|
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting
<br />Monday, April 2,8, 2008
<br />Page 8
<br />Attachment B
<br />1
<br />2
<br />Clarification was, sought by individual Councilm embers , and provided by staff that
<br />3
<br />the mailing list included a general geographic mailing area, as requested by the
<br />4
<br />applicant for the surrounding neighborhood, and was, not specifically addressed as
<br />5
<br />a response to those who had communicated with the City, as the letter may have
<br />6
<br />indicated in the first paragraph. Staff noted that this was, current policy to make a
<br />7
<br />mailing list available to the public, and further noted that personal information in-
<br />8
<br />cluded in the Council packet and made public had been redacted prior to distribu-
<br />tion.
<br />10
<br />11
<br />Applicant, Mark Smith, 19545 Hampshire Court, Prior Lake, MN (owner
<br />12
<br />and CEO of Cash-n-Pawn)
<br />10
<br />Mr. Smith apologized that, in the haste of he and his partner to get the letters, out
<br />14,
<br />in the mail, they made the wording generic, indicating that it was, in response to
<br />15
<br />previous, correspondence to the city regarding their application, rather than ad-
<br />1
<br />dressing; those previously addressed concerns,, and as a general information com-
<br />17
<br />munication to the entire neighborhood. Mr. Smith took full responsibility, and
<br />100
<br />asked that City staff not be blamed for his error in attempting a more intensive
<br />1
<br />broadcast of information, rather than his personally going door-to-door in the
<br />20
<br />neighborhood. Mr. Smith advised that the Frequently Asked Questions enclosure
<br />21
<br />with the letter was, an attempt to respond to previously voiced or written com-
<br />ments , and concerns,, included in previous, public agenda packets, at the Planning
<br />23
<br />Commission and/or City Council level.
<br />24,
<br />25
<br />Mr. Smith recognized the misconceptions, and past images, of pawnshops,, and of-
<br />26
<br />fered to answer specific questions, on the operation of his business. Mr. Smith
<br />27
<br />noted that going into the Planning k_�ommission meeting, there had been lots, of
<br />28
<br />opposition, but after due diligence and dialogue, views, had changed. Mr. Smith
<br />29
<br />spoke to his support at the legislature of the State's, Automatic Pawn System
<br />30
<br />(AP, and spoke in support of other state and city regulatory requirements,.
<br />31
<br />32
<br />Mr. Smith reviewed the pawn proces,s, and identification required of the seller and
<br />33
<br />merchandise; regulatory compliance with law enforcement agencies, and require-
<br />34,
<br />ments; statistical information that les,s, then one percent of the applicant's, bus,ines,s,
<br />35
<br />involved the Police Department; misconceptions, that pawnshops, traffic stolen
<br />36
<br />material; typical clients, using pawnshops,- and the majority of the bus,ines,s, (60%)
<br />37
<br />in the retail market. Mr. Smith advised that every transaction was, entered in the
<br />38
<br />AP, system with that information submitted on a daily basis, to the National
<br />39
<br />Crime Information Center (NCIC . Mr. Smith noted that any stolen merchandise
<br />4,0
<br />required him to take a financial loss, thus, providing additional incentive for him
<br />41
<br />to operate with integrity. Mr. Smith further reviewed the state and city regula-
<br />4,2
<br />tions, under which he operated, in addition to the $10,000 annual license fee, and
<br />4,3
<br />per transaction fee, with any noncompliance making; his license subject to revoca-
<br />44
<br />tion.
<br />4,5
<br />
|