12-17-2025 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 2025 He stated that this ordinance adds criminal penalties that do not exist in State Statute, and the confusion that exists for a reader of the ordinance as to what they could or could not do. He stated that this ordinance incorporates definitions from State Statute that are vague and include folk practices, which are things like voodoo and other elements of that nature. He stated that the ordinance is even more vague because of the use of the language "other non-invasive practices intended to promote general wellness or stress reduction" and asked if dance instructors, wrestling coaches, or barbers would fall under that classification. He stated that the ordinance states that it will apply to others who may not consider themselves as a health or well-being provider. He provided examples of different things that would be hard to interpret and determine if they would be governed by this ordinance. He commented that an ordinance is not enforceable if it is arbitrary or capricious and stated that there are some instances of that within the draft ordinance, providing examples. He was unsure why this would limit the number of these businesses to three, noting that there are three massage therapy businesses already in the city. He also noted confusion with that limit of three, as each massage therapist would be counted as one person, rather than the business counting as one. He believed that additional thought and review should be put into this topic. Mayor Fischer closed the public participation portion. The City Attorney reviewed the definition of CAHC, noting that the Community Development Director reached out to the State to receive clarification on whether a professional cuddler would fall under that title. She commented that the State determined that a professional cuddling business would fall under the CAHC definition. Mayor Fischer recognized that there was a significant amount of money invested in the building, and a certificate of occupancy was issued. He asked if a certificate of occupancy could be issued without a specific business use listed. The Community Development Director confirmed that many existing buildings have a certificate of occupancy that would not transfer to another business. He stated that this case is unique in that the business received a certificate of occupancy for the intended use. He referenced the issue of vested rights and confirmed that a new ordinance cannot impact a vested right. He stated that this ordinance would not impact a vested right, as the business could still be operational; it would just have restrictions placed upon it. The City Attorney stated that the city is always permitted to create licensing for business types unless prohibited or preempted by State or Federal law. She noted that this ordinance would not prohibit the business but would put parameters in place for that type of business. Miller asked for more information on the criminal penalties that were mentioned. The City Attorney stated that it is standard within City Code to state that a violation of City Code would be a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor. She stated that the language within this ordinance states that a violation of the City Code would be a misdemeanor, which is not unique to this ordinance. Kwapick referenced the statement that was made that other businesses could fall under this ordinance and noted that those businesses are licensed and regulated by the State. The City Attorney stated that a vast majority of those are already licensed business where CAHC are non -licensed businesses. She stated that these are businesses where you are having intimate connections with another person but are 7