened and what the plan is moving forward mr chair too what we often have done is put language in there if there's changes in the licensing information they keep need to keep it updated and not everybody does this and the way i usually find out that somebody's passed on is i either send a compliance letter to them and sending that to a dead person is not a good thing right so that's how i find all the lots that make sense absolutely if we move to d i think there is a question on it i i can't quite tell what the line yeah um but it says premises under construction and i'll just ask in general why do we need this point d i mean generally wouldn't we not issue a permit for a building under construction for anything i think i just remember wasn't there similar language to this in the liquor yeah so it perhaps is just useful okay to somebody kind of like excuse me an order of process so that everything is done in place and signed off on before the license is because if building isn't passing it doesn't make sense for that license to be issued if it's a new building so that's why the order comes in that you can't get the license until you show that that building is passed would it be maybe it's more clear to just say that building that a license requires a occupancy certificate i i don't pretend to know building codes but i i don't know if there could be a situation where they could have a certificate of occupancy and still not have not have the you know official sign off of the building official be aware mr chair i don't think there's any legal difference between how you stated and how it's worded except mine took four words yeah yeah [Laughter] you're right uh josh you can also use it like a temporary occupancy where you're able to come in on something like that but typically you wouldn't necessarily want to do that to be coming in under construction just based off of light safety in case there was something that wasn't fully ready so i think that would be a little a little premature but you know from a temporary uh certificate of occupancy is is another channel okay if we don't feel strongly then i won't belabor it which takes us to e expansion of licensed premises and then there's a question what is the reason for the site plan i believe they have a requirement of a certain percentage of the building that needs to be this this person this is this the building has a square footage requirement and then only a certain percentage of the building is allowed for this or that and the site plan ensures that they're following the code okay uh that'll take us to 323.5 other general licensing requirements and i'll note that in b there is there's been an edit around informing employees that they are required to inspect certain types of identification just i suggested moving it to where it makes more sense and then under d1 there's a question do we need subsection one here and i wasn't sure if that was do we need it at all or just not at this location i think that was from jared my opinion is yes we need it and it's in the proper location okay can you help me understand when we say adjacent to the licensed premises are we talking about off the person's property usually parking lots on the property or owned by the landlord that is immediately adjacent to the license premises not to abutting properties owned by somebody else or just on the street all right just on the street correct okay um what is the what age do we what age do we look for um on two how old do we think people need to be before we stop asking them how old they are realistically never because you start the time when you're well i'm almost there and you get the time hey i'm still close to that so you know um but what is it for alcohol is it 30 as well it's forever isn't it yeah i mean i wouldn't think that experience i have given because you may have you know a 30 year old who looks 18. sure so shall we just say should we require them to always ask the age of all patrons or i personally think 30 seems a bit too close to that fuzzy line in my opinion but i'm not a trained clerk and remember the age recently changed from 18 to 21 and we never changed the 30. but does our liquor license have a similar provision that i'm not aware of i think the liquor license is a little bit different though because of the back of your driver's license you're going to have restricted liquor restrictions that have nothing to do with your age that people that stores are actually looking for so theoretically you should actually be car you should actually be carted every single time you go to a liquor store and or if you go to a bar because i do believe that it's a state requirement that you do have to have an id on you if you're drinking it in public or something like that joel can correct me if i'm wrong i don't want the line to slow down at walgreens [Laughter] driver's licenses so i think that this is also in there to kind of help the tobacco store owner if somebody obviously looks over 30 years old then they don't have to id every single person well what's the point of the law if it's subjective and you can't enforce it i i don't think we came up with this so i'm not sure where it comes from they're already yeah so funny story so my dad's quite old and he got carted at a liquor store and it didn't go so good he goes i fought in world war ii and you want to see my id [Laughter] i just dropped my head and started laughing and the answer was yes i have seen some of our off sale establishments that say you will need to show id regardless of your age so should we uh should we entertain that language say that age verification is required no should we raise it from 30 no i i think you have the age of 21 and you put it on the business in order to make sure that they're doing the right thing okay there are some questions here too on this one i'm glad i'm going with this through this with you guys you know and it's it says that you know you don't have to it's not required for a person over age of 30 but if they appear to be over 30 and it turns out they're not that's not a defense that they looked like they were over 30. yep right so that's kind of yeah but it would only be against the rules if the person was under 21 right but it's not a justification to say well they looked older so i didn't card them yeah but there are some 18 nitros that look like a kid's 17 and he has a full beard big beard i was drinking at 17. so chris will you fight her for that i'm just going to cycle that was illegal obviously i think we can move to 3 23 6 then and on the flip side uh lines four and five so these are grounds for denying the issuance of renewal of a license and they include the africa under license holders outstanding fines for taxes or they're in violation of any provisions um and shelley said that this detailed specification of things like property taxes et cetera seems inconsistent with other license requirements would you like to elaborate on that yeah i don't recall seeing this in the liquor licensing or in massage parlor licensing or any of the it is it isn't it's okay these are all assigned to increase the ability to effectively enforce the ordinance provisions that we have perfect okay and then uh on c there's a question about where else do we uh mention that if we mistakenly issue a license that we will revoke it is that common not in practice but in in language other sections that if we accidentally mistakenly issued the license we will revoke it this was not my language so are you familiar with any other no i'm not familiar with this happening so i don't um i'm thinking somewhere sometimes these things are in here for a reason because it's happened before and maybe it has happened before and that's why it's in here but um i i'm not aware of any situation that this has ever happened it's just that obviously at one point somebody got issued a license that wasn't supposed to for one reason or another and we had to say in here from now on we can revoke it is that in your opinion joel is that necessary to say that if we issue a license in error that we have the right to revoke it not necessary in the sense that the only thing it might help is but it doesn't really answer this the question the only issue would be what process you would have to follow would you have to go through a notice in a hearing before you revoke it or could it be somehow revoked and that legal question isn't answered in the language that's in front of you so do you have a recommendation whether unless you put language in there summarily revolt subject to appeal um it doesn't necessarily doesn't need to be in there in my opinion okay so you would support removing it unless you added that additional language of some new revocation my my thought was not that this was um necessarily targeted for removal but that it was applied to all licenses maybe somewhere in the top of this title so that the city has that right yeah most of our license applications will have language in there about inaccurate information misleading information that it can result in adverse license action including medication so it's right up front so that way it kind of addresses that issue before we even complete the paperwork and they sign off on it we agree to that but there's always an appeal so i guess that would be back to attorney opinion um instead maybe on the three if we flip back a little bit to the 323.6 where it says and the a part it says grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license but we don't talk about grounds for revocation right there and maybe you just list all the other things and then it kind of just accounts for if we accidentally issue that license we can revoke it i mean that to me it's it's in the title in 323.6 right there it talks about the three things but it just it doesn't include the replication in that sentence in a so maybe that would just if you just oh okay yeah oh you're right and b it does say revocation or suspension that would be the next part uh it looks like we have a consensus in the room yeah i think let's get rid of it all right that takes us to 323.6-1 and there's any comments just it was rewarded so we'll move quickly to 323.7 compliance checks um and shall we ask a question on b um do we do compliance checks with liquor licenses yes okay yes is that outlined in the code specifically and do we need to do so or can we just do compliance checks without putting that in the code that we're going to do this so it does say that there will be compliance checks but i don't think we specify that it's once per at least once per year in there i think that they typically this one we do that because that was added to the state statute about seven or eight years ago that requires at least annually some cities were doing twice a year and there was a debate whether or not that should be the standard or not or whether they should just allow for selective compliance checks and the legislature split the difference and said at least once a year all right so that's in 461 specifically um uh chris just a question of policy now that the law has changed from 18 to 21 are we um uh checking compliance checks are we performing them more often since the the last once a year i think that covert kind of i think we i think we skipped 2020. would the age then change 20 instead of 17. no i think that that's a floor to say that we won't use 13 year olds that's my reading of it disagrees with that because it's saying at least 17. so we're not going to put 16 year olds in harm's way i guess metaphorically speaking prohibited acts 3 23 8 morphine uh i was curious is it is it lawful for a person under 21 to consume tobacco if given to them by their parents or legal guardian in the privacy of their own home i i can tell you that when this uh section was rewritten to change it from 18 to 21 we specifically removed the language that made uh that made it the crim the the minor the criminal so that was specifically removed okay you're not going to lock up smoking there's other language in here about education and those types of things for people and so that it wouldn't be a criminal act anymore um and so i'm just making sure i understand uh b31 which is saying that if you're a tobacco shop that do not allow kids in alone person's under 21. then self-service merchandising is allowed that's what chris was referring to earlier okay distinguish between a tobacco shop and walgreens or a gas station okay so walgreens for instance could not allow a rack to be accessible by a customer for them to put into a ban or easily shoplift okay however in a tobacco shop you can do this is it's just the carve out why do we why do we allow people under 21 even with a guardian to go into a tobacco shop you do bars because they're routinely young parents that have to take a child in with them because they're not going to leave them in the car right grandparents got their car seats you take your kids into the park i didn't do that growing up for this um all right 323.9 tobacco shop the following requirements supply tobacco shops a lot of comments here uh from nancy is this section related to hookah bars or wherever people sit around and smoke together because it's uh this shall apply to tobacco shops so does this also apply to hookah bears well it yeah because suddenly we're talking i thought tobacco shops would just hand you know would be a product that you would hand to someone but then when it talked about seating i thought why would you need to sit in the store unless you're smoking so the statutes do allow for something they refer to as sampling of the products and this would prohibit them from like selling a seat for sampling selling a seat for sampling there must have been a reason you know there are the the sampling allowance through the state that the state does allow we have to be careful that it doesn't create loopholes that create unintended consequences where this type of where you could be charging admission for people to sample in your store right for hours or regularly that kind of thing can i ask why that's illegal why can't you just sorry why can't you charge a mission for people to come in because it conflicts with the minnesota indoor clean air act ah thank you okay um steve asked should we add an age requirement for employees i didn't see that mentioned anywhere so you could be 16 selling cigarettes it's been a difficult issue with underage servers as well in liquor establishments and the state has debated that policy and basically has indicated that while there might be additional pressures peer pressure of similar age people they didn't want to restrict the employment of certain clerks in stores that had tobacco products or liquor establishments to be of them higher age so really it's been it's been a discussion point over the years of should there be a higher limit but on the other hand you know child labor laws there's been discussions regarding farm workers at 14 versus equipment operators and it's a it's a complicated policy issue and the idea is that the essences education training and the license licensee being responsible for the maintenance of their business and responsible for the strength of character of the clerks that they hire to administer the law or administer the product in conformance with the law um michelle i can chair and members i can tell you that when we went through the process of updating this for the change from 18 to 21 that we did consider putting in a minimum age requirement if we set that minimum age at 21 we did realize that that might create a hardship for convenience stores and those types of things because they may have trouble getting employees over the age of 21 to do that work thank you there's a question on i'm skipping a we'll come back today but there's a question on e the maximum square footage is not to exceed 2000 square feet um or the maximum seating area is not to exceed one half why is 2000 square feet the limit i don't know the answer to that so i'd like to suggest that we remove the upper bound and say that you can have a tobacco shop as large as you want it chair i believe that that is going to be directly tied to the building code though in regards to the building classification but that would be the building code that would handle that section not it would perhaps it's a a reference or i see you're going with that perhaps you just cross it all together right the building code yeah the building code i'm happy to check with the building official and see if there's some regulation there that we need to be aware of if it's not we can propose it for removal okay i mean if they can financially make it work if at the size of a target store give on every block um okay so while joel looks that up let's talk about uh a which is uh the city has suggested that we remove the three-quarter mile minimum distance thank you mr chair i think i would like to understand why that was put in place in the first place and see if the reasoning behind that has actually become antiquated i have some suspicions i wasn't around i do have some suspicions and i think it was because uh similarly to liquor establishments we didn't want several bars and several tobacco shops all located in the same now we can have two gas stations on the same corner and they both sell tobacco products and that's fine but this is only for tobacco shops right so so if two of them wanted to be located nearer to each other i don't see any reason why that would be a huge issue and mostly because today's tobacco shops are specialty shops right we have ones that are cigar shops ones that sell tobacco ones that smell sell the vape stuff and our ordinance right now says they can't be located next to each other well that might they may create a synergy with each other that could be a positive thing um so that no look this strip mall has a vape shop and a cigar shop i can get both at the same place you know that kind of thing and i don't know if that i couldn't think of any reason why it would be detrimental to our existing tobacco shops so i propose that it be looked at for removal sarah i think also like i again i don't know i'm assuming this has been in there for a long long time but maybe when this was in there there was a ton of open land still a lot of development yet to be done and now we're at a point where there is plenty of development there's still could be some more and things could change but at the same time now it's a well-established city and i don't think we really need that anymore where we we're trying to establish kind of a criteria for what's going to come in and maybe a good you know quality i guess i would say for the city at that point whereas now you have plenty of structures you have spacing and yeah you probably could get a strip mall where you get tobacco tobacco tobacco maybe i suppose and that would probably be something but we already have gas stations across i i agree with removing it because i think now we're more of a well-established much more well-established community where we don't need that kind of rule anymore is anyone in favor of retaining it i'm not sure okay um and and i i'm borderline because i i see i have this picture in my head of this trashy little strip mall where you have nuisance activity going on i know we've got the adjacent property stuff but i see okay kids going in trying to get cigarette papers and you know all all the things that can happen and so how would we pre we prevent that sort of a like a tobacco alley where inappropriate activity occurs well i think that it would probably make it easier for the police to enforce if they all self-located next to each other [Laughter] i mean i agree with the open like the way that the door opens and stuff too like that part of it with you know these other things because you see the activity going on and if you if you are by each other you're gonna see it and there's there should be visibility at those doors and stuff i don't know i don't i have no objection to removing it so i guess therefore i'm on board okay donna did you have a concern donna's just one that my feet are stuck in concrete on any more of tobacco for that so guys i just i i would prefer to leave it simply because of fact i i just and i understand all the rest and i accept that but just know where i come from that you're not that's not changing for me okay so your uh your objection's a moral one to tobacco there you go okay excellent well i think then the consensus is to strike a and then the three-quarter distance um all right uh joel were you able to clarify on the square footage not yet okay uh please interrupt me if you do find that uh that takes us to 323.91 sampling um i was so maybe i was tired when i read this i was generally confused on how this was written whether or not sampling was allowed um i take it that it is allowed but there's a lot of controls around it because yes is that correct sampling is allowed it is can i ask this question a little bit of a different way what how what exemptions does burn get that they that we can go in there and smoke a cigar and try to burn how does how is that legal and how is smoking a full cigar not sampling and how that's where my confusion came into this section i have to defer to a city attorney on that one they should not i mean it should be a um you know sampling free sample would not necessarily necessitate but that the statute is vague regarding the exception for tobacco product shops that are allowed exempted from the are accepted from the clean indoor air act um find a definition here so um is sampling explicitly permitted by state law yes yes so i'm confused why we start off the section with unless explicitly permitted by state law it maybe you shouldn't say unless it maybe should say accept when permitted by state law that kind of thing so you wouldn't necessarily suggesting we wouldn't need to reference state law and just go ahead and put whatever prohibitions we it just the section and maybe maybe i'm just really struggling with it but it just seems very um not clear in how it's worded we can look into re-wording that section so it's a little clearer i i see what you're saying now that i'm looking at it the way you know so unless it's permitted which it is you're prohibited from permitting the sampling of any tobacco so even though it's permitted you can't permit it unless the state permitted it which it does right so with the guidelines of what this is listing we can we can reword this and try to come up with something that seems a little easier yes i guess my general question when i read it was are you trying to exclude every single type of sampling that isn't explicitly allowed in state law i'm guessing that that's where this language came from and again to try to tighten up any loopholes that people have in there so that they don't um exploit that loophole right if it's not it even though it may not specifically say xyz in the statute that you're allowed to do this it doesn't specifically say you can't so we have to close those loopholes so perhaps when you come back with some proposed language yeah any other sampling is prohibited i okay well just yeah the point was just to try to keep it to what was allowed by statute and not what the and not uh circumvent the intent of the minnesota clean indoor air act right makes sense can you can you also define what sampling is versus what burn does i think they have humidors you wrapped in their they stopped into the newspaper and have a cigar there that is considered sampling it is so yeah let's get that defined okay i don't necessarily want to put burn out of business but certainly clarify um thank you so in that case would i if i had a hookah bar and i um and i sold you the tobacco for the hookah you could come in and we could sit around the table and sample the hookah there i'm not just saying it's like i mean a business maybe if it has a separate entrance but i guess what's the difference the other thing hope it doesn't come up i hope it doesn't come up it has come up or did i just have my million dollar idea yeah well you also got the the indoor clean air act and the different whether they comply with that or whether they're just like but if you walk in a bird you have to keep your hat on like you put your head on you gotta get your hats to go up in the ceiling [Laughter] okay uh well i'll look forward to seeing what the city suggests for next time 3 23 10 so we're not going to answer [Applause] the table um yeah i don't maybe that's an action item that can be researched okay thank you see how other cities handle it for the record for with proper ventilation and what it's worth i i'm not against it but i just want to make sure that we have that we can actually and of course we do have some establishments that sell who good for consumption now like mediterranean cruise cafe and they just have their patrons use the hookah outside so [Laughter] [Music] the violations include but are not limited to and then on three we see the applicator business premises in violation of state or federal laws uh or laws of this code or really anything uh and shelley asks uh this seems to be an inconsistent of application to the licensee is three overly broad in the city japan but they like to comment on that 3 23 10 ac a3 that's okay this kind of seems to be a restatement of what was in the previous section that we won't grant the application if you're in violation and we'll penalize you specifically and this is this is just saying now that we can penalize you if we find you in violation during your license period okay i don't know if it's necessary or not i'll let somebody else there's provisions in i believe statute too that if they have a inner rears on taxes anything like that that we cannot issue that license so we have prohibitions against that as well i have a question about that so i want to put my smoke shop into a shopping center but the shopping center hasn't been paying their taxes can i still put my smoke shop in there because the landlord the owner of the property is in violation i would say if the smoke the the strip mall owner is the applicant okay so the so i could go in there with a smoke shop even though the malt is behind in their taxes i don't know i mean yeah would that prevent people from going into a building to occupy it if they're behind yeah we probably have examples of that i'm sure [Music] if they have a tax appeal and things are pending the statute specifically allows business to continue um so i think in actual actuality is a very rare situation that you would have a tenant in a multi-tenant strip mall or other structure that we would not we would even be confronted with the situation that the taxes are delinquent on the property in fact i don't know so if i've seen it occur i mean either just it's a hypothetical bit i've seen it happen once with the my former employee or employer where a business owner was in tax arrears and the direction came directly from the state which is why we collect that information anyways so i would say it's almost directed by the state if we need to do that but the business license would be issued if the state statute provides that the business license can't be issued to the delinquent business here the tenant isn't delinquent in their taxes and doesn't have any outstanding debt with the city it's the landlord that they're renting the premises from that would be so the state statute wouldn't be applicable and i don't i can't recall it occurring in the city where where the city was isn't is uh had considered not issuing a license to a tenant in a mall or yeah i think in our process we don't check on it if they are leasing we do have a copy of their lease but we don't check on whether or not the property is if they don't own the property it's only when they own the property okay um on six i see uh comments about clear where this came from osha is 50 ppm and niagara 35 i don't know where these numbers came from and i i don't uh i couldn't find anything that supported that uh so does it support 50 parts per million uh that may have been one of them i believe we i re i looked it up but i think i found two different references i know that at one point we did do some i think fire department might have did some background checks and did record some fairly high levels it was kind of amazing but i'm not entirely sure where these numbers came from oh mr chair it seems to me i'm not having any luck finding on the 2 000 square foot provision so i think we're going to have to do some research of what what is the origin of that section and we can take a look at the origin of this section as well um great and i can um i think that maybe we could just eliminate the number and say consistent with osha and whatever stan and just eliminate the the number it's got to be safe there's two yeah to because they have the number already there so in osha and all that so we don't have to necessarily what does niosh stand for someone here national institute of occupational safety and health i think it was thank you goodbye so in in kind of the whole section here but that one's specific do we need to mention that they have to comply with the osha requirements i mean it seems like kind of basic workplace safety stuff that's required by federal laws or a reason to restate it and here and i think it's just for the the people in this situation if they're in a situation where they are allowing sampling and the co levels are not meeting that they know that they need to that there's this regulation out there because it's not listed somewhere else yeah you wouldn't know to go look for that but when we couldn't we issue them some sort of a handbook about guidelines they're supposed to follow i mean i don't know that it has to be updating those handbooks quite a bit i think educational materials yeah let's give them education let's provide the educational materials to them then make them give it back to us yeah exactly so i assume this is specific because smoking is occurring indoors all right i'm i'm making that same assumption all right with your assumptions i like leaving it and i think that it's a good call-out anymore and i mean osha and niosh standards are both about occupationals where that's not consumer oriented right well see workers sure it's like servers in bars used to have to be around them um on seven there's a question about um is this inconsistent uh for uh tobacco versus other license types around uh the licensee suffered or allowed um permitted illegal acts on the license premises no it's similar okay is it similar or consistent i mean spoken like a true attorney the wording may be different but the concept of the philosophy is the same is that the licensee is responsible for the behavior of patrons employees and everybody else on the premises and if they're not actively engaged in managing to prevent criminal activities by their employees by themselves or other people on the premises their license is at risk okay so historically it's been an excuse i didn't know what was going on i had no idea they were doing that over here in this corner they got a camera on the area tonight for the last 10 years and this is where i started and i kind of i was really bias focused that night for some reason when i read this but i was looking at this section of code i'm thinking okay walgreens there's a particular walgreens in the city everybody knows that people are hanging out and and engaging in what might be illegal activity i'll tell you later you just sit in the parking lot you'll find it and and you know um and i don't see this in like the business licensing for walgreens section um and i think okay so they're not subjected to this specifically where somebody goes and sits and sees drugs being passed from person to person in their parking lot many of them many of our businesses do not have a business license massage therapists do liquor licenses liquor establishments do but for instance a gas station you've seen in the paper all the gatherings and issues and shootings that have occurred in various gas station parking lots around the area restaurant parking lots or bar areas so unless they're a licensed regulated business this type of provision doesn't necessarily apply you have to look at public nuisance law and some other ways to get at them indirectly because we don't have a business license provision generally across the board for all businesses within the city that makes sense to me now that was where i was struggling with this whole section of the code so thank you sir would it be possible to merge this 32310 with 323.6 as soon as they both talk about reasons for denial replication or suspension of the license maybe that all just gets merged into one big section because it seems like the first part is kind of about the application process or resulting in it if we find something and now it's violations and going factors and talking about the revoking and suspending so it seems they're really just the same topic yeah it's it's before you issue the license and after you issue it because that's right i think at a minimum moving it makes sense to where they're sure okay so we're following kind of a format with other licensing so we're going to this section then to this section okay well that makes sense then yeah it was just so that you could go to different licenses and know kind of the format of each one because they're following this one double check for sure yeah yeah i mean that's fine i'll double check it just sounds like we're talking about the same thing i agree sometimes we have we do see a little redundancy with some of this um i have a very naive question around three and hoping to be educated so we say that if they're in violation of any law short of the united nations uh that they're in violation uh for our uh licenses tobacco user as a tobacco uh shop and i'm just i'm just kind of wondering why if they break a federal law and that federal law doesn't preclude them from operating a smoke shop why the city of burnsville cares i believe that federal law was added because of the congressional passage of the [Music] 21 age and that's the reference there i don't think it's um you know violation of the state secrets acts or anything of those types and i did not draft it so i don't know for sure why it's there but i think it's a reference to the specific federal laws applicable to tobacco okay thank you i mean i don't i don't think we're leveraging the income tax fraud unless the department of revenue tells us to do it thank you for clarifying that um that takes us to uh let's see is there a comment uh i i think shelly are you are you good with b uh 10 b you have a question okay i'm good with that at this point thank you you're welcome all right and i think that as we continue down the page okay that answers my question um what is the maximum administrative civil penalty it says 50 is the minimum actually 50 is the penalty he can take the minimum amount okay um period okay the licensees the state statute in 461 is 300 for first 600 for the second and um authority to modify it but um and the administrative civil penalty is just 50 regardless of the occurrence that's correct thank you all right any further questions on the civil penalties section yeah um so it sounds like anybody under 21 we don't give them the 50 penalty is that like if you're at a liquor store and they bought liquor we wouldn't give them a penalty either is this just tobacco or we don't give them a pack and it's specifically referenced in the state statute as mack mentioned earlier okay the the legislative the change was to focus enforcement sanctions on the licensee go easier on the clerks that aren't trained or what have you and not impose any penalty on the juveniles or the underage so that that that matrix or that philosophical construct is in the state statute okay you mentioned juvenile which to me implies under 18. but do we do we clarify that underage just means under 21. yes it's in the definition did that answer your question steve yeah i just thought it was interesting [Laughter] i got some laws you should read okay okay and then uh the last few sections have just been uh moved or deleted so that takes us to the end of this any final comments or questions okay so michelle has a laundry list of several items to bring back to us a couple of investigation items and a couple of drafting items there's no vote on it item seven miscellaneous the next code review task force meeting will be july 27 2022 at 5 30 pm here in the council chambers meetings will typically uh be held on the last wednesday night of each month in 2022 our homework is to review title 3 chapter 24 pawn brokers second hand goods precious metal dealers and chapter 25 sexually oriented businesses these chapters are included in tonight's packet task force comments need to be submitted by wednesday july 13th um there are no additional items before us so this meeting is adjourned thank you for being with us you