|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPECIAL ASSEMBLY Human resources Committee
THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA
July 31, 2014 4:45 PM
Municipal Building - Assembly Chambers
Work Session - No Public Testimony Taken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chair Jesse Kiehl called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
Committee members present: Jesse Kiehl, Kate Troll, Jerry Nankervis and Loren Jones
Other Assemblymembers present: Mayor Merrill Sanford, Karen Crane, Randy Wanamaker
Absent: None.
Staff present: Deputy Clerk Beth McEwen, City Attorney Amy Mead, City Manager Kim Kiefer, Deputy Manager Rob Steedle, JPD Chief Bryce Johnson, Lt. Kris Sell, Sgt. Krag Campbell |
| | | | | | | | | | | Ms. McEwen noted two letters received from Mr. Hammons earlier in the day via email that were distributed to the members. |
| | | | | | | | | | | A. | July 17, 2014 Special HRC Meeting Draft Minutes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | There being no objection, the minutes of the July 17, 2014 Special Human Resources Committee Meeting were approved as presented. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 1. | Ordinance 2014-08(b) An Ordinance Amending Title 20 of the City and Borough Code to Provide for the Regulation of Secondhand Dealers and Providing for a Penalty. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Mr. Kiehl noted that the ordinance before the committee to review is version (b) which was presented at the July 17, 2014 meeting.
Mr. Nankervis asked that section 20.05.070 Employees found on page 5 be struck from the ordinance. Discussion took place regarding the reasons for the proposed deletion and Mr. Nankervis felt that it should be up to the business owners to make those decisions. The committee discussed the line between misdemeanors and felonies. Mr. Nankervis explained that he considers laws in two veins - those pertaining to safety of individuals vs. "stuff." Since this ordinance pertains to "stuff" it doesn't rise to the same level as the ordinances pertaining to the safety of individuals and there is a $1 difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. Ms. Troll asked Mr. Nankervis if he would be willing to change the language from dishonesty to endangerment of persons. Mr. Kiehl said he doesn't think that since the purpose of this language was to prevent fraudsters from keeping the logs of materials that are brought into second hand stores he did not think that standard would apply in this ordinance.
There being no objection to Mr. Nankervis' proposal, the committee approved striking the language found in the section titled "20.05.070 Employees."
Discussion took place regarding whether this ordinance would apply to anyone placing ads on Craig's List, the radio "Action Line," eBay, or other similar venues. Ms. Troll noted that the difference with Craig's List or eBay is that the police could go online and see if particular items are listed for sale. Mr. Kiehl noted that if someone has an online store with Craig's List or eBay, they would be required to obtain a business license and would be subject to the second hand store ordinance. Ms. Mead explained that the ordinance applies to any business that sells pursuant to a business license, obtained through the state. She also explained that the ordinance is not going to be perfect as it cannot account for all possible scenarios but version (b) does apply to those businesses who have a business license issued by the state or are representing themselves as a second hand dealer, whether or not they have a business license, and are selling items in those categories listed in the ordinance.
She referred to the exemptions under 20.05.110 in the ordinance which states in part:
"This chapter does not apply to: ...
...(c) casual or isolated transactions made by any person offering his or her own personal property for sale, purchase or consignment or that are not made;
(1) Pursuant to a business license; or
(2) By secondhand dealers representing themselves to be in the business of buying, selling, trading, exchanging, consigning or otherwise dealing in secondhand goods or articles."
Mr. Nankervis noted that at the last HRC meeting, they were given copies of AS 08.76.010 and the last item, number 6, requiring the signature of the customer was not included in the ordinance and he asked if that was an intentional ommission or if it was accidently left out. Sgt. Campbell said he thought it was accidently left out. Additional discussion took place about possibly adding that language into the ordinance. Ms. Mead explained that she thought it was left out of the original ordinance draft because the main intent by JPD was to receive an electronic copy of the transactions that were occuring so there was no place for the signature to occur within that electronic transaction unless they wished to include the log book similar to what the pawnbrokers have. She explained that per the demonstration by Lt. Sell at the last HRC meeting, the electronic filing system transfering the point of sale data to JPD did not have a place for a customer's signature to be included. She said the ordinance fills in the gaps between what the state statutes require for secondhand dealers and what they require for pawnbrokers which is the electronic recordkeeping piece. She said she did not see a reason to require the log book and the signature specifically in our ordinance if it is already required by state statute. In light of the discussion the committee decided not to make any changes that portion of the draft ordinance.
Mr. Nankervis said he is not in favor of the police hold order in the draft ordinance. He said that is a personal feeling of his and he feels that the police should have to get a search warrant to seize the item. Lt. Kris Sell explained the reason they requested the police hold order language included in the ordinance was to allow time to enable the police to identify an item, have the victim come to the location and verify if in fact it is the item they have reported missing and then have the time to obtain a search warrant if in fact it is justified. It gives them the time to fill the gap between reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the warrant. Mr. Nankervis said he thinks it lowers the bar and should not be in the ordinance.
MOTION by Mr. Nankervis to remove the sections on the police hold order, the evidentiary hold and the associated sections on the hold orders removed from the ordinance. Ms. Troll said she would object to those changes. A roll call vote was taken.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Nankervis
Nays: Troll, Jones, Kiehl
Motion failed; 1 Aye, 3 Nays.
Mr. Nankervis asked about the electronic reporting required on page 3, line 6, and asked if all businesses that are affected by this ordinance would be required to do an electronic report and would not have an option to do a handwritten report. Lt. Sell said that it is the LEADSonline program and everyone would be required to submit an electronic report.
Mr. Kiehl said he received a question from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) whether this would apply to a licensee performing a reference check for a transaction that is happening by mail. One example is a customer purchases a firearm from someone in another state, that handgun is shipped to the Juneau licensee who charges a fee to provide the criminal check before the transaction is completed and the firearm is then given to the Juneau-based buyer. He asked if that transaction would be subject to this ordinance as it is written. Ms. Mead said that it would not.
Mr. Kiehl said in the letter they received, one of the concerns that he wished to raise with the committee had to do with the sale of precious metals, especially gold by someone who mines it themselves. He had two questions for the City Attorney pertaining to this. There are currently two producers of precious metals on an industrial scale here in Juneau. He asked that when they sell their ore concentrates, are they subject to the ordinance as currently written. Ms. Mead said it depends on who they are selling it to and what that person is in business for. If they are a secondhand dealer as defined by the ordinance, yes; if not, no the ordinance does not apply.
Mr. Kiehl said his second question has to do with recreational gold panners/prospectors who come into a Juneau based business that deals in secondhand items and asked how the ordinance currently treats that type of situation. Ms. Mead said the ordinance discusses the sale of used items and while it would not fall under the category of "used" items, if you look only at the definition of "precious metals," it does not exempt those pure unadulterated forms of the precious metals. She said that while the rest of the ordinance doesn't apply to those scenarios, the definition of precious metals could be changed to provide additional clarity.
Ms. Mead suggested the following change to the definition language: Precious metals means any metal that is valued for its characther, rarity, beauty or quality, including, but not limited to, gold, silver, platinum, or any other such metals, whether as a seperate item or in combination as a piece of jewelry, except for precious metals in an unadulterated raw form obtained through casual, isolated efforts. Mr. Kiehl said he would like to see some reference to unrefined ore concentrate which is what our two local mines ship out. Additional discussion took place regarding the definition language and whether it needed changing so that it did not apply to the unrefined ore concentrates being sold by Kensington or Green's Creek.
JPD officers gave examples of cases in the past few years that dealt with stolen raw ore or gems and if secondhand stores did not have to report that, they may not be able to solve those crimes.
Mr. Kiehl had two other items to address relating to the ordinance. The first one dealt with items obtained by a secondhand dealer that are obtained at garage or estate sales off the premises of the dealer's main retail outlet and he said he believes that is covered by the state law and would be covered by this ordinance. Ms. Mead said they would be covered by the ordinance.
He said there was discussion at the last HRC meeting from public testimony about the items obtained by a secondhand dealer at no cost that were donated to that secondhand dealer. He asked if the committee wished to address this issue. Seeing none, he moved onto the next item.
He noted on page 11, in the definition of secondhand dealer, it includes dealers of "antiques" (line 4) and "watches" (line 6), neither of which is covered by version (b) of the ordinance and it does not make specific mention of "tools, firearms, and electronics" all three of which are covered by the six categories listed on page 1. He asked if the committee had any problems with those changes to the definition. There being no objection, those changes will be incorporated.
Mr. Nankervis said he had one more change on page 4 at the bottom, he said regarding the 30 day timeframe required for holding property for 30 days he is not in favor of making the secondhand businesses become storage units for 30 days. He said he understands the goal to get property back to the rightful owners but he does not like where business owners are being required to sit on these items for 30 days. He said he understands it for pawnshops because the sellers are expected to be coming back to get the items but he feels this is different. Ms. Troll asked if Mr. Nankervis would suggest a less amount of time to find the balance between what the police department needs and minimize the storage burden on secondhand dealers. Mr. Nankervis said he would prefer no waiting period. Additional discussion took place and Mr. Nankervis said since he was the only one wishing to make the change he was willing to drop it.
Mr. Kiehl said he during public testimony at the last meeting, they were asked what the definition of "secure" is. He asked if a definition was required and if so, what it might be. Ms. Mead said that she did not think a definition was needed and that the intent was that it would just not be sold, that it be kept out of the store, or not placed on the shelves. There is no reason it would have to be locked up. Ms. Mead said it would need to be kept in an area where that inventory is not sold.
Mr. Nankervis asked if this comes back to HRC with the changes discussed tonight before it goes on to the Assembly. Ms. Mead said there was actually not a version (b) ever moved forward but to make the record clear, this will move forward as a version (c) so there is no confusion. Ms. Troll said since there were not a lot of amendments, she would be confortable moving this to the Assembly for their consideration.
MOTION by Ms. Troll to recommend version (c) of the ordinance with the changes made at this meeting to the full Assembly for adoption. Hearing no objection, the motion carried. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | There being no other business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:27p.m.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2014.
Beth McEwen,
Deputy Clerk |
|