►
From YouTube: Joint Council Meeting 9-7-2021
Description
Joint Council Meeting 9-7-2021
A
A
A
D
D
A
A
I
will
pass
the
gavel
off
to
commissioner
hanton
here
in
just
a
moment
what
we
are
going
to
do
tonight
in
this
format
for
the
combined
meeting
is
we
have
business
to
do
with
the
county
to
start
off,
we
are
going
to
handle
all
county
and
joint
jurisdiction
with
the
county
agenda
items.
First,
if
you
are
here
to
testify
about
the
city
ordinances,
we
are
not
doing
that
until
after
the
commission,
the
covington
county
commission
leaves
to
respect
their
time.
A
I
also
would
ask
you
if
you
are
here,
and
you
do
plan
on
testifying,
there's
a
sign
up
sheet
over
by
the
front
by
the
entrance,
and
I
would
ask
you
to
sign
in
please
so
that
we
have
a
record
of
your
name
and
who
you
are
representing
with
that
said.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
will
pass
it
off
to
commissioner
han.
D
All
right,
thank
you,
mayor.
The
first
item
of
business
is
to
open
the
joint
public
hearing
in
front
of
both
the
watertown
city,
council
and
codington
county
commission
regarding
cannabis
regulations
in
the
joint
jurisdiction
zoning
area
and
in
the
rest
of
the
unincorporated
areas
of
the
county.
As
the
mayor
noted,
we
will
not
be
taking
testimony
on
any
ordinances
regarding
cannabis
within
city
limits.
At
that
time,
the
city
will
take
up
that
after
we
adjourn
this
meeting
just
like
last
time
we
met
together.
D
E
As
previously
stated
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
ordinances,
75
and
77.
That's
the
green
unincorporated
area
of
the
county
and
ordinances
76
and
21-35
75.
That's
for
the
yellow
area
on
the
map.
That's
the
area
of
the
joint
jurisdiction,
ordinances,
2134
and
2136
that
purple
area
the
city
limits
incorporated
will
be
a
subsequent
public
hearing
discussion.
Afterwards,
ordinances,
75,
76
and
77
are
county
related
ordinances.
E
One
is
for
the
zoning
regulations
for
the
rural
area.
One
is
the
licensing
regulations
for
the
rural
area
and
ordinance.
76
would
be
the
county
side
of
the
joint
jurisdiction.
Ordinance
and
21-35
would
be
the
city
side
of
the
joint
jurisdiction.
Both
76
and
21-35
are
identical
in
nature.
As
far
as
language
and
substance,
it's
just
one
is
for
the
city,
and
one
is
for
the
county
on
the
county
side
of
the
ledger.
E
Briefly,
there
are
four
types
of
cannabis
facilities
contained
in
their
zoning
regulation
and
in
their
licensing
regulations
dealing
with
dispensaries
cultivation
facilities,
manufacturing
and
testing
facilities
in
the
green
area
of
the
map
up
there,
the
codington
county
planning
commission
has
made
recommendation
to
move
forward
with
the
zoning
regulation,
which
stipulates
only
one
dispensary
would
be
allowed
in
that
green
area
of
the
map.
In
the
unincorporated
areas
on
commercial
or
industrial
zone
property,
there
would
be
no
cultivation,
manufacturing
or
testing
of
those
types
of
facilities
located
in
the
green
area
of
the
map.
D
E
It's
a
real
easy
ordinance,
coyote
county
and
the
city's
joint
jurisdiction
orders
has
a
codicil
within
it
that
stipulates
if
a
use
is
not
listed
as
a
permitted
or
a
conditional
use
within
the
that
specific
joint
jurisdictional
area.
It's
not
allowed.
So
the
only
amendment
ordinance
amendment,
that's
going
to
happen
with
the
two
respective
city
and
county
oranges,
is
that
we
are
going
to
define
medical
dispensary,
a
medical
cannabis,
manufacturing,
a
medical
cannabis
testing
in
a
medical,
cannabis,
growing
facility
or
cultivation
centers.
E
So
by
listing
them
in
their
definitions
and
precluding
them
from
the
development
in
that
yellow
area,
they
would
not
be
allowable
uses.
You
wouldn't
have
the
ability
to
ask
for
a
permit
to
do
that.
So
that
is
a
very
cursory
review
of
the
ordinances
for
the
county
to
consider
and
oh
and
the
cities
on
the
joint
jurisdiction.
E
F
D
Consider
the
public
hearings
open
on
county
ordinance,
number
75
an
ordinance
to
amend
article
2
definitions,
section
3.05.01,
permitted
uses
c
commercial
district,
section,
3.060
permitted
uses.
I
industrial
district
and
article
5
supplemental
regulations
adopted
by
ordinance
65
as
amended
of
the
zoning
ordinance
of
codington
county
city,
ordinance,
number
21-35
and
county
ordinance
number
76
ordinances
to
amend
article
2
definitions
of
the
joint
zoning
ordinance
for
connington
county
and
the
city
of
watertown
and
county
ordinance
number
77,
an
ordinance
establishing
licensing
provisions
for
cannabis
establishments
to
the
revised
ordinances
of
coddington
county.
D
D
D
D
So
we
have
read
the
titles
of
both
the
city
and
the
county's
joint
jurisdiction
ordinances
and
when
we
open
the
public
hearing,
so
both
of
our
second
readings
have
already
been
addressed
to
follow
robert's
rules
of
order.
Before
we
have
any
board
discussion,
I
would
like
to
get
a
motion
on
the
floor
by
each
organization
to
address
the
joint
jurisdiction
area
county
commissioners.
Can
I
get
a
motion
to
approve
ordinance
number
76
motion
by
van
dusen,
second,
by
waterman
all
right,
and
then
we
have
a
motion
a
second.
So
do
we
have
any
discussion.
E
G
E
Codington
county,
like
many
other
municipalities
throughout
the
state
within
the
planning
district,
is
relying
on
a
template,
ordinance
that
was
developed
by
matt
roby
myself,
a
gaggle
of
attorneys
across
the
state
and
south
korea,
public
assurance
alliance
and
within
that
the
bottom.
The
initial
start
was
to
start
with
what
the
state
regulations
are
saying
that
you
could
have.
E
You
have
to
have
one
and
discussions
with
on
the
county
side
of
the
equation
with
the
sheriff's
department
and
not
wanting
to
see
a
raft
of
these
types
of
establishments
spread
out
and
which
would
make
it
difficult
for
policing
of
that
in
the
rural
areas
of
the
county.
That
was
one
of
the
principal
reasons.
Also
coyington
county
historically
does
not
allow
for
a
lot
of
commercial
development
outside
of
the
joint
jurisdictional
area.
I
think
we
have
maybe
three
locations
outside
this
outside
the
county.
E
F
Thank
you,
mayor
todd,
just
a
just
a
point
of
clarity
here
in
regards
to
the
background
information
that
we've
got
for
the
joint
jurisdiction
area.
You
know
I
I
believe
the
yellow
portion
of
your
map
was
a
joint
jurisdiction
area
that
was
established
by
the
city
council
and
the
county
commissioners,
some
years
back,
I'm
going
to
guess
yeah
somewhere
in
that
neck
of
the
woods.
F
E
C
Got
one
minor
question
the
the
out
the
hours
of
operation
from
what's
being
proposed
for
the
joint
jurisdiction
area,
don't
quite
mesh
with
what
we're
proposing
within
the
city,
and
I
realize
we've
got
two
different.
You
know
jurisdictions
here,
but
is
there
any
concern
on
the
part
of
my
colleagues
and
my
counterparts,
the
county
as
far
as
those
hours,
not
quite
meshing,.
D
E
D
E
E
G
E
G
E
E
G
E
H
If
you
go
to
sioux
falls,
you
might
pay
a
hundred
grand
for
a
license,
so
it's
just
gonna.
It's
really
just
gonna
depend
so
here
you
know
we're
talking
about
the
area.
That's
in
the
county's
jurisdiction
that
may
be
a
cheaper
license
fee
than
the
what
the
city's
going
to
going
to
approve,
but
not
that
that
it
could
concern
you.
But
I'm
just
saying
that's,
that's!
Inevitably,
what's
going
to
be
taking
place
over
the
next
the
coming
months
here
so.
A
A
A
I
think
that
they
recognize
the
wisdom
of
this
body
up
here
and
will
follow
suit,
but
we
will
see,
but
no
we
have.
We
have
our
own
rules,
we'll
dispense
with
those
with
count,
starting
with
ordinance
21-35
very
soon.
As
soon
as
questions
and
comments
are
over
with
that
said,
any
further
questions
or
comments
seeing
none.
The
motion
is
to
approve
the
city
of
watertown
ordinance,
number
21-35,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
motion
carries.
D
B
D
All
right,
so
that
motion
carries
all
right
again.
I
read
the
titles
of
both
ordinance
number
75
and
77
when
I
open
the
public
hearing,
so
that's
covered
for
both
of
those
ordinances.
All
right.
Let's
take
a
motion
on
ordinance
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
for
the
rest
of
the
unincorporated
area
of
the
county.
First,
that
is
ordinance
number
75..
Do
I
have
a
motion
in
second
motion
by
johnson
second,
by
gable
all
right.
Do
we
have
any
further
discussion
relating
to
this
ordinance,
the
unincorporated
part
of
the
county?
D
All
right
that
motion
carries
also,
let's
move
then
to
we
have
one
more
ordinance,
and
that
is
the
motion
on
ordnance
number
77,
the
cannabis
licensing
ordinance
for
the
unincorporated
areas
of
the
county.
Can
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
on
that
motion
by
van
dusen?
Second,
by
waterman,
do
we
have
any
further
discussion?
I
D
D
A
All
right
the
chair
will
reconvene
the
meeting.
This
is
still
the
combined
meeting
technically
of
the
city
council
and
the
countington
county
commission.
The
commission
has
left,
and
the
city
still
has
some
business
to
attend
to,
starting
with
the
agenda
item
e.
The
second
reading
of
city
ordinance
21-34
an
ordinance
adding
title
25
to
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
watertown,
pertaining
to
medical
cannabis
regulations
and
uses
within
the
city
of
watertown,
south
dakota.
A
B
A
The
chair
will
make
a
comment,
while
our
city
attorney
is
calling
up
the
information
that
he
needs
just
to
remind
the
council.
We
have
thoroughly
vetted
this
topic
at
a
work
session.
I
don't
want
to
stifle
debate,
but
as
far
as
examining
it
asking
a
lot
of
the
questions,
I
believe
we
have
addressed
a
lot
of
them
already,
but
we
still
have
business
to
attend
to
and
that's
actually
the
passage
or
non-passage
of
this
ordinance
and
some
amendments
under
consideration.
H
H
H
The
the
other
issue
that
we're
looking
at
as
far
as
an
uncertainty
is
the
legislature
may
or
may
not
decide
to
make
some
minor
or
major
changes
to
initiate
a
measure
26
either
this
november
or
in
the
legislative
session
to
come.
So
the
bottom
line
is,
you
know,
we're
making
we're
making
do
with
what
we
know
today,
but
there
are
many
unknowns
as
we
go
forward
in
this.
A
H
Largely
it's
largely
a
scheme
that
is,
is
meant
for
the
department
of
health
in
the
state
of
south
dakota
to
regulate
medical
cannabis
establishments,
but
it
leaves
to
cities
or
local
governments
a
few
areas
where
they
are
allowed
to
regulate
one.
It
allows
cities
to
regulate
the
time,
place
and
manner,
time
place
manner
and
number
of
medical
cannabis
establishments.
H
H
H
H
H
A
note
on
the
thousand
feet
thousand
feet
is
actually
mandated
by
the
law,
and
so
the
thousand
feet
from
public
public
or
private
schools
excuse
me
is
required
for
all
all
four
types
of
establishments:
the
additional
setbacks
that
we
have.
We
are
proposing
that
are
proposing.
The
ordinance,
I
should
say,
were
of
our
own
design
and
finally,
medical
cannabis
dispensaries.
H
The
proposed
zoning
districts
are
the
commercial
districts,
so
c1,
c2
and
c3
the
setbacks.
The
proposed
setbacks
under
the
ordinance
would
be
500
feet
from
residential
districts,
a
thousand
feet
from
public
or
private
schools.
300
feet
from
public
parks.
The
pool
recreational
facilities
in
the
library
500
feet
from
day
cares.
Those
would
be
commercial
day
cares.
If
I
is
that
correct
on
yep
licensed
commercial
day,
care
is
correct,
so
that
would
not
include
home
in-home,
daycares
and
300
feet
from
religious
institutions.
H
Then
the
proposed
limit
under
the
the
ordinance
is
three
and
then
we
have
some
additional
slides
with
some
information
on
kind
of
related
to
the
discussion
regarding
lot
sizes
in
the
industrial
zones
and
I'll,
just
maybe
just
pause
here
and
let
the
discussion
kind
of
start
from
there.
And
then
we
can
get
into
the
setback
discussion
in
the
the
zoning
discussion.
If
councilman
buehler
had
some
additional
questions
on
that.
J
You
bet
mike
lawrence,
we've
represented
myself,
I'm
a
businessman
here
in
watertown.
I
appreciate
you
guys
taking
the
time
I
sat
through
most
of
the
work
session
and
the
boat
had
a
little
bit
of
a
emergency,
so
I
had
to
had
to
scoot
out
quick,
but
I'm
just
kind
of
wanted
to
get
into
why.
I
think
it
should
be
a
free
market
thing.
I
I've
been
investing
in
these
companies
online
for
quite
some
time,
medical
cannabis
and
then
recreational.
J
J
J
One
thing
you
you
do:
okay,
let's
say
we
tomorrow
we
open
this
up.
We
get
three
licenses.
Somebody
comes
in
with
a
new
product
that
is
medically
advanced
compared
to
the
product
that
we
have
in
our
current
marketplace,
but
we're
there's
no
way
for
them
to
enter
our
market.
There's
three
there's
three
spots:
we
haven't
grown
in
sales.
We
haven't
grown
in
size
of
the
community.
J
How
do
we
let?
How
do
we
go
back
to
the
other
three
and
say
well
we're
going
to
let
this
guy
in
because
he
has
a
better
product
than
you,
we're
controlling
that
and
and
that's
what
happens
a
lot
of
times
when
you
control
business,
like
that,
I
think
it,
the
transfer
of
ownership
percentage
yeah,
you
can't
sell
a
license,
but
every
every
year
you
can
do
25
well,
there's
ways
and
people
will
do
this.
We've
learned
this
with
the
liquor
licenses.
If
there's
a
loophole,
they
will
find
it.
J
J
J
Now
we're
encouraging
these
people
to
get
in
their
car
and
drive
out
there
to
get
their
product
dan
dan
brought
up
the
other
day
that
you
know
does,
if
there's
only
three
does
that
have
give
them
any
less
chance
of
not
being
able
to
get
their
medicine
no.
But
if
this
was
a
pharmaceutical
drug
which,
as
a
voter,
69
percent
of
the
people,
wanted
medical
marijuana,
we're
not
limits
limiting
pharmacies.
J
If
merck
wanted
to
come
in
here
and
open
a
dispen
or
open
a
a
pharmaceutical
company
here
that
was
going
to
add
jobs
to
our
our
community,
we'd
be
offering
them
a
tif.
You
the
fact
that
it's
medical
marijuana
versus
oxycodone,
that's
the
difference.
There
I
mean
and
and
one's
worse
than
the
other.
I
don't
know
you
you
that
that's
for
you
to
decide,
but
if,
if
there
was
a
70
million
dollar,
medic
or
pharmaceutical
company
that
wanted
to
open
something
here,
we'd
be
we'd,
be
welcoming
him
with
open
arms.
J
I
just
want
to
check
and
make
sure
I
didn't
leave
anything
out
planning
and
zoning.
I
mean
we
have
a.
We
have
the
plan
commission
I've
numerous
times
heard
heard
you
guys
say
these
people
are
important.
They
made
this
decision,
they
came
up
with
it.
They
took
the
time
they
took
the
energy
to
go
through
this.
I
I
think
that
you
know
we
do
have
to
look
at
what
they
come
came
up
with
too.
Otherwise
that
board,
you
know,
doesn't
hold
a
lot
of
water.
I
appreciate
what
they
do.
J
J
I
think
we'd
much
rather
have
those
people
be
accounted
for
and
have
have
know
what's
going
on
with
them,
rather
than
pushing
them
to
a
market
to
try
to
buy
something
I
mean,
because
if
they
buy
it
from
joe
schmoe
on
the
corner
and
they
have
a
medical
card,
how
does
the
police
department
know
that
they
bought
that
from
joe
schmoe
when
they
pull
him
over
or
give
them
a
ticket?
You
know
so
I'd
rather
have
that
come
from
somewhere.
J
Where
you
know
it's
tested
it's
safer
than
some
joe
schmo
on
the
corner
that
might
have
it
laced
with
fentanyl.
So
I
mean
those
are
just
some
of
the
things
that
I
I
want
you
guys
to
take
into
consideration.
I
know
you
guys
have
thought
about
this.
A
lot
I've
heard
mike's
questions,
they're,
good
questions,
just
just
my
thoughts
on
the
thing.
A
Thank
you
is
there
any
further
testimony
any
further
testimony
seeing
none?
The
chair
will
close
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
agenda
item
in
order
for
the
council
to
take
up
consideration.
We
need
an
actual
motion,
but
before
we
take
up
a
motion
I
would
like
to
with
the
city
attorney's
back.
Our
support
run
through
three
amendments
that
we
considered
at
length
at
the
work
session
amendment
one
in
summary:
amendment
one
increases
the
license
fee
to
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
for
both
the
initial
license
and
renewals.
A
A
So
the
chair
will
entertain
emotion
if
whoever
wants
to
make
the
motion
wants
to
add
an
amendment.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
attorney
roby,
but
they
can
make
the
motion
with
one
of
the
amendments
considered,
because
I
I
consider
it
that
we
have
already
vetted
these
out
at
length
in
the
work
session.
I
would.
C
H
A
H
So
if
any
of
the
changes,
the
proposed
changes
that
were
discussed
at
the
work
session
were
adopted,
they
would
not
relate
to
the
zoning
portion
of
what
we're
considering
they
would
either
be
licensing
or
well
they'd.
Both
be
licensing
either
increasing
the
number
of
licenses
or
changing
the
license
fee,
and
so
this
public
hearing
would
suffice
for,
for
the
zoning
related
purposes
of
the
ordinance.
G
A
Okay,
so
we
will
treat
that
thank
you
for
catching
that.
So
in
section
on
amendment
two
section
b,
one
line
one,
the
city-
will
reimburse
twenty
two
thousand
five
500,
that's
how
it
will
read
if
someone
makes
a
motion
with
that
amendment,
okay,
so
we
don't
need
to
correct
that
with
this
said,
the
council
needs
to
actually
take
up
the
motion
before
we
can
consider
it.
That
does
not
mean
if
you
make
the
motion
or
second,
it
does
not
mean
that
you
support
it
or
have
to
vote
for
it.
A
I
A
A
motion
is
made
to
approve
ordinance
21-34
with
amendments
one
and
three
made
by
councilman
paulson
seconded
by
councilman
buehler.
With
that
said,
we
have
a
motion
and
we'll
now
open
it
up
for
council
deliberation
council
questions
councilman
paulson,
since
you
made
the
motion,
it
is
appropriate
for
you
to
make
the
opening
remarks.
Thank
you.
I
Mayor,
I
think
my
remarks
during
the
work
session
still
hold
true,
I
believe,
in
free
market.
I've
done
a
lot
of
research
on
this.
I
do
feel
that
going
no
limit
is
appropriate,
taking
into
account
the
plant
commission
response
and
listening
to
the
public.
Testimony
confirms
that
thought
for
me,
but
I've
also
confirmed
with
the
city
of
sioux
falls,
which
their
meeting
is
also
tonight
that
they
are
voting
on,
so
it's
not
official
until
they
do
vote
on
it,
but
it's
they're.
I
Looking
at
a
fifty
thousand
dollar
initial
fee,
twenty
five
thousand
dollar
renewal-
and
I
confirm
that
today
they
will
have
a
limit.
However,
there
are
a
few
communities
without
limits
and,
like
I
said,
I've
just
done
a
lot
of
research.
I
I
feel,
like
I
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
these
amendments.
I
L
L
For
one
thing,
the
state
has
not
did
a
very
good
job
of
informing
the
doctors,
and
you
know
what
who
can
even
write
a
prescription
or
or
what
or
what
the
reasoning
is
going
to
be,
or
what
illnesses
or
whatever,
but
with
all
eight
of
these
individuals
there's
not
a
single
one
of
them.
That
said,
they
would
write
a
prescription
other
than
for
two
of
them
and
one
is
a
hospice
director
at
the
hospital
said
he
would
write
it
for
end
of
life
situation
or
possibly
a
young
child
that
suffers
from
seizures.
L
You
know,
eight
doctors
in
town
all
just
said
the
same
thing,
so
we're
looking
at
open
it
up
to
the
public
and
just
having
an
unlimited
supply
of
licenses
just
doesn't
make
any
sense
if
there
is
no
real
reason
to
have
it.
I
mean
the
doctors
are
the
ones
that
are
going
to
write
the
prescriptions,
and
I
know
there's
going
to
be
some
black
market
doctors
out
there
you're
going
to
be
able
to
call,
and
unfortunately
the
state
of
south
dakota
is
going
to
allow
out-of-state
licenses.
L
G
A
A
A
F
F
A
G
My
thinking
on
this
is
to
support
the
restriction
to
the
three
I
mean.
Personally,
we
could
go
four,
I
don't
care,
I
think,
going
unlimited
in
my
opinion,
to
start
off
with,
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
it
would
be
problematic
if
we
found
out
you
know
a
year
down
the
road
that
things
have
went
well,
they
went
to
where
we
we
have
an
understanding
of
how
they're
going
to
operate,
how
well
they're
operating.
G
I
don't
have
any
problem
opening
that
up,
but
if
we,
if
we
let
all
the
cows
out
first
it's
hard
to
get
them
back
in
and
that
that's
where
my
concern
is,
is
let's,
let's
walk
here.
First,
let's
make
sure
that
we
understand
how
what
the
impact
is
going
to
be
to
us
understand
our
costs
and
the
risks
to
the
public.
That's
part
of
our
responsibility
is
risked
to
the
to
the
public.
G
You
know
bruce,
I
you
know.
I
honestly
believe,
because
that's
the
one
question
I
do
have
is
within
our
amendment.
Are
we
going
to
be
defining
the
method
of
selection,
because
that
really
only
pertains
this
first
time
round?
After
that?
It's
first
come
first
served:
should
the
method
of
selection
be
a
part
or
is
that
a
whole
separate
issue.
H
A
lot
of
the
communities
are
keeping
that
selection
process
in-house
and
so,
for
example,
I
just
anecdotally,
I
know
brandon
is
they
have
a
process
where
they're
gonna
take
sealed
proposals
and
then
they're
going
to
draw
out
of
a
hat
and
they're
going
to
open
up
the
proposals
one
by
one
and
if
the
one
that's
drawn
first
meets
all
the
requirements
they
get
a
license.
If
not,
it
just
goes
down
the
line.
I
think
they
set
their
cap
at
10
or
something
like
that.
H
So
what
we're
doing
here
so
what
the
state
has
done
in
their
proposed
rules
is
essentially
offered
us
a
way
to
outsource
that
process.
So
we
can
pick
a
number
and
if
we
don't
have
a
selection
process
locally,
the
state
will
have
a
selection
process.
So
they'll
ask
us
and
they'll
say:
okay:
we've
received
six
applications
for
the
city
of
watertown.
Do
you
have
a
limit
and
if
the
council
approves
a
limit,
we
would
say?
H
Yes,
the
limit
is
x
and
they
would
say:
okay,
so
then
they'll
go
through
this
process
and
assuming
all
else
being
equal
and
they
get
to
the
end
and
they're
all
tied
they'll
have
a
random
drawing
and
the
the
whatever
the
number
is.
If
that's
the
number
of
names
they'll
draw
out
of
the
hat
and
those
those
folks
will
get
the
license.
A
B
H
M
Think
that
it's
a
combination,
as
you
can
see
at
the
bottom
of
the
slide-
you'll
see
aardmar,
oklahoma
and
durant
oklahoma,
and
I
believe
they
do
not
have
limitations
and
they
are
a
medical
only
state.
I
understand
and
you
can
see
that
they
have
very
high
per
capita
numbers,
whereas
some
of
the
other
ones
fort
collins
does
have
some
strict
limitations
there,
and
you
can
see
that
there's
is
a
bit
more
conservative.
A
C
Have
really
consumed
me
have
really
struggled
with
this
being
a
business
person.
I
understand
the
the
importance
of
letting
the
free
market
system
work,
but
I
also
share
some
of
the
shame.
Concerns
same
concerns
that
councilman
danforth
has
that
we
open
it
up
from
the
get
go,
we'll
never
be
able
to
pull
the
reins
back
on
this.
If
we
start
a
little
bit
slower,
we
can
always
loosen
that.
C
I
had
a
conversation
last
week
at
our
meeting
at
our
work
session.
We
heard
from
our
chief
of
police
to
me
about
you,
know
social
costs,
potentially
you're,
very
diplomatic
chief.
If
I
am
correct
reading
you
correctly
as
far
as
taking
a
stance
as
far
as
what
you
feel
as
far
as
limitations,
but
I
had
a
conversation
last
thursday
with
the
captain
of
the
rapid
city
police
department.
C
We
happened
to
serve
on
the
same
board
together
and
just
asked
him
what
they're
doing,
and
he
he
there's
no
bones
about
it
from
his
perspective.
They
are
very
concerned
about
it
when
this
go
as
it's
going
into
effect
out
in
their
area,
and
I
said
okay,
what
are
you
doing
as
far
as
limit
limiting
the
dispensaries?
He
says
the
council
out.
There
is
going
with
one
per
5
000
residents,
which
we
equate
to.
C
We
said
15
dispensaries
out
there
at
this
point,
but
again
he
was
very
concerned
about
what
this
is
going
to
mean
to
their
community
out
there.
Three
to
me,
maybe
a
little
bit
restrictive.
I
am
not
in
favor
of
going
unlimited
on
this.
I
would
like
to
propose
a
substitute
motion.
Can
I
can
I
do
that
at
this
point.
A
So,
just
to
clarify
the
motion
would
be
to
change
amendment
three,
which
is
removing
the
cap
and
instead,
basically
limiting
the
number
of
dispensaries
to
six
that
correct,
councilman,
vilhauer,
correct
mayor
with
that
said,
I
do
need
a
second
for
the
substitute
motion.
Is
there
a
second
on
the
substitute
motion.
I
A
Second,
it
it
was
moved
by
councilman
vilhauer
seconded
by
councilman
paulson.
Is
this
debatable
substitute
motion?
I
believe
it
is
so
right
now
we
are
only
going
to
discuss
the
substitute
motion
before
we
vote
on
it.
That
is
the
basically,
it
is
the
number
of
six
dispensaries.
That
is
the
only
topic
we
are
talking
about
right
now.
Are
there
any
comments?
Councilman
vilhauer,
you
made
the
motion
no.
G
I
personally
don't
like
the
state
doing
it.
I
just
soon
do
it
ourselves.
I
think
what
you,
what
you
stated
that
brandon's
doing
is
a
fair
way
of
doing
it.
You
know
we
we
can
set
the
rules
here.
You
know
if,
if
somebody
qualifies
and
they
have
submitted-
and
we
can
say
we're
going
to
give
their
money
back
if
we
want
to
so
that
there
there
isn't
that
damage.
H
I
think
I
guess
sorry,
I
didn't
directly
answer
it,
but
it
could
it
so
what
we,
what
we've
proposed
it
does
not
include
a
method
of
selection,
because
the
state
has
a
method
of
selection
that
they
would
perform
on
behalf
of
the
city
or
they
would
perform.
If
we
have
a
cap,
if
we
wanted
a
different
method
of
selection
it
it
would
require
us
to
add
that
into
our
ordinance,
which
would
probably
push
us
out
some
time
now,
because
we
don't
have
that
proposed
at
this.
H
H
H
Mayor
it
comes
the
process.
Somebody
would
come
to
the
city
first,
because
the
state
is
not
going
to
approve
a
license
until
they
know
that
the
city
has
done
all
their
due
diligence.
So
they'll
come
to
the
city.
First
they'll
identify
the
location
where
they
intend
to
operate,
we'll
certify
that
that
location
meets
the
zoning
requirements,
we'll
collect
their
their
fee,
we'll
issue
them
a
license
and
a
permit.
H
Basically,
I
guess
I
I
kind
of
envision
it
being
almost
a
contingent
building
permit,
because
the
state's
going
to
want
to
know
that
they're
ready
to
go
if
the
state
says
go,
and
so
once
that's
all
been
done.
They'll
go
to
the
state
and
they'll
say:
okay,
the
city
has
checked
off
all
the
boxes.
Now,
I'd
like
to
apply
for
a
permit
with
the
state
and
the
state
has
a
more
in-depth
process.
H
They're
going
to
do
a
thorough
background
check
of
all
the
owners
and
board
members
and
significant
employees
of
the
company
they're,
going
to
ensure
that
the
business
plan
makes
sense
they're
actually
going
to
make
the
applicants
identify
their
suppliers,
identify
how
they're
going
to
price
products
they're
going
to
do
a
thorough
check
of
their
business
plan
which
we're
not
doing
locally
and
then
assuming
that
they
meet
the
requirements
of
the
state.
Then
they'll
issue
a
state
permit.
I
So,
if
we're
talking
about
constantly
protecting
the
people
of
this
community,
I
don't
get
why
one
is
protecting
them
and
one's,
not
because
it's
not
it's
we're
not
here
as
stewards
of
someone
else's
money,
we're
here
to
protect
the
interest
of
our
community,
and
I
don't
think
that
I'm
just
strongly
against
this-
I
I
I
I
could
ramble
on
and
on,
but
it
just.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
why
we
would
restrict
business
and
and
going
to
the
doctor's
points.
That's
eight
doctors.
What,
if
one
does
what?
I
L
Just
a
question
for
councilman
paulson
here
when
you,
when
you
just
made
the
comment
that
these
people
are
going
to
invest
a
lot
of
money
into
an
establishment
and
they
might
not
get
a
license.
I
think
most
strong
business
people
are
going
to
have
something
contingent
upon
a
location
that
they
receive
a
license
before
they
go.
Investing
a
lot
of
money.
I
I
don't
disagree.
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
smart
business
plan,
but
I
think
at
the
same
time
you
have
to
have
everything
lined
up
ready
to
go
if
you're
going
to
submit
a
license
because
they
have
to
meet
our
qualifications,
so
they
have
to
meet
all
the
zoning
requirements
before
they
go
to
the
state.
So
they
have
to
have
everything
in
line
and
they're
going
gonna,
they're,
gonna,
start
sourcing,
they're
gonna
start
buying
equipment.
I
I
mean
all
of
that
has
to
happen
before
you're,
even
talking
about
getting
a
license,
because
if
you're
not
at
that
point,
you
can't
meet
zoning
requirements
and
not
everything
can
be
contingent
upon
a
license.
So
that's
why
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
investment,
that's
going
to
go
down
the
drain.
If
we
start
doing
restrictions
and
random
draws.
L
You
know
it's
no
different
than
buying
a
bar
or
a
bill
in
a
bar.
If
you
know
if
you're
gonna
stick
a
bunch
of
money
into
a
bar
before
you
don't
have
a
license
that,
wouldn't
that's
not
a
good
business
plan.
You
know-
and
I
got
to
go
back
to
one
thing-
that
that
really
set
originally
set
our
our
limit
at
three
and
that's
the
gentleman
sitting
back
there
in
blue.
L
A
G
G
G
H
Yes,
that's
correct,
so
you
know
it
could
take
to
take
that
a
little
further.
If
you
identified
a
location
that
you
didn't,
do
your
due
diligence
to
either
secure
by
an
option
or-
or
you
know,
a
lease
a
contingent
lease
or
something
like
that,
and
then
you
didn't
have
that
location
available.
Your
license
is
essentially
void
by
our
rules
and
the
state's
rules
you're
going
to
be
licensed
to
operate
the
location
you
indicate
and
if
you
for
some
reason,
aren't
able
to
secure
that
location
after
you've
indicated
you're
going
to
operate
there.
H
G
But
I
mean
there's
gonna
be
some
cost,
but
it's
not
like
it's
gonna
be
an
exorbitant
amount
of
money.
I
mean
if
the
other
thing
is
is-
and
I
do
wanna
if
we
later
do
increase
this
number.
Let's
say
we're
at
three
today:
go
to
six
or
we
go
to
unlimited
later,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
dilutes,
the
first
three
or
six
dispensaries
licensing,
because
the
fees
are
set.
G
N
You
know
in
observing
the
discussion
from
last
week's
work
session
to
tonight's
discussion.
It
is
obvious,
there's
unknowns,
there's,
there's
challenges
we're
working
through
and
with
the
number
of
dispensaries
that
we're
talking
on
that
motion
right.
Currently,
the
number
six
would
put
it
at
roughly
at
one
for
every
three
to
four
thousand
people
in
the
in
the
city
of
watertown.
N
One
of
the
things
that
congressman
danforth
had
mentioned
in
last
week's
work
session
was
walk
before
you
run
and
just
wondering
if
six
even
is
really
walking
before
we
run
beings
that
that's
one
for
every
three
or
four
thousand,
which
I
guess
in
my
opinion,
that's
that's.
That's
kind
of
moving
a
little
bit
more
forward
headstrong
in
it,
and
I
mentioned
last
week
too,
by
just
having
a
foundation,
we
can
start
with
and
build
on,
and
so
I
that's
why.
N
H
H
Is
it
fair
that
that
new
owner
should
now
get
that
third
license
instead
of
the
person
who
was
in
fourth
place
on
the
random
drawing
two
years
before?
And
so,
if
there
ends
up
being
a
cap,
we'll
have
to
think
through
that
down
the
road.
And
I
think
that
that's
maybe
a
good
segue
into
the
fact
that,
because
of
all
the
potential
changes
that
are
coming
forward,
we're
likely
going
to
have
to
revisit
this
ordinance
two
to
three
times
and
make
changes
in
response
to
the
legislative
changes
over
the
next
year
or
two.
So.
I
A
A
As
you
can
tell
from
the
conversation
up
here
tonight
and
the
questions
there
are
still
a
lot
of
unknowns
and
crafting
laws
can
be
very
tricky
because
we're
basically
making
rules
that
apply
to
everyone
and
not
everyone,
gets
it
right
the
first
time
and
I
don't
think
that
the
state
or
the
city
is
going
to
get
it
all
completely
right.
The
first
time,
because
there's
still
a
lot
of
moving
parts,
we
don't
know
we're
just
doing
the
best
that
we
can.
A
If
someone
does
not
vote
the
way
that
you
would
like
them
to
vote,
it's
probably
not
indicative
of
what
you
think
so,
don't
read
anything
more
into
that
than
other
than
other
than
we
are
trying
to
craft
the
best
laws
that
we
can
under
the
information
and
situation
that
we
are
living
in.
So
with
that
said,
the
chair
will
call
a
roll
call
vote
on.
The
substitute
motion
to
this
is
the
substitute
to
basically
substitute
the
original
motion
which
is
changing.
A
A
B
A
We
are
back
to
discussion
upon
the
original
motion,
which
was
passage
of
city
ordinance,
21-34
with
amendments
one
and
three
any
further
conversation
on
that.
Just
keep
in
mind.
If
someone
would
like
to
cap
the
number
of
dispensaries
at
at
3,
which
was
the
original,
you
would
also
have
to
make
a
substitute
motion
at
this
time.
I
would
make
that
motion.
K
K
A
With
amendment
1,
which
is
25
000
for
the
initial
and
renewals,
and
no
limit
on
dispensaries,
that's
the
original
motion,
and
actually
that's
probably
a
good
idea,
because
if
this
passes
then
we're
done
with
that
for
tonight.
But
so,
but
if
you
want
the
number
of
dispensaries
capped,
you
need
to
vote
against
this
motion
and
then
we
will
make
a
substitute
motion
just
to
make
it
very
clear
to
everyone.
If
you
want
there's
there's
been
no
comments
upon
amendment
one,
so
I
think
that's
probably
good.
A
K
A
C
C
A
That
motion
fails.
The
chair
will
now
entertain
another
motion,
for
I
would
suggest
a
motion
for
passage
of
city
ordinance
21-34
with
amendment
1..
Actually
I
don't
even
want
to.
I
don't
even
want
to
presume,
but
that
would
be
the
motion
that
I
would
see
because
amendment
one
did
not
get
much
consideration
in
the
initial
debate.
So
I
I'm
guessing.
The
council
is
roughly
in
favor
of
that
one.
So
that
would
be
the
motion
I
would
recommend,
but
I
am
open
to
anything
that
a
councilman
would
like
to
make,
but
I
do
need
a
motion.
A
We
are
under
consideration
for
passage
of
city
ordinance,
21-34
with
a
25
000
initial
licensure
licensure
fee
and
an
annual
renewal
fee
set
at
that
price
as
well
with
a
cap
of
three.
That
is
what
we
are
debating
right
now.
I
know
that
we've
already
discussed
the
cap
number
and
what
we
all
believe
to
that.
So,
unless
there's
new
information
regarding
the
cap,
I
would
say
focus
upon
the
actual
motion
or
something
something
else
councilman
paulson.
Thank
you.
I
If
we
are
going
to
cap
this,
I
disagree
with
the
25
000..
I
think
that
that
25
000,
based
on
our
discussions,
was
to
help
restrict
an
unlimited
number,
and
I
get
that
we
also
had
our
police
officers
tell
us
that
it
was
going
to
cost
us
more.
So
I
don't
think
we
should
go
to
five,
but
I
think
that,
if
we're
already
restricting
it,
I
don't
think
we
should
go
to
25..
G
G
A
J
C
H
M
M
M
It
ranges
from
12
000
square
feet
up
to
286
000
square
feet
in
size.
Remember
denver
is
quite
a
bit
larger
and
a
lot
more
dense
in
terms
of
basically
what
you'd
find
there
for
development,
but
basically
on
an
average
of
10.
The
lot
size
averaged
to
be
81
thousand
square
feet.
So
I
find
that
with
the
question
that
we
had
previously
from
councilman
buehler,
that
the
i1
district
with
our
30
000
square
foot
lot
size
limit
would
work
well
for
the
cultivation
facilities.
M
M
Okay,
33
000
square
feet
basically
was
for
the
manufacturing
facility
lot
sizes
again,
there's
four
of
them
or
five
of
them
rather,
and
they
range
from
fifteen
thousand
up
to
forty
five
thousand.
So
again,
I
think
that
the
i1
district
at
our
30
000
square
foot
minimum
does
also
accommodate
these
as
well
the
i2
district.
If
somebody
wanted
to
own
their
own
lot,
there
would
be
a
way
to
do
that
through
a
condominium
plot,
but
currently
right
now
we
have
that
five
acre
minimum
in
the
i2.
M
So
if
we
want
to
go
too
quickly
to
the
testing
facilities,
these
were
the
smallest
ones,
and
then
I
looked
at
five
of
them
and
they
range
in
size
from
six
thousand
up
to
twenty
three
thousand.
Sixteen
thousand
square
foot
minimum
still
still
could
potentially
work.
Okay,
with
the
thirty
000
square
foot
minimum
that
we
have
on
the
i1,
but
the
i2
with
the
5
acres
is
quite
large
for
a
testing
site
facility
site,
so
that
actually
led
me
onto
something
else.
M
I
do
believe
that
there's
another
slide
in
here
so
then
I
got
to
thinking
well.
Gosh
are
minimums
a
little
bit
larger
than
other
communities,
and
so
what
I
found
was
definitely
they
are
larger
than
other
communities,
so
just
wanted
to
show
you
guys
this
council
members
this
evening
just
for
comparison's
sake
that
our
five
acre
minimum
is
is
very,
very
large
in
terms
of
what's
out
there.
The
largest
I
found
within
our
state
is
a
one
acre
minimum
for
a
lot
size.