Good afternoon everyone.

Welcome.

I will call order this meeting of the business housing and zoning committee for October 14, 2025.

I'm Jamal Osman and I'm the chair of this committee.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind everybody that this meeting are broadcast live to enable greater public participation.

They include real-time captioning to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully transcribe all comments for the broadcast.

We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comment.

We'll be using a speaker management, so please sign up.

At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum.

Councilmember Vita.

Present.

Cashman.

Present.

Jenkins is absent.

Chavez.

Present.

Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Present.

And Chair Osman.

Present.

There are five members present.

Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

Our agenda is front of us.

We'll be beginning with consent agenda.

Consent agenda items are 6 through 11.

Item 6 is approving one liquor license.

Item 7 is approving 26 liquor license renewals.

Item 8 is accepting a grant to cover travel expenses for regulatory services department to attend the best friends conference.

Item 9 is approving applications for the 2025 fall brown field grant ground.

Item 10 is authorizing an ownership opportunity loan for FIDO 24 LLC.

Item 11 is setting a public hearing for October 28 to consider ordinance related to heritage preservation regulations.

And lastly, item 12 is setting a public hearing for October 28 to consider ordinance related to affordable housing units.

With that, do any of my colleagues have any questions or comments?

Seeing none, I will move all items for approval all consent items for approval and set item 11 and 12 for public hearing on October 28th at 130 p.m.

All right.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I just wanted to briefly speak to item number 10, the ownership and opportunity fund loan to vital 24 LLC.

This is uh a community member in Uptown, a business owner in Uptown who is seeking to buy uh a new building across the street and invest in that.

And I'm really glad that uh CPET has come forward with this recommendation to uh grant the ownership and opportunity fund loan uh to this business owner.

So uh looking forward to approving this at council next week.

Thank you.

On that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Now we'll be proceeding to the public hearing portion of our agenda.

Public hearing item one.

We have a public hearing for an ordinance related to permitting cannabis events in the city.

I will also note that I will not be closing the public hearing for this item today, but the next meeting on October 28th.

I'll welcome manager Amy Lingo to explain.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chairman Committee members.

My name is Amy Lingo.

What?

Mike.

Oh, it's on.

Now it's on.

Tell the clerks to turn it on.

Try that again.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman and Committee members.

My name is Amy Lingo, manager for licenses and consumer services.

I'm here today to present an ordinance amendment to Title 15, licenses and business regulations, specifically chapter 325, cannabis events.

Today we are rolling out the latest in the city of Minneapolis cannabis related ordinances.

This one focused on temporary cannabis events involving the sale and consumption of combustible products.

Previously, the time, place, and manner for cannabis-related establishments have been addressed in the zoning code as well as the retail registration ordinances.

This new ordinance adds yet another layer to our regulatory framework.

This chapter establishes the process standards for cannabis event registration within the city, aligning the state rules and procedures.

There is event licensing and local approval.

Cannabis event organizers are licensed by the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management.

Before an event can be approved, the licensing official in coordination with zoning will review and approve the event location under this proposed chapter.

OCM will not approve any event without written confirmation from the city that the location meets all local standards.

To keep things safe and neighbor friendly, the ordinance includes clear boundaries for on-site consumption of combustible product.

It is not allowed on the public right of way.

It must not be visible from public places.

It must be 300 plus feet from parks, residents, or K through 12 schools.

No sales or samples of combustible or vaporizable products unless the event qualifies for on-site consumption.

Event organizers must comply with all specific venue rules as set forth by the state.

Venues retain the right to refuse cannabis event requests.

There are also insurance requirements.

There are additional requirements as well.

Applicants must submit full contact details for the applicant and property owner, a copy of the state license application, and any additional information as requested by the licensing official.

Once approved the sit by the city, the organizer returns to OCM for final event permit issuance.

There are no additional fees or permits required from the city of Minneapolis for cannabis events at this time.

All cannabis related inspections will be conducted by OCM.

The city, however, will continue to oversee any other required permits, such as food or amplified sound.

This ordinance will help us cultivate a clear, consistent, and compliant path for cannabis events in Minneapolis, balancing opportunity with responsibility.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any comments or questions you may have.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I will proceed to open the public hearing, and first person who sign up is Josh Wilkinson.

Good afternoon, members of the Business Housing and Zoning Committee.

My name is Josh Wilkin Simon, and I'm founder and owner of Legacy Glassworks, Legacy Cannabis, and the Legacy Cup Cannabis Festival.

I really appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this proposed ordinance regarding licensed cannabis events in Minneapolis.

A few weeks ago we put on the sixth annual Legacy Cup at Surley Brewing Company Festival Field in Minneapolis.

This year saw nearly 12,000 attendees.

We were honored to receive the state's first ever cannabis event organizer license.

The City of Minneapolis has been incredibly supportive of the Legacy Cup, and I want to give a huge thanks to city staff, the council, and the mayor's office for helping the Legacy Cup grow to one of the nation's largest cannabis festivals.

Today I want to comment on 325.4 number three.

This relates to the uh where on-site consumption of cannabis by combustion or vaporization can be.

Um section C is be at least 300 feet from the nearest park.

So uh Surly Brewing Company Fest Field has been a great venue for the Legacy Cup, but we may soon be outgrowing this space.

Minneapolis has one of the nation's best park systems, many of which, for example, Loring Park and Boom Island host large-scale events.

Uh and with the Upper Harbor Project in full swing, we want the flexibility to explore holding a legacy cup in a Minneapolis park.

Other cannabis events should also have this option.

The cannabis event organizer license has very strict requirements, and a new application is necessary for each event.

The first requirement is approval from the local body.

A detailed plan is submitted, including where the on-site consumption area will be, how this consumption area will be hidden from public view, how an event organizer will ensure that all attendees are 21 or above, that no tobacco or alcohol are consumed, and many more.

The local body has the ability to reject a proposed cannabis event for any reason.

I understand that the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board has outlawed smoking or vaping of cannabis in Minneapolis Parks.

I intend to work with the Parks Board to pass an exemption for city approved and state licensed cannabis events.

The rest of this uh City of Minneapolis cannabis events ordinance is very responsible and thoughtfully put together, and I appreciate the time and consideration that went into this.

Thank you for your time.

Any other questions on here?

Thank you so much.

Are there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?

Come on up.

Just say your name.

My name is Anthony Newby.

Um I'm a ward five resident, and thank you, Council and Committee, for your time.

I'd also like to address um the ordinance of put in particular section 3253 C.

And essentially it um one of the issues with state law is that it limits public um individuals to consume cannabis in public spaces.

Lots of good reasons for that, including the safety of children and age requirements, etc.

Uh, but I want to flag one thing as a Ward 5 resident that a lot of my neighbors are uh live in apartments and state law allows specific targeting of people who live in apartment buildings by landlords.

Uh so therefore shrinks the ability to consume safely outside of the home.

And the parks and rec board has uh a recent ordinance that also limits the ability to consume in public spaces.

So very specifically the ordinance is great.

I fully support it with one caveat that 325 subsection 3C uh that it uh sort of broaden the definition of public spaces.

Uh and in particular, um I'd like the council to uh consider a variance for plans submitted by cannabis events license holders, particularly those with plans that are thoughtful with consumption plans that pr prioritize safe and compliant public spaces for com community members to consume cannabis safely in in public spaces.

So that may be a public park, that may be a space that otherwise might have young people or kids in it, but if we limit the ability for these licensed cannabis companies to ever host an event in a public park or space, it will severely limit the ability for those who again are renters, may not have the ability to consume in their own home, and we'd like to allow a little more uh broader definition of public or allow the council to offer some variances for plans submitted for safe consumption.

Thanks for the time.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, uh close the public hearing and recognize Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I just had a couple of questions for the Osman.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

Can you please keep the public hearing open?

I'm sorry.

Uh yes, you're right.

I actually would say it's I will reopen the public hearing and keep it open.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sounds great.

Um I have a couple questions for manager Amy Lingo.

Thank you.

So I was wondering if you could share a little bit about how other cities in many or in Minnesota are uh regulating events and if we're uh mimicking any other cities regulation or if we're kind of going first with this.

And then secondly, if there have been events happening in the city that haven't had a permit but have been happening uh without a permit that you're aware of.

Through the chair, Councilmember Cashman, thank you for that question.

Most local governments do not appear to have regulations, past regulations around events at this point in time.

Um for example, Duluth passed an ordinance that follows cannabis events at one designated festival area, and Rochester has allowed events but prohibits on-site smoking and vaping.

But otherwise we are pretty much ahead of that curve.

Okay.

And what was the second part of your question?

Uh, second question was if if there have been events taking place in Minneapolis that just haven't been permitted, that have been happening, you know, before this regulation.

Thank you for the question.

As far as I'm aware, there have not been any uh cannabis events.

Okay.

So we're really getting ahead of in the process with the state to uh approve the legacy comp this that past September, but no other events have come through.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

And so, Chair, are we gonna be taking this up again at next bit biz committee?

Again?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Um I do have a question.

Sorry.

Uh couple questions.

The first one is is the the C part, I guess.

Uh the erase uh the nearest uh park or residents.

Uh uh, you know, I am okay away being away from uh from the park, but when you say residence, the city of Minneapolis right now is designed 2040 plan, it's like a fairly dense in the neighborhood, like everywhere you go to downtown right now.

We are actually working on uh converting all uh office buildings to residential.

So how would that uh would that wouldn't would that not be uh some kind of uh uh challenging for future spaces to be like if we have residence residence most of the blocks, you know.

I think that that would kind of limit uh to that.

And if you can kind of explain to me about how did this come up, you know, about I understand the park, but the residency, what what are some of the uh idea behind keeping it 300 feet away from the thank you, Chair Houseman?

So yes, it would definitely add a challenge.

The the concept is that these are high use.

That one was not intended, but we're gonna run with it.

But these are high use events with a large environmental impact, which is one of the reasons for the distance.

So if you have quite a few people out in the public who are vaping and have a combustible, there's gonna be a larger airborne impact.

So that is why the distance from residences.

So it absolutely could have uh an impact on where these places could go.

But um, we do have a tendency in the code in various places to try and keep the higher use impacts further from residences, parks and schools.

Okay, and if you can just give overall update where the state is.

Have they released all the license?

Are people actually right now getting the license?

I I remember I haven't got an up here for a while ago.

What is that on the state level?

Um thank you, Chair Asman.

So I don't have any information about where they are in releasing the licenses.

They are starting to uh roll through as far as the events.

I think that that just that process just started.

Um they are doing uh a lot of the retails first.

Okay, wonderful.

Thanks a lot.

Um see here.

All right, seeing none.

I will motion this item to continue for next cycle.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those up will say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Now next we have a public hearing.

Uh, this was continue from our meeting on September 16th.

This item is on sale, liquor Sunday sales, and 2 a.m.

license for Cedar Inn, located at 4141 Cedar Avenue.

I will again welcome manager Amy Lingo to speak on this item.

Welcome.

One moment I have to get a copy of the chair.

Sure.

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I'd given away all of my copies.

Good afternoon, council member, counselor, chair Osman and committee members.

I'm manager Amy Lingo for business licensing once again.

Since the public hearing last September 16th, we have received public comments from the community.

Um, further public ones from the community, 59 that are imposed, 17 that are in support.

We also have received a petition and support for the approval of the license with 439 signatures.

We have held four community meetings, both with the community, with the business, and together with the community and the business, the with and the neighbors, in order to better understand each perspectives.

We've been working on an agreement of business licensing conditions for Cedar Inn, and we have uh just about an hour ago received some signed conditions on behalf of CEDA and myself.

Conditions on a license are not meant to be punitive, but are a show of good faith effort to distribute to demonstrate a good business model.

The proposed conditions are meant to address concerns that were raised as well as to give a good accountability matrix.

So just recap the conditions, everyone should have a copy.

We did pull a lot of the conditions from the business plan itself, and so by codifying business plan in the conditions, it gives that extra visibility and extra teeth that we can hold them accountable to.

Most of the conditions are related around time and security.

Um I'm not gonna read all of them because there are 18 conditions, but a lot of the conditions are based on we have the interior of hours of operation from Sunday and Tuesday, Monday will be 8 a.m.

to midnight.

Alcohol service to stop at 11.

Patrons must be out by midnight.

8 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

Tuesday through Saturday, alcohol service to stop at midnight.

All patrons must be out by one o'clock.

The outdoor patio is to close by 10 p.m.

The licensee is not to let any new patrons in one hour prior to close for eight months.

If there are no issues related to that, that condition can automatically drop off.

If there are issues related to bar closed activities, then we will reassess the conditions.

The licensee is agreed to only serve wine and strong beer for the next eight months as a way to build that trust and process with that larger license.

The licensee is going to have dedicated security staff that is trained, and their only job is security.

They don't tend to do anything else.

They're there to assist with crowd dispersal and to uh with patron uh loitering.

They're also going to have a dedicated smoking patio so that when the normal patio is closed, there is a consistent place where the patrons can smoke that is uh least disturbing to any of the neighbors.

We are also going to continue with signing, having signage that recommends and reminds patrons that they are indeed in a neighborhood.

Most of these conditions we've had very good experience with, and we feel that through these conversations with Cedar in and with the neighbors that this is a good forward progress in order to build communication and good practices for this business.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

We are going to proceed on the list of uh the public hearing.

Uh if you have spoken uh last cycle, please uh don't come up and speak.

If you have any additional comments, you can write and give it to the or email to the council or give it to the city clerk.

All right, we're gonna go on the list here.

Lauren Piper.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm a close neighbor of the Cedar Inn.

Earlier this week, the neighbors of the Cedar Inn urged the licensing board to recommend permanent closing hours of 11 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday.

We continue to believe this is a reasonable and balanced proposal.

These hours are entirely consistent with those of bars in the area.

No comparable neighborhood bar stays open until 2 a.m.

on weekdays.

The only nearby bar open until 2 a.m.

on weekends is the Cardinal, and it has just five houses nearby.

The Cedar Inn has over 40 homes within 200 feet.

Other bars in this neighborhood close earlier, yet they're still able to run successful businesses, and we believe the Cedar Inn can too.

One of the reasons we feel this is the Cedar Inn is expanding.

They'll have a larger space and the ability to sell hard liquor, both of which we anticipate will increase their revenue.

And as we saw last Monday at our last uh public meeting, the Cedar N has a very loyal, tight-knit customer base that values events like trivia and live music, all of which happen before 2 a.m.

Um, these patrons aren't coming for last call, they're coming for community, and we fully expect that they'll continue patronizing the bar even with earlier closing times.

Um we really appreciate the proposal that Amy shared today.

We think it's a meaningful step in the right direction, um, but we ultimately feel it's not enough because the proposal would have the bar open past midnight most weeknights.

We would instead um push to amend the proposal uh to enforce closing times of midnight Sunday through Thursday and 1 a.m.

Friday and Saturday.

We all want to stress again that we feel this process should be about meeting in the middle.

Um the Cedar N wants hard liquor, a larger building, and later than average close times.

We are asking for a compromise on closing times only.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Next person is uh David Bicking.

Have you spoke?

You spoke last week.

Mr.

Bicking, did you speak?

Yes, I did, and this is an entirely different public hearing on a different topic because we received this paper with the uh uh information on it.

We received that five minutes after your business your committee meeting was scheduled to start.

I strongly urge that you continue this hearing because we have been caught off guard.

You don't have hello?

Jason.

This mic's shut up.

Your mic is cut off, so you we won't be able to hear you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Again, I want to remind if you have spoken, uh please let others speak who haven't spoken.

Uh you had your time.

And um next person I'm gonna recognize is Suzanne Force.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Um I've been a resident in Ward 12 at our home for 40 years, and we've had very minimal problems in those 40 years.

Uh recently they have escalated.

Um our concerns are still everything that we listed.

Larger patron capacity, uh, the hard liquor and the late closing times.

Um the neighbors have come to a consensus and conceded to make this a productive business to have the larger capacity to have the hard liquor, but it is still very concerning the late closing time, and that's why we are encouraging an earlier closing time for the peace, the safety, and the physical and mental health of our uh closest residents.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next person is Ruth W.

Excuse me, she spoke at the last hearing.

That was in a public hearing.

That was too everyone.

She can speak.

Come on in, thank you.

Um I I just have to uh bring these things up because it is a neighborhood that this bar is in.

It's been there for 70 almost 70 years.

It didn't need extra zoning, it didn't need to triple its size.

And I am sure that you folks know what's happening with the parking and um the neighbors really won't have any place to park their cars or have family park their cars.

Um he is increasing, if I recall correctly, from 50 to 170, the number of people and wanting entertainment and patios.

This is a neighborhood.

His entire area of that building, except one side, is a housing.

I have spoken to a number of the neighbors, and they're they don't want to put their house up for sale because of the noise, because of the rucket.

Um and if this is happens from 10 to 2 in the morning, what about the children?

What about the neighborhood?

The people in the neighborhood seem to be making a lot of compromises, and in my opinion, the zoning that he has was a successful bar.

So all he's doing is really at least tripling the capacity of a bar that brings in enormous amounts of noise, and from the citations that I'm sure you can pull up in as a result of that urinating in people's on people's lawns.

I don't really believe that that is qualified to give him a larger zoning.

I think what he has now is quite adequate.

It's been adequate for 70 years.

Umgregating all of these people in that area, and I don't know how many people are sitting here there or otherwise, uh, will certainly cause problems because in this proposal that he's presenting to Minneapolis.

Thank you.

It talks about security.

Thank you.

So that's why I hope you I hope you can keep it the way it is.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

I do want to recognize we have been joined by Councilmember Jenkins.

Uh next person, I'm gonna skip.

Welcome.

Hi.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Heidi Johnson.

I work at Cedar N.

Um, there are a few things.

I was here at the last public hearing, but there are a couple things I do want to clarify.

Um everything that Amy has listed here for the conditions we are agreeing to and uh make sense.

Some of the comments that are made today, I want to just be clear about.

So there are bars in the surrounding area, they're open until one o'clock.

Chatterbox, for instance, is in a residential area and they're open till one.

It is unfair to make Cedar In close prior than our surrounding bars around us.

We cannot be remain competitive.

And also we are making incredible measures to make sure that we are addressing neighbor concerns.

Some of the comments that are brought up today is the I'm not sure why someone is mentioning the neighborhood when they don't live there.

However, she also is our landlord, and we have not heard complaints about Cedar In for the last few years, except for when we are asking for this license.

Some of that may be because she does not want to lose a tenant.

The other thing is that we are one of the only bars that have a full menu open till midnight.

So that means that not only if we have to close early, it also restricts food in the neighborhood.

We have um we have had very little to no violations.

We are agreeing to adhering to all the conditions that are laid out in here, which also states violations and that we will make best effort to continue to do that.

We do that today.

We are establishing security, and we are also not making cuts to our staff to make sure that we have proper people available to help with any noise or disruptions.

Thank you.

Appreciate your consideration.

Thank you so much.

Um I would like to recognize uh Martha W.

Welcome.

Hello.

I'm Martha Whitakamp and I own a home on the opposite corner of the same block as the Cedar Inn just down the alley.

I live with my husband and two children, ages three and a half and one.

We love our neighborhood and our neighbors, and it's the reason why I'm here today.

Overall, I enjoy having the Cedar in on the block and have been going an ongoing patron since we moved here in 2019, typically ordering food every few months or when guests come to visit too.

During the pandemic, we more frequently ordered food, cans of beer to go and tipped 50 to 100% because we knew the cedar had transferred ownership and we wanted it to stay in business.

I say all of this to emphasize that we are not opposed to the Cedar Inn in principle, but we do have some major concerns about the proposed expansion in size, alcohol served, long hours, and the impact all of this will have on our block.

First off, the neighbors ask that the new building closes at 11 p.m.

on school nights and midnight on Friday, Saturday.

This is reasonable for all parties involved.

Second, I've witnessed how intoxicated the patrons can be in broad daylight, and the prospect of tripling the bar's capacity while adding liquor is a terrible situation for our neighborhood.

The proposed expansion in size and alcohol will served will result in an increased burden that the 40 houses within 200 feet of the Cedar Inn will have to bear.

These include traffic, parking, delivery trucks blocking our alley, noise, and general intoxication of patrons.

It's almost a certainty that with some of those that some of those intoxicated patrons who will now be parking in front of our house will choose to drive drunk in a neighborhood with at least a dozen small children and working families living on these two blocks.

Closing at 11 on school nights and midnight on Friday, Saturday will minimize those burdens on neighbors who are bearing the brunt of this expansion, and it will help maintain a better long-term relationships with the people who live nearby.

The Cedar Inn seems to be getting almost everything they're asking for.

Bigger building, a full liquor license, and lengthy open hours.

The least that they could do as a good neighbor is to listen to a reasonable request and compromise by closing earlier than 2 a.m.

and not keeping nearby residents awake at night.

Thank you so much.

No clauding, please.

Next person is Helen.

Def Lorin.

Good afternoon, State Council.

I'm Helen DeFloyd.

I live two blocks from the Cedar Inn and I patronize the Cedar Inn on a regular basis, and I'm here to tell you that I support the Cedar In.

So I went to the uh I wasn't able to join you for the first meeting here, but I did attend the Powderhorn Park meeting.

And I want to make sure that you recognize that there are neighbors that actually do live close to the Cedar In who do support the Cedar In and have not experienced the site types of issues that you're hearing about today.

So I recognize that there probably are issues.

It's a bar.

We also live in the city.

What you heard today is that the Cedar is doing all sorts of things to try to improve upon those things.

You also heard that they weren't made aware of these things until they asked for a license, until they tried to expand their business.

I don't think that that's fair, and I don't think that you're giving them an opportunity if you don't allow them to try to move forward with this.

I think you need to give them that opportunity.

We can't make assumptions that everything that happens in the evening or on the street, the noise, anything else is all coming from the Cedar N.

This is a city.

We live on a busy intersection, and I think that that needs to be taken into account when we're making these kinds of decisions.

And we also can't make assumptions that things are going to happen and that things are going to be worse if these things happen.

In addition, I think that Jim has made lots of uh given in on lots of things already in what he proposed today.

And I think you should take that into account.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Um thank you.

Next person, and the last person I have sign up is Adam Jackson.

Welcome, sir.

Hello.

Um my name is Adam Jackson.

Uh I live in the neighborhood as well.

Um I've lived there for the last five years.

I've been a patron that whole entire time.

It's kind of that uh small town vibe right in the middle of the cities, you know, there's not all the riffraff that I've seen go on at these bigger bars that are open later than you guys are recommending they're open.

Um I've never seen a shooting down there.

I've never seen any of those issues, but if you go a mile down the road, you know, you got people actively doing drugs on the side of the road and stuff like that.

But outside of that area in that community, it's relatively clean.

I think that a lot of that has to do with him setting that place up and maintaining it, you know, and having the order that he does have there.

Um I think it's important to note that businesses are made to grow.

You know, it's it's kind of crazy to me that uh he's been doing such a good job, but you guys want to put all these hoops and bounds that he's got to jump and leap over to get his business to grow.

You know, he started this during COVID.

Um, and I believe it was self-funded, if I recall, you know, and that's a huge task for any person to give on or take on.

Um so I I just I really don't understand the whole thought process behind uh you know making it a lot harder than it needs to be for a guy to run a business, take care of his family, pay taxes, you know, live the American dream, right?

Um and that's basically all I got to say about that.

Uh I hope you guys you know would consider everything I said, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Can I just clarify something?

If if you have spoken, um please and I was a lamb.

It's just it's fine.

Is anyone else who has not a spoken last meeting or this meeting, please come up.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you for taking time to listen.

Um my name is Liz.

I live at 38th in Cedar, so I'm a few blocks uh north of the bar, and I am not directly affected.

Um that's enough distance uh that I don't hear it uh at night.

Um but I do have a very good friend whose house backs up to the Cedar bar, and I can't tell you the number of times she's told me that I have to go down to the basement in the middle of the night to get rest because the people coming out of the Cedar In bar are being loud and um she cannot sleep with her windows open.

And I just want to be in support of that block.

Um I don't think anybody well I I shouldn't say that, but I feel a lot of support for the Cedar In, but reasonable closing hours is what I'm asking for to help my friend who is a public school teacher, and um uh have good sleep in her home.

And if your home can't be your refuge where you get good sleep, oh that's pretty tough.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you so much.

Yes, sir.

Come on up.

Welcome, please did you name?

My name is Brad Higgie.

I'm a 48-year resident and homeowner around the corner from Cedar Inn.

Um I have spoken against this at the Potterhorn um meeting, the second one.

I've submitted uh documents through my council member.

Uh hopefully they're part of that record.

You will see in 2021, I had over four events, uh, two involving terroristic threats from the occupants, and one identified as the owner to me when I called the bar.

So now this went on all through 2021, and then at the end of the year, the wheel disappears from my core that's parked on the street, which was part of the terroristic threat that occurred.

In the pictures, you'll see.

Yeah, and this is exactly where he has exactly what I've encountered from him on the street.

He should not be up there.

Yes.

Did he spoke last time?

Was he now?

Because I'm opposed to this, and because I have been terrorized by the patrons in the owner of the bar, because there is beer bottles, there are plastic cups, there's trash, there is urination in the street.

There is all of this activity goes on to 4 a.m.

in the morning.

At 4 a.m., they're still out there playing beanbags for the last two summers.

And they don't follow the rules.

They haven't followed the rules.

They don't care about how they affect the neighbors.

The issue becomes is they've polished up everything here now, now that it's not 2021.

And they polished it up and brought it in.

They become intimidating.

As you have heard behind me for anyone who comes opposing their behavior and their board.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Uh the clerk does not have his name, so he has not spoken.

Uh this time, seeing no one else, I will close.

Nope, no, I do have your name.

Now you spoke.

I was talking about the folks that was stating that you spoke last meeting, and you haven't.

We don't have your list, but now you do, so thank you so much.

You're two minutes up.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So last call.

Yes.

Come on in.

I can I couldn't see there, yeah.

My name is Stefan Swanson.

And I'm a Word 12 resident.

I'm also a 34-year veteran of the Minneapolis Fire Department.

I'm a deputy chief.

My whole life is uh based around public safety, right?

I frequent the Cedar Inn.

Uh I spend a lot of time there, and these things that are are spoken about terroristic threats, they don't happen.

I would not affiliate myself with the Cedar Inn if something like that took place.

So I'm just here to refute those words and those comments.

Um I don't know a lot about the details with the with the uh the timing of and the agreements they've made, but I'm here to refute the fact that terroristic threats have taken place.

That place I lived 100 feet away from that place for two years, slept with my windows open, never once was awakened by any noise out there.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you so much for your testimony and thank you for your service.

See you no one else, neighbors.

Thank you so much for coming, business community.

Thank you so much for coming and talking to us.

I will close the public hearing and recognize Councilmember Towery.

Thank you so much.

Um, in order for us to technically do this, we do need to move to amend the item to include the current conditions.

So I will make that motion.

I do have a couple questions for Amy Lingo.

If you are kind enough to come up here.

Thank you so much.

I think it would be really helpful if you explained a little bit for the public, what are um the conditions for approval for a license like this, what conditions on a license mean, and then what is the bar that's at in order to deny a license?

Just so we we understand the rules of our city code.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Thank um Councilmember Chowdhury.

So in order to approve or disapprove or to recommend an offerman license, the we have to look at our code of ordinances.

I am bound by the code what it says about whether someone can qualify, whether location can qualify.

The hours are set forth either by our zoning or by the state statute.

State alcohol statute does permit 2 a.m.

licenses, and our code does permit alcohol to be 2 a.m.

So if you qualify for alcohol, you can qualify for 2 a.m.

regardless of the location.

The property itself has met all of the code for being there to qualify to be what he is applying for, and the uh Cedar Inn and Mr.

Landek have qualified in order to hold the alcohol license.

When we are going through an alcohol process, part of the process is we look through the financial records, we look through police records, um, do those background checks.

We also look for a history of complaints, both 911, 311 internally received, and then we can use those to make our recommendation for either denial or for approval.

And if they we have some issues but that aren't enough necessarily to deny, then we will work on adding in conditions, which I stated earlier are an above and beyond the ordinance.

We don't put things, we don't put conditions that already exist in ordinance.

So they're they are things that are above and beyond.

More times than not, they are codifying the business plan, things that they've already said to give that extra transparency.

And then we can use those as a path of good practices as well as things that we can hold them accountable for.

So as we get complaints or concerns or part of our regular inspections, we will verify that the establishments are working in ordinance in accordance to the ordinance as well as the state statute as well as their conditions.

So if we get complaints, we will go out and address and see are the complaints valid, we will work with the property owner.

Then we go through what we call progressive enforcement.

We start off with education, we work with them to figure out how to move forward to be successful.

If we have to go to the level of citations, we can, and then in building that case for revocation, we have to prove that the business is at fault that they are the nexus for the issues and that they are not working in good faith to approve it to improve the situation, and then we can go through the process to for revocation or non-renewal.

Thank you.

So Amy, you're an expert in this.

You've been doing this for 20 years.

Um could you share why you feel the conditions that business license has worked on will help address the noise issues.

I think that has been like a top issue for neighbors that live nearby.

They want to get a good night's sleep.

Yeah, could you just share how you're how you think these conditions will help with noise and then safety in the area?

Through the chair, Councilmember Childry.

These conditions, we have used various versions of these conditions throughout my tenure and beyond.

Um we have found that by creating this transparency and that line of communication that it helps with that by creating that education on teaching the business how to teach their clients how to behave in the neighborhood, and then being able to hold them accountable, adds that extra weight and then makes it all work better.

There are always issues.

You're always going to get 20% that don't want to listen to anybody, but by setting forth the clear expectations and the clear ground rules, it helps everything go forward, and we've had great success in the past.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um I don't have any more questions, but I will make some comments.

So, first off, I want to start by sincerely thanking our dedicated city staff and business licensing, Amy Lingo, Max Cervantes, Akbar Mohammed, my staff, Ben Petty.

It's been a great honor to work shoulder to shoulder with them throughout this process.

And I am also really really grateful to all of the neighbors who have reached out from the 12th ward about this license to the ownership and management of Cedar Inn as well.

Um together we've held several meetings, not only with concerned neighbors, but representatives of the Cedar In, and we've also convened a joint meeting to address concern as concerns and seek solutions.

The reality of the matter is we all share a common goal, foster a thriving neighborhood that supports the daily lives of hardworking people.

And the these are individuals who need to get up early, go to their jobs, raise their kids, and deserve the simple dignity of a good night's sleep.

At the same time, we want to see success for local businesses, businesses like the Cedar Inn, which has been a mainstay of this community for decades.

It's worth noting that Cedar Inn has been under new ownership for the last five years.

And the owners are committed to continuing a positive role within the neighborhood and improving improving that role.

That said, it's critical to recognize that there are several valid concerns that were raised during our conversations and negotiations around the business license.

Many neighbors who live nearby have reached out about worries about having a bar that's opened until 3 a.m.

365 days a year.

That's the current status quo, and that disruptions are often caused when patrons leave the area around 2:30 a.m.

that impact their sleep and overall quality of life.

And these concerns are entirely legitimate, and that was found in business licensing, uh connecting with neighbors over their experiences and those complaints.

These concerns from the community are not abstract.

Again, they're justified, and it's important to say that the neighbors that have these concerns nearby deserve to be listened to, and a lot of their requests are reasonable.

And at the same time, um Cedar Inn is a beloved institution that took a lot of effort in leaning in and being will willing to compromise.

And I have appreciated their cooperation throughout the process, everyone's cooperation throughout the process and the conditions before us represent a significant compromise.

I genuinely believe that what we do have before us is the best path forward.

This is the best thing that we were able to get negotiated and through these conditions.

We aren't going to see the 2 a.m.

365 days a year, right?

We're gonna see shorter times on Sunday and Monday at midnight.

We're gonna see earlier close times on the patios, and we'll have 1 a.m.

which allows Cedar N to be competitive with neighborhood bars and do the activities that they need for the rest of the days.

And I hope neighbors can find some solace in the fact that the city is taking greater efforts and oversight and is going to work with the Cedar and I think it is a really good thing to have a dedicated line and email for you to reach out to.

Dedicated security on site.

I think it will help tremendously to have the patio again close early for that outdoor noise that we see.

And then also we aren't going right to full liquor.

We're starting at strong beer and wine for eight months.

And if there are no violations of the alcohol code and no violations of these conditions that we're setting forward, then they may go to a liquor license.

But the conditions, even after the fact hold.

Um to the neighbors who have voiced their concerns.

Please continue to do so if you see something, right?

We've had lots of conversations about reaching out to 311 and 911 and sharing those concerns to the neighbors uh who reached out that are in support and want to see Cedar End be successful.

And there were several board 12 raised residents that did reach out.

Thank you for um sharing your voice, and I hope that you see that this is uh a pathway for us to progress, right?

We can't continue to just be at City Hall and have these community meetings.

I think all of us are sick of having the community meetings at this point.

Uh so thank you.

Uh thank you for your patience and work through that.

Um there still is some time to engage with me and other members of the city council.

We will take our final vote next Thursday at the full council session.

And your input throughout this process has been vital in trying to find the best balance between supporting our neighborhood as a whole and the success of a beloved local business and its community.

Um what I said several times in our community meetings is let's land this plane, let's land this plane together.

And I think we are getting closer to Thursday where we'll be able to land this plane.

But the success of this neighborhood is really going to be reliant on all of you.

All of you working together to make sure the business is successful and it's holding up to its commitment to being a good neighbor, and then also neighbors reaching out and um to connecting with Cedar Inn through that dedicated line, but also reaching out to 311 and 911 if there are things that are occurring that should be improved upon.

So thank you so much, and thank you to my colleagues as well.

I uh will move this item forward.

All right, uh councilmember how to remove uh this item amended uh part of it.

Um forward uh now I will recognize Councilmember Denkins.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Um I just want to comment that um I think this uh list of 18 operating conditions is uh pretty thorough.

I think I've seen a few other conditions that may be a little bit longer than this, but not many.

Um and you know I I live relatively close to the Cedar Inn, and so I've just been kind of keeping my eye on it um lately and noticing community members outside uh playing uh what's the game where you toss the beanbag?

Bean bag, I guess.

Uh and and you know, just kind of hanging out on the patio.

Uh you know, I we have to support business um growth and development, but we also have to maintain the sanctity of our communities as well.

kind of keeping my eye on it um lately and noticing community members outside uh playing uh what's the game where you toss the beanbag bean bag I guess uh and and you know just kind of hanging out um on the patio uh you know I we have to support business um growth and development but we also have to maintain the sanctity of our communities as well and I think this um list of operating conditions can can help us achieve both of those so I will be supporting um councilmember Chowdry's um amended motion today all right thank you so much uh see no one else with that motion all those in favor say aye aye aye and those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries thank you so much everyone for coming all right now when we are moving to the next item the next item is quadra judicial uh now we will go final portion of our agenda which is quad judicial hearing first we'll be considering a tobacco deal license suspension and fine for campus market located at 316 15th Avenue Southeast I welcome attorney Joe Joe Fussey um there you go to move the head to talk about this item welcome sir uh thank you mr chair and committee members maybe I'll just give it a few seconds to disperse here before we try to keep uh the rest of the items moving forward here okay thank you very much as you mentioned this uh item is a quasi-judicial license hearing involving the to the tobacco dealer's license of campus market which is located at 316 15th Avenue Southeast uh this hearing today is held under uh code of ordinances section 259.255 uh meaning that there has already been an evidentiary hearing that was held in front of Minneapolis hearing officer Patricia Sifferley uh that occurred at the end of July at that point the hearing officer issued a report to this committee including her findings and a recommendation of an appropriate penalty and that brings us to to today where the licensee may address the committee and make argument but no further new evidence is permitted to be submitted um as I mentioned the hearing officer's report and recommendation is before you in the record and I wanted to point out just a few things in asking you to adopt that report uh which does recommend imposing the presumptive penalty prescribed in ordinance for a third violation of a legally selling flavored tobacco products that presumptive penalty is a $2,000 fine and a 120 day license suspension.

As an aside this penalty matrix was adopted as as part of last year's uh tobacco ordinance amendments that were authored by councilmember veto just a little shout up there uh so the points from the report and the record that I wanted to highlight very briefly um as you that report is in front of you it's very thorough and I think inclusive and I think it really highlights exactly how this case progressed but the highlights that I wanted to point out in the presentation here is that the uh the licensees license classification only allows him to sell non-flavored tobacco uh his license application clearly indicated such in February he was selling flavor tobacco and was issued a $500 administrative citation which was not appealed in March then he was again found in violation and he admitted to the inspector at that time that he was aware uh that he could not sell flavor tobacco as part of his license and he was issued the presumptive penalty for a second violation which was one thousand dollar fine and a seven day license suspension and then in April this third violation which is before you occurred even though the licensee had be had been specifically instructed to remove the flavor tobacco from his store the presumptive penalty for this offense is as I mentioned a $2,000 fine and a 120 day suspension uh which is what the hearing officer has recommended to be upheld and imposed uh importantly the hearing officer explained and I quote three citations for the same violation within a four month period after being explicitly warned and instructed by city inspectors indicates a willful noncompliance in addition to the above described citations on July 24th of last year respondent was issued a violation notice for a minimum pricing violation and also a $500 fine for a youth tobacco uh sale failure um under the recently amended tobacco ordinance presumptive penalties section in order for this committee to deviate from the presumptive penalty for a third offense again $2,000 fine 120 day suspension the committee must determine that there exists substantial and compelling reasons to do so in this matter the hearing officer found no such reasons to deviate from the presumptive penalty and I would ask you to adopt her report and recommendation in full I believe that the licensee is here today and it would be appropriate for him to address the committee now if it was your pleasure certainly if you have any questions uh I can attempt to answer them.

Certainly if you have any questions, uh I can attempt to answer them.

I also have staff from uh business licensing year as well.

Thank you so much.

We'll have the question after the public hearing.

All right, now I am um I will allow in the public hearing, allow uh the license holder to come and speak.

You have seven minutes, and then anyone else who would like to speak, have two minutes.

Welcome.

Come on up, please state your name and good afternoon, uh my name is Mohammed Tamimi.

I'm the business owner of uh Campus Market and Tobacco.

Okay, um we take three tickets in like in three months.

Um we sell flavor.

When I start on this store, I used to have an exclusive license.

We can sell flavor.

And after that, they canceled it for no reason.

And they the my license now they have none of it.

No, say you can't sell flavor and anything.

I know I can't sell flavor after the first visit with the one of the city visit us and told me that.

Uh can't continue.

Keep going.

Yeah, you have some.

I'm sorry, yeah, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh I take the first ticket, and I pay for it was $500.

I can't remember that.

And the second one was $1,000 and uh freeze my license for 30 days 7 days.

The third one was two tickets.

One of them was like minimum price for a cigarette.

I used to overseas, and uh the they changed the price.

I have no idea about it.

I live in the country, like almost no internet there.

And uh the second uh ticket was in the same time.

The minimum minimum price ticket was in the same time with the flavor flavor ticket.

And the last one, I have too many products.

They take a picture for it, like it's we we're not allowed to sell it, but we cancel it.

This is the just empty devices for Shisha for something like that, like no tobacco in it, but has warning in it.

Like this product has c has the nuclein in it, but was nothing in it.

That well, I don't know what I have to say too.

Any question?

Um, you still have uh five minutes, but uh if there's any question, we'll definitely call you and ask.

But I want to just anything else to add the yeah, the ticket I take it.

Uh the first time I used they changed the license.

You can check the tobacco license was exclusive.

I have a picture with it with me.

The second one, they have none of it.

Like say they didn't say anything in it.

After that, they let me know.

And the last ticket, the uh appeal about uh about it right now, they have too many pictures for devices.

I'll I I cancel it too many.

Um like tobacco has no flavor.

And yes, that's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh is there anyone else who would like to speak?

See none.

I will close the public hearing.

And uh guess my question is to you, sir, to um city attorney.

I I gotta say that you know the the tobacco license.

Um last few years we amended two, three times.

Like there's updates after updates up to updates.

As a business owner, I'm sure it's confusing.

Um people are not always up to date.

Uh, even if the city sends them uh notices, uh people still call call me and talk, business community and asking me about what's going on with the with the licensing, and there has been a lot of change.

So in that's in that part, just keeping that in mind.

Um keeping up with that with that update, it could be challenging for some of the business owners.

Could you please expeak about uh what are the tickets given to?

When was it given to?

Uh uh, and when did the last law or policy pass?

And what are some of the policy that he violated, if you can kind of uh thank you, Mr.

Chair and committee members.

Uh the flavored tobacco prohibition um has been on the books for many years now.

Um he was never allowed to sell flavored tobacco uh in this license location, and that is explicitly stated on his license application.

Um the violations that occurred in this matter.

The first was on February 6 of 2025.

The second was on March 6 of 2025, and the third was in um April 15th of 2025.

There was some reference in the hearing officer's decision to the previous year when he also failed a youth uh sales check.

Uh that's not part of this penalty matrix.

It was just noted within the history of the location.

But it's those three tickets that occurred this year that funnel into the new penalty matrix that was unanimous unanimously adopted by the council this year or last year, which uh carries the progressive discipline that begins with a $500 fine and then it goes to a thousand dollar fine and a seven-day suspension, and then a two thousand dollar fine and a one hundred and twenty-day suspension.

I would also note that in the hearing officer's decision, and I wasn't present at the hearing.

Um Mr.

Eliason was, and if you have further questions, he could certainly address some of that.

But if you look at what the hearing officer found, she mentions multiple times in which he was um in which of the establishment was notified of exact that they could not sell flavor tobacco, given pictures of exactly what they couldn't sell and otherwise instructed how uh how they I guess that business licensing otherwise engaged in their primary tactic of education to try to bring the the uh licensee into compliance, despite that the hearing officer specifically found that there was willful noncompliance in this case.

Um I hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

Okay.

And specifically those three tickets were sale in flavors, or was it also included at the sale in not checking the ID of the case?

That was a separate matter that was from last year.

Not so and the education part you talked about.

Was that given to him?

Was he able to had the opportunity to take that and and know what is flavored, what's not um Mr.

Chair, if it's acceptable, I'd like to call or ask uh Craig Lysen to come up here who is much more familiar with that part of the case, but I know that the report does speak to instances in which he was uh education was engaged upon, and I'd ask you to maybe address that, Mr.

Elias.

Mr.

Chair Craig Lyison District Supervisor with business licenses.

Yes, the uh the owner um was given the violation notices and was told repeatedly that his tobacco license did not include the sale of flavored tobacco.

And Inspector Ben Zimmel, um, in fact, in his violation notices, very thoroughly listed the products that were in violation, and in each subsequent citation, it is the very same products listed in his citations.

Uh Inspector Zimmel did a very thorough job of documenting the illegal tobacco products and explaining to the owner.

Thank you so much.

Um I had uh um final thought.

Could could you please repeat?

He he did mention that he somehow he did have a license sell one time.

Is that a fact or what's it's called?

Uh license.

Mr.

Chair, no.

Um he he has never held an exclusive tobacco dealer's license at that location.

Um and in fact, if I could um buy his business plan as part of the license application where he checks that he is going to be a tobacco dealer, um, which says only non-flavored tobacco products may be sold.

He checked that box on his application, and then on some of the information, the products that he was going to sell, he checked cigarettes, pipes, rolling papers, he checked other, and then in his handwriting he has non-flavored e-cigarettes.

So the application he applied for is for a tobacco dealer's license, not an exclusive tobacco dealer.

Um the uh the previous establishment at this address also ran a fall with us for selling flavored tobacco products.

Um so he has never held an exclusive tobacco dealer's license.

Um, and he applied for just a tobacco dealer's license, not exclusive, which uh exclusive tobacco dealers can sell menthol and flavored products.

Sure.

Thank you so much.

Uh he he was showing us something.

Uh I'm gonna call you, sir.

One second.

I want to have one final question.

Uh City Attorney, can you repeat what what are the conclusion?

Um is it a suspicious suspending uh the license for a few months and how long is that and what was the other one?

Yes, according to the ordinance, and this is the ordinance that was amended last calendar year.

Um I think the desire of the author and staff was to have more specificity with the penalties that would apply in this area, and so a penalty matrix was established, which spells out what the penalties are for first, second, third, fourth violation.

And so in this case, the penalties are exactly from that matrix.

The first one was a five hundred dollar uh fine, the second one was a thousand dollar fine and a seven-day suspension, and now we're on the third violation, which is a two thousand dollar fine and two thousand dollar suspension.

Uh the ordinance does allow the council.

Go ahead.

You say two thousand dollar fine, and what was the suspicion?

Or I'm sorry, one hundred and twenty-day suspension, so essentially no business.

Yes, that's correct.

Or no tobacco sales.

Okay.

Um and um the ordinance does, however, allow the council um to I guess downwardly depart from those penalties if you make a determination that there are substantial and compelling reasons which make it appropriate to do so.

The hearing officer did not find any substantial or compelling reasons and specifically found that there was um willful non noncompliance in this matter, but ultimately that is the council's decision to make.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I'm gonna call you, sir.

Uh one if you you were showing us something about that you had a full license.

If you can put that in there and like see it right there.

Clerk.

Yeah, this is here the store name.

Canvas market.

And this is the address.

Sure.

And down here, exclusive tobacco dealer.

What is the date?

This is here for 2000.

April 1st, 2023.

Even with this license, I take three tickets.

I sell uh uh flavor.

That why I take the store from my partner.

I used to partner 33% of this store.

I own it all now.

Thank you.

Uh license, I take three tickets because we sell flavor.

We have three stores in the same area.

All of them say uh sell the flavors, because it's call it like Oban before the change level.

Sure.

We we are we are looking at two different uh it's fine.

Thank you.

Thank you for showing us that.

Um I don't know if the staff want to address what that what does that mean that he show us uh um then what you show us, which is the application.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Committee members.

From what I understand, um that was for a location previous, it was not for this current license.

This current license, the paperwork clearly shows that it was a different line.

Is the same address?

Yeah.

Ms.

Lingo, do you wanna expired it?

Chair Osman, so the license application or the certificate that he is showing you is for a previous owner.

It's not the application that is in question here.

Um looking through the past records, everything was marked as uh non-exclusive.

So I think there might have been a temporary issuance of the wrong, like someone click the wrong button, it was issued and then corrected, but this also is not the license in question.

So it's a different corporation.

So one, it was an error that was corrected, like a data entry error back in 2012, 20 or 2223.

So that certificate he has is an in it was incorrect and was corrected, but it's also not the license in question.

It is the same address, yes, but it's not the licensee in question.

All right.

Uh thank thank you so much.

I'm gonna just uh before I call my colleagues, uh I'm gonna just state that um, you know, uh we set a uh rules uh in the city, we want uh all the business to follow.

At the same time, uh, you know, um things that are changing super fast, it it is some challenging for the business owners operating trying to really make sure that that they're following the raw rules and and and and regulations and to me.

It it's it's it's a little challenging and confusing for for the business community sometimes to understand what they're selling.

Uh I think that the individual uh the owner who testified here uh thought that he was selling uh uh exclusive dealer he said he was able to sell it, even though the applicant you show us the staff was was a little different.

So um it's it's a hard take.

Uh I think that for me, in my opinion, um I would definitely uh okay with the fine, but the suspicious suspension of or or of 120 days, uh it could it could be the end of business for some some of the community, some of the business community in there.

So uh uh that is something that uh I I cannot support.

But uh I think if we can find a way to hold accountable business owners at the same time, make sure that the individuals that have a lot of challenges uh operating the city system uh could could follow uh and understand uh what they're signing up for.

So with that I will recognize Councilmember Charter.

Thank you, Councilmember Osman.

I had a question um maybe for Amy Lingo or Mr.

Eliason.

Um the question is could you just kind of lay out what educational steps were taken uh with the owner?

Um and talking talking directly with him.

Um after each interaction, our inspectors had conversations with the owner to let him know what was happening that was not supposed to be happening.

Um with each interaction, there were photos, the photos were shared with him.

We told him what was not supposed to be sold.

We explained what the issue was as far as the spacing, which is the issue.

There are three other locations that are within 2,000 feet, so therefore this business does not qualify, and the spacing rules have not changed since 2019, nor have the flavor exemptions only being exclusive have not changed since the initial impact.

So the last couple of ordinance changes have had nothing to do with either of the issues that are causing um campus market corporation to not be able to sell it.

So after each citation that was sent out, after each inspection, um inspectors and had conversations, both you know, phone, email, and in person with what needed to be done and what could and could not be sold.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Um I had a quick question for the owner, if you don't mind, just very quick.

Sir, we want we want your business to be successful.

We want you to be successful.

But there's been a record of non-compliance.

What would help you get to compliance?

What are the things that you need in order to make sure that there aren't any more violations because we're looking at a a significant fine in the suspension?

That the city of Minneapolis doesn't easily do that, right?

It progresses towards that.

So how how can we help you in the future so we don't end up here again?

Um I'm asking before if I can take another exclusive, at least when I'm finished my lease.

Like uh in the beginning.

Okay, she said I respect what she said.

She said this that was different different company.

Is it the same company?

They bush and us, I can't give you the name for someone to or we already take three tickets.

The first one is gonna be like shut down the store.

That way I just buy it from my partner.

I have my K1, everything.

This is what same company.

When I give us in the beginning, exclusive license.

That way I rent the store for 10 years.

I already I do the construction, I bought the stuff there.

If I can't take any exclusive till I finish whatever they want with a fee, uh Kistrum, like call it uh fees or whatever, like to finish just my lease.

And in this case right now, if they I don't care to be like I I I do not I see in English, like okay.

I can't I can but I can be the $2,000, but if I want to close 120 days, like if me like too much, not just like you know, like I uh I have this this is only this business I do, like I have nothing else besides that.

I'm gonna try to beside uh I stay away from the tobacco and the city know that I opened coffee shop inside it now to try close the tobacco section.

I opened the two like halal food, and um I'm doing too many things right now to stay off uh away tobacco, because the tobacco every day different rules, different uh things, and every every week, every month, like a new product.

I can't bring the every week and go to city say I can't sell that, I can't sell that.

Like it's too much.

Thank you so much for sharing sharing.

Thanks.

I'll just say you you don't have an exclusive license now, so just make sure you follow the rules within that.

Yes, connect with uh city business licensing.

I want to say something else.

Like the last the last one, most of the the stuff they give me ticket about it, like they take a picture.

This is by by this Minnesota uh Minneapolis city, I can do.

They take just the empty devices, has has a warning in it.

But no tobacco in it, they're just the devices.

I can't sell the product.

If they have a picture, I think, yeah, they do now.

I can't see you too many stuff like no tobacco, just a straight tobacco flavor and devices, like just empty devices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That'll be that'll be my just quick last question about the devices, because he did bring it up twice.

That is he able to sell the devices in question that don't have the actual tobacco product in it, but could be used for Shisha.

Hi.

Hello.

I'm Inspector Zenal.

I'm the one that issued the citations for all these.

Thank you.

So through the chair Osman and to answer Councilmember Chadger's question.

He did have several the third time of the devices, and they clearly stay on there.

This product contains nicotine.

But that was only some of the items he had.

He also had nicotine pouches.

He had hundreds of those.

And then also several kinds of uh flavored cigars.

And those are on the first and the second one where I listed by name and by flavor, and clearly wrote these need to be removed from the store.

So I don't know if you guys actually saw the evidence back, but I do have a full advocate packet.

And I think the director also has one up here as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

All right, uh Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair.

I do think that this uh fine and suspension is fair.

We have these ordinances in place that we should be in compliance with and enforcing them.

Um I just want to note that you know this he said saying that he's selling halal food.

When I look up his re uh website, he's also a deli, so tobacco is not the only thing that he's selling in his shop, and I actually would love to see more of our tobacco shops in the city expanding into selling food because so many of our neighborhoods have food deserts, our young people, so many people do need food.

What they don't need is nicotine products.

It's not healthy for anyone, it's not an addition, you know, to our well-being in any way, shape, or form.

Uh, I think that it's fair for him to receive this violation after the multiple fines and progressive enforcement that they've done.

There is dozens of pages of evidence presented before us.

Uh so I'm gonna move this for approval.

Uh sorry, council member Vita.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Cashman.

I I too am concerned about the conversation we're having up here because there has been so many violations.

Um, you know, the uh uh flavor tobacco uh restrictions have been on the books since 2019, so I find it hard to believe that someone thinks that they can sell tobaccos flavored tobacco in these times.

Is it's not a new thing, and actually the new uh policies that we've implemented on this council have been around stiffer penalties and and violations, and so we all voted unanimously what maybe a year ago to do that, and now here it is before us.

Someone has violated um the ordinance for uh set tobacco sales, um product, selling to minors.

I mean, there I I looked at the packet and there is a lot of stuff in that packet.

And so I am I I don't understand how we could be um even having a conversation about either or like the fine or the suspension.

A suspension comes along with the violation that is clearly stated here before us, and that should happen.

If we are not keeping folks in compliance, how is this any different than the action we've taken about landlords coming before us and being able to um look at their properties and create and generate violations upon that?

Some of these stores are harmful to communities because the the this product is getting in the hands of kids.

If you all um go and look at the packet, you can see very clearly that these products are violating the Minneapolis code of ordinance for flavored tobacco.

Um and they should not be in this store or any other store, and and it should not be acceptable for anyone, um, especially after you know, I I talked to staff about this, and there was an extension extensive education packet that went out, and um correspondence that went out when things were being put in place when folks did apply for these licenses and and they had the time to say I want this or I don't want this.

Um, and so I I just don't see how we can uh it would it would fully be favoritism in my opinion if we picked one or the other for someone when they're a clear violation of the uh Minneapolis uh tobacco ordinance.

I I could never support that we have these uh penalties in place for a reason this person has violated that.

Uh and I I'm just gonna end with no one should have a model of uh selling tobacco products in this community for their business to function.

There are other items in this store that are being sold.

This is a three-month violation.

If your business model is solely on tobacco sales, that is harmful this to this community, and that should not be so.

You should be able to sell tobacco, the proper tobacco products with the proper license.

I'm I'm not opposed to that.

You violate, then you have to take the penalty, and I will hope that no one is um selling products solely on uh you know our children and the these communities dying from the harms of tobacco.

All right.

Um thank you so much.

And I think I I stated my my point of um just the confusion and also making sure that uh supporting the businesses, but uh would council member cashman be amendable to her motion um uh considering two thousand dollar fine, but instead of 120 days suspension, if we can do 30 days suspension, would that be something you no?

Okay, all right.

Uh final question for the staff.

If he violates again uh would that make him lose his license and what chair Osman, if there is another violation of this ordinance within the next 24 months, it would proceed to revocation.

Yeah.

I think that is a strong uh stand uh the city has taken and 120 days, I believe it's it's it's a long challenge, and the businesses can lose uh and no longer as he as he stated, so I'm definitely uh if this motion passes great.

If not, then I'm definitely considering 30 days suspension.

Um yes, go ahead, council member.

Can you um just for the public record?

Can you explain how you decided on 30 days and like where that it kind of feels like an arbitrary number?

Like how do you how do you know that the business isn't gonna go out of business in 30 days versus um 90 days or whatever this is?

And how how do we come up with the the option the option of 30 days?

Please.

Uh I think I'm trying to find a solution.

Uh I believe 120 days is is a little longer as the gentleman stated.

There's a lot of barriers, uh, folks to um you know um keep up uh the continued updates ordinance that we create and we he has shown um uh something that show him that he does uh have the full license.

It's a little confusing, but I I think 120 days is just too harsh.

That's just my opinion.

I I just also want to say that I think if a person hasn't been selling the proper products also in their store, it's gonna be hard to know what the sales are.

And so it's gonna be interesting to see whether this passes or not.

But if the if the illegal products are taken out of the store, is he still gonna be able to maintain and open with the proper product sales?

We don't know that.

And so I would caution us about like picking a date that is not a part of the city ordinance to give this person when they have clearly violated and there is uh documentation that supports a violation.

With that, uh clerk, if you can call the call the role, that would be great.

Oh, I think we should clarify the motion.

Council member Cashman, do you motion is to adopt the administrative hearing officers' findings in conclusion with a $2,000 fine and 120-day suspension of the tobacco dealer license for campus market in Ward You.

Thank you.

Um I'll start with Councilmember Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins, aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdry.

Aye.

And Chair Osman.

No.

There are five ayes and one nay.

That motion passes.

All right.

Uh, we're moving to the next next item, which is a food manufacturer and carrier license revocation for noon trust strength located at 2910 Plisbury Avenue.

I will again welcome City Attorney Joe Fussy to give us more updates.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Committee members.

I'm actually not involved in this one.

I would ask staff to address the tax delinquency proposed revocation.

Chair Osman committee members.

This is a tax revocation, um, as we are unfortunately becoming quite well versed with.

So we received a letter from the state saying that we had to revoke this license due to unpaid taxes within 30 days.

Uh, we are still in process of waiting to get that letter.

However, we do know that they are working with the Department of Revenue and that they have engaged in the payment plan, so it is our hope that we will get that letter soon.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to proceed to open uh.

Yep.

All right.

I'm I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and see if there are anyone else would like to speak.

See none.

Uh close the public hearing and I will move this item without recommendation to the full council.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Our last item today is another question.

Held by MP no PMR Mechanical Inc.

I'll again welcome City Attorney Joe Fesi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Committee members.

I think this one can be moved fairly quickly.

Essentially, this is another quasi-judicial hearing involving a recommendation to revoke the HVAC contractor's license held by PMR Mechanical and its principal Dwayne Meyer.

Again, it's pursuant to uh code of ordinance 259.255.

Uh an evidentiary hearing was previously held in front of the same Minneapolis hearing officer as the previous item, uh Patricia Sifer Lee on August 28th of this year.

The hearing officer has issued here a report including findings of recommendation, which is before the committee and included in the record at uh and again the licensee is um able to make an argument if he is present uh but is not off able to offer any new evidence.

In sum, the hearing officer found that the record establishes that in this matter the licensee has continuously used unlicensed workers and committed numerous building code violations over the past few years at multiple properties, some of which it has never corrected, even though city staff has issued guidance, written orders, and fines.

Additionally, the hearing officer found that the licensee has failed to communicate with city staff, failed to attend required meetings, and failed to appeal or pay many of the fines.

The hearing officer also specifically found that the licensee is unable to perform the work himself at this time and has no employees who are licensed by the city and has instead relied upon an unlicensed individual and firm, and that license revocation is in the public interest based on the duration, frequency, seriousness, and history of the violations which were established.

And also the licensees lack of good faith efforts to comply and the impact of the violations on the community.

With that, um I again I have Mr.

Eliason from business licensing here and would entertain any questions that you might have, but would ask that you adopt the hearing officer's well-reasoned and thorough report and uh uphold the revocation of the business license in question.

Um as I said, I don't believe that the licensee is here, but certainly it would be appropriate to uh call for his presence if he is here at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and see if the license holder is here.

Uh see none uh close the public hearing and motion uh adopting the finding and upholding the um revocation.

Rertification revocation.

Are there any comments or questions?

See none.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Uh seeing no further business before us with no objection, I will declare the submitted adjourned.

Thank you.