My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2023_0424
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2023
>
CC_Minutes_2023_0424
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2023 4:15:02 PM
Creation date
5/23/2023 4:14:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/24/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,April 24, 2023 <br /> Page 13 <br /> City Attorney Tierney reviewed the State role regarding Statute 146a in regard to <br /> City regulations, indicating her belief that City regulations as they exist and are <br /> proposed do not conflict with the provisions of chapter 146A. <br /> Mayor Roe explained it was brought up about a possible violation with the First <br /> Amendment. He explained he presumed that if massage is not being offered for <br /> sale under the First Amendment, that probably does not require a license anyway <br /> because the City is regulating a commercial activity. But in the other sense, he <br /> wondered if there was concern here with respect to First Amendment type massage. <br /> City Attorney Tierney explained it is hard for her to answer such a general question. <br /> She stated that even under the First Amendment, when talking about expressive <br /> activity and City regulation, it starts at the beginning, which is what expression it <br /> is and what is the context of that restriction. She explained it needed to be found <br /> out whether this would be some sort of a time,place, and matter restriction because <br /> she was pretty sure massages do not take place in a traditional public forum. To the <br /> extent that they did take place in a traditional public forum, under where the venue <br /> is, the City could still regulate with sufficient reasons. But, she did not think the <br /> City is regulating the forum. Rather, she thought the City was regulating in its <br /> police power, as a health regulation and in general, First Amendment activities are <br /> not implicated. That said, provided that the City did not enforce, intentionally, a <br /> regulation to limit speech, she thought the City would be okay, noting that will be <br /> something that needs to come to them and to be looked at for the particular situation. <br /> She explained that such a general statement is hard to speak to directly. <br /> Mayor Roe believed that while the Fourth Amendment protects unreasonable <br /> search and seizure, as a part of the City's policing powers for health and safety, the <br /> exchange with the people who get the licenses is that licensees can be required to <br /> provide that information as a condition of the license. <br /> City Attorney Tierney confirmed that was correct and the reason is to make sure <br /> that the individual who engaged in the license activity at that moment was the <br /> individual who is on the license. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated the Council could decide if they want to add requirements <br /> that might be in other cities, licensing setups, and that can be done as part of this or <br /> at another time. <br /> Councilmember Strahan explained her understanding was the City already has a <br /> licensing ordinance in place and the Council was just adjusting some of the <br /> licensing requirements. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated that the City does already have a licensing scheme in place <br /> now. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.