Unofficial Transcript: City Council Meeting on Massage Establishments - Talk of the Sound

[Robert Cox]

Disclaimer: This transcript is a best-effort attempt to provide a navigable summary of the meeting’s content, combining automated transcription, human editing, and AI-assisted formatting. However, it may contain inaccuracies in speaker identification, wording, or context due to the challenges of transcribing a dynamic and sometimes chaotic discussion. No guarantee of perfection is made, and readers are strongly encouraged to consult the original video for the most accurate representation of the meeting. This transcript serves as a helpful starting point for understanding the discussion but should not be considered a substitute for the primary source material.

[embedded content]

Date: May 13, 2025

Time: 7:00 PM

Location: New Rochelle City Hall

Presiding: Mayor Yadira Ramos

Present:

• Mayor Yadira Ramos
• Building Commissioner Paul Vacca
• Police Commissioner Robert Gazzola
• Corporation Counsel Dawn Warren
• Councilmember Martha Lopez
• Councilmember Albert Tarantino
• Councilmember David Peters
• Councilmember Shane Osinloye
• Councilmember Sara Kaye
• Councilmember Matt Stern
• City Clerk Kim Jones

Yadira Ramos (0:00):

Stay with me, friends. Item 15, it’s a vote this evening, proposing lead agency status regarding Thank you. Commissioner Vacca, regarding proposed amendment to chapter 331 of the zoning code regarding massage establishments. 16 introduces the ordinance, and 17 sets the public hearing. We only vote on 15 and six, no 15 and 17, even though 18 and 19 are also released. The same topic. Please talk to us about this.

Paul Vacca (0:36):

So, we had some issues with respect to some massage establishments and rates, and we took great care in to try to try to change the provisions of the code, to have a better level of oversight prior to these establishments Open, the existing establishments that are already open, will go through a licensing process similar to cabarets. And the ones that have not opened yet will go through a planning board process. There’s required information that has to be submitted prior to the planning board advancing a special permit. We need edits to every commercial district that we have to make this a planning board, site plan approval, special permit process for this, these might be uses.

Yadira Ramos (1:34):

So 15, 16, and 17, I’m relating to zoning ordinances. 18 and 19 is the local law that’s like the bifurcation of all of these items. So part of this is to change the code, the zoning ordinance for the special permit. And phase two is the licensing of an existing establishment. Okay, let’s we have to vote on 1515, 1617, is the triplet. We vote on 15 and 17 this evening. So any questions or comments on 1516 or 17? Council member Kaye any questions or comments

Sara Kaye (1:50):

thanks to Paul Vacca… long time

Yadira Ramos (2:19):

on this item, 15 1617, Council Member Stern,

Matt Stern (2:22):

should Stern, can you just explain the different the thinking behind moving into a special permit? Like what just kind of elaboration? Like differences?

Paul Vacca (2:33):

Sure. So typically, if you wanted to propose one of these establishments to be occupancy, you would file an application with us. We would vet the application zoning wise. We would vent it, building code wise, and we issue a permit. We’ve had some issues with some of these local some of the establishments, and we’ve decided to tighten it up and make it a special permit process. It’ll be just another level of review prior to prior to getting that permit, which I think is warranted and required.

Matt Stern (3:13):

So what’s different about the special permit process?

Paul Vacca (3:25):

that’s the additional review, is it the public will have a chance to opine on these applications. They’ll have to give us a little more information. We’ll limit their hours of operation, and it’ll be a planning hearing instead of just a ministerial act by one of the plan examiners. It’s if you’ve been following the news in the tri state area, this is becoming an issue all over the place, not just here, as far as up as Woodbury. I read an article this week, which is at the beginning of route 17, and it’s New Jersey. I just read an article online, got some issues there. So in order to protect our citizens and the folks that work in these establishments, I think it would be better if these type of special permit process

Matt Stern (4:19):

would you be able to revoke the license if you find illegal activity happening on the process.

Paul Vacca (4:25):

Yes it would be a hearing, but we can revoke the license. That’s another that’s the whole process of the licenses. There’s been an unknown problem. Obviously, we’ve talked about this many times in downtown and other areas, and, you know, in recent years, so we’ve closed down quite a few places that were operating Correct? Yes, yes. And, you know, one of the things that was the concern was, is that the process to closing down sometimes it’s a long process. With these changes that we’re making, we would expedite the I think it’ll be a more straightforward process, not that we have a licensing component. It written into the licensing part of this code. There’s we can have a hearing. If they’re found to be doing illegal activity at that location, we can revoke their license, okay? And that would then ultimately just shut them down at that point.

Matt Stern (5:22):

Yes, okay, because we have to have the hearing first, due process, and then, right?

Paul Vacca (5:29):

Yeah, because in the past, what has happened, and we’ve had places that we’re getting numerous complaints about. It took a while to be able to close them down, and it gave the appearance that didn’t have any teeth in them to rectify these problems. And there were in some, you know, areas that you really, you don’t want them anywhere, but they were in areas that were, you know, children walking by and things of that sort. So there was a little concern. So look, I’d like to tell you folks that every one of these places was properly licensed for massage therapy or acupuncture, but they weren’t. And I’d like to tell you folks that there wasn’t prostitution going on in some of these places, but there was so these. These are the administrative components that I can think of to try to make this a better place for our population.

Yadira Ramos (6:00):

Councilmember Peters

David Peters (6:05):

in terms of license, is this in any way connected to the state in any way?

Paul Vacca (6:10):

So, yes, any person that puts hands on another person for a massage, they either have to be a licensed massage therapist, or they need to be a licensed acupuncturist. You know, there are, we still have some ongoing things going on with other agencies. With respect to some of the locations that we visited, we did find one license in four locations. So we reported that to the Department of State, and they’re they’re doing their thing, and that’s all I can really say about that.

David Peters (6:30):

Thank you.

Matt Stern (7:34):

So item number one particular question. This is in Section 18 on item 16.

Yadira Ramos (7:40):

Just give you the packet number,

Matt Stern (7:42):

yeah, page 58, looking at number four, where it says if an owner, proprietor, manager, operator or employee of a massage establishment engages in illegal activity conjunction with the establishment to use the special permit shall be forfeited. Just reading that, it feels a bit broad, like I understand the intention of it. I’m just wondering, using may instead of shall? You know

Paul Vacca (8:26):

well, the owner, the manager and the employees, if you are a licensed massage therapist, you know what you’re supposed to be doing and what you can’t do. So we wanted this to actually have teeth, and we don’t want to go through this exercise again. We will probably have to go through it again at some point, but I’d like to spend a minimal amount of time on this, because this has taken out. This has taken on a life of its own. You know, we had folks just come in and open up places that were not legitimate in any way whatsoever. I saw a hole in the system. I got to try and close that hole.

Matt Stern (9:00):

No, I understand that. And I think what I’m just a little concerned about is the phrase illegal activity being broad enough that, and combined with the special permit shall be forfeited, I could see opportunities for abuse or means of closing a place down that you know, even for comparatively minor things that aren’t related to the intent of This legislation, obviously trying to prevent prostitution, trafficking, etc. You know, if there’s, like, a noise violation or something, you know, obviously that’s not good.

Paul Vacca (9:30):

But may, you know, you know, remove that special permit gives a certain amount of flexibility. So, okay, so I suppose we could, I could review that with Corporation Counsel and see if it requires any editing. Our intent was, was what you just said, if there was that kind of activity and we have a hearing, we’re going to have a hearing. There’ll be a hearing officer, and we’ll make that determination, I would find it a little hard pressed to close a facility based on a noise violation rate. But the other stuff, we just don’t need that in our city. So it’s revoked. There’s a hearing. It’s not an automatic

Unknown Speaker (10:00):

Yes, education yes of the permit Yes.

Paul Vacca (10:05):

So they have to show evidence. We’ll have the hearing, and then the special permit will get revoked, and the license will get revoked, because even if it’s an existing location, the new ones will have to get a special permit, but they’ll also have to file for that license. So it’s a two pronged process, and the existing ones, I can’t force them to go for a special permit because they’re already in operation, but they’re legally operated that we can do the licensing portion, which also has a bit of teeth behind it.

David Peters (11:00):

I just want to reiterate what Matt said. I think that the broad interpretation can be subjective and subject to the subject to a variety of biases that can emerge depending upon circumstances situations, although I understand so I’m glad you’re indicating that you’d like to that you confer with council. So what I’m hearing you say is that there’s a planning board process, process for this, in addition to if and when there’s a violation, there’ll be a hearing, and we should test the several steps included in this in order to come to a final determination,

Paul Vacca (11:20):

yes, that’s the that’s the intent.

David Peters (11:25):

Thank you. Thank you.

Matt Stern (11:59):

I guess my other, my only other question is the word shall only because I is that in conformity with, like this practice, like other municipalities have you shall, as opposed to, may I just, I don’t have this exact Yeah?

Dawn Warren (12:00):

Here, this was paired by us, but most of this stuff has, you know, iterations of other Yeah, I’m just curious about again, as Paul was saying, you know, there is a hearing process, and

Yadira Ramos (12:30):

I think the key word for me is illegal. So it’s really defining the right use as opposed to a general what the right as opposed to a general violation. I’m only worried about leaving it. I kind of wanted to be as stringent as possible. And this could just be a pure bias, gender bias being on it, but I’m worried about making it easy to get to stay open, if right, we know that they should be closed like full stop.

Paul Vacca (12:50):

So one of the issues that the PD will run into is if they try to go after somebody for prostitution, it usually gets knocked down to something else, and then it becomes a violation. So we got to treat this on a case by case basis.

Matt Stern (13:10):

So with that in mind, the people at all, well, you know that was not down to this. And why am I being closed? And then we’re going to perpetuate the same cycle that we’re trying to eliminate. And just because I’m not a lawyer, but you’re saying a violation doesn’t meet the bar of illegal activity, is that what you’re saying when you say,

Dawn Warren (13:20):

No, your example was a noise violation. It’s not a legal activity, per se. It’s a violation illegal activity, right? We have our code regulations, and if it’s a violation of the noise ordinance, that’s not a crime. It’s a violation of an ordinance. It’s not going to be penal law, illegal.

Yadira Ramos (13:40):

There’s a lot more than anticipated, but good stuff, so yes, around the table.

Albert Tarantino (13:45):

And I feel that, you know, one of the things you don’t want to do is weaken what Paul is attempting to do here. And, you know, I know Paul is being very careful what he says here and how he says it, and I understand it. They’re on TV, but this problem is quite serious. I mean, the level, and I know some of the places that we’ve had that we’ve complained to Paul about and waited for quite a bit of time before they were finally taken care of. You are seeing cars pulling up in front of these places at 5am in the morning, 4am in the morning, people sitting in cars waiting for them to open up, to go into these so called spas. I mean, it was, it was, it was obvious that these were, there was prostitution going on in these places. And, you know, we’re talking about rebuilding our city and making this great place out of it. Well, you’re not going to do it with that kind of thing going on in downtown and in other areas. So I think that, you know, whatever we do, we have to make sure that we don’t weaken their ability to control this, because the other laws, like prostitution law, really doesn’t close them down. All it does is slap them on the hand and tell them don’t do this. You know, we need something from the city side that you can get slapped on the hand in the courts. But we’re going to shut you down. We’re going to close your location down, and that stops the problem from spreading.

Paul Vacca (15:00):

The licensing issue is big. We can use that, and we have used it. We also, we also made inroads inward, but we made connections with the Office of professions, Office of professionals, and we turned over some information to them, and they they’re doing their thing.

David Peters (15:30):

So, um, in terms of access state official license. That was the reason for the question around that, to that degree, is the process embedded in state regulations in law for people to welcome to come forward with the license.

Paul Vacca (15:40):

What I’m hearing you say is that, in terms of our city, and what I’m hearing my council members say, all of them seeking accountable process that’s a deterrent to the kind of behavior that has described. We’re attempting to stay inside the box and think outside box so we can try to quell illegal activity.

Shane Osinloye (16:00):

You know, most of the time we’ve had these I would only be guessing, but I’m assuming most of the time you’ve had these interactions, the person that owns the business and the individual massage therapist are acting in collusion. But what about scenarios where, like the business owner, the general business is actually on the up and up on one particular, or maybe two particular massage therapists come in and do their own side business. You know, is there, is there, is there space for that to get to the to the person that’s actually the best it’s so the manager or the owner of the business.

Paul Vacca (16:30):

First of all, all those massage therapists you are correct, have to be have their own individual licenses, but the owner or the manager of that premise has to keep control of his premise or her premise, and if they can’t control their employees, well, that’s their issue.

Yadira Ramos (18:21):

So tonight before us is a vote on proposed lead agency. Status, item number 15, regarding the proposed amendment to chapter 331, of the zoning code massage establishments. I have a motion in a second status, Kay and Lopez, all in favor? Say, aye. Aye. Any opposed? 16 is the introduction of the amendment 17 is the proposed public hearing regarding the proposed amendments to chapter 331, of the zoning code massage establishments. Public hearing will be set for Tuesday, June 10, a motion and a second to designate the public hearing please. Kay and Lopez, all in favor? Say, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to item number 18, same topic, different jurisdiction, if you will. This is related to local law. 18 is the introduction of the amendment or the proposed law, and 19 is the resolution directing a public hearing. Do you have anything to add? Commissioner Vacca, we’ve covered a lot of course. Questions for my colleagues on item number 18, the proposal will pull off council member Stern.

Matt Stern (19:47):

Ask about penalties. These are being the penalties are currently directed towards any person violating this chapter.

Yadira Ramos (19:50):

What page are you on? Page 79

Matt Stern (19:52):

and I guess I’m wondering about instances of human trafficking and prosecution, and who is held accountable in the instances of consensus. And earlier in, I think section seven, it lists all the people who are eligible to be on the permit, the owner the corporation or an individual. And I’m wondering if we can be more precise in who analyzed or received a fine, so that we are not essentially, potentially imprisoning or finding victims of Human Trafficking. Okay,

Paul Vacca (20:20):

we will look into that as well.

Albert Tarantino (20:46):

Because I think that we’re clouding a line between police, enforcement, the courts, and the building department. The building department’s job is to make sure these places, if they’re doing things, that legally are shut down. I think the issue about human trafficking and things of that sort, or the courts determination decides whether or not they’re willing to sue, we’re not going to, that is way outside high school or per view human trafficking.

Paul Vacca (21:19):

Make it clear that there’s a very distinct line between those two that would be, that would be the Westchester County DA office and for and or the Department of HOMELAND SECURITY trafficking. So being PD conjunction with DHS or the DAs office to go after those type of crimes, that is not a BOD issue.

Matt Stern (21:40):

I think the only part that’s tricky not to jump ahead is that the language here says the police department and buildings department are charged with enforcement. So if you’re charged with enforcement, are you the one issuing the fines?

Paul Vacca (21:50):

No, no, the fines would have to go through the court system. Okay, that’s those are the maximum fines and minimum fines you would receive in court. But I find it hard pressed to actually get those numbers talking about the distinctions. I think

Matt Stern (22:17):

that’s part of the complexity of all this, right?

David Peters (22:20):

So certainly, there’s a straight line between our different departments in relationship to what they can do and will do and will be involved. The issue that emerges in the conversation to me when I think about this, since we’re getting into something around trafficking, like is that, is that, you know, the you know people become, that they’re victims, that are perhaps, you know, emerging in some of these circumstances that we think might happen. So we don’t want to, I think that’s why we’re kind of getting into some of these details around this. We don’t want to forget that the other side of this too, just to give an example. So I know you didn’t mean anything by it, but when we start to think about the emerging circumstances and situations socially that are happening for people and people’s desire to take care of families and other things, and you know, when we mention Homeland Security, as you mean anything value, but it’s important that we don’t this is part of what can happen, right? That we don’t think about these organizations, because when we think about some of these organizations, it also draws a direct line to who these people might be. If that’s that’s that’s the broadness of what can happen with this. So I agree with what my colleagues are saying. And at the same time, I think that that, that we need to, you know, create some, some, some sense of education needs to be around this right for our for our departments and the like, so that it’s not just a straight act associated without some sort of sense of what’s going on. Because once it hits the courts or hits other places, you know, just based on a regulation or anything along those lines, it can, it can really impact a whole many, many different people. So I’m not trying… to what I’m saying is that I think this is a this is an issue that, on the face of it, we need to fix, and at the same time, on the face of it, we need to have some clarity on what you’re really asking to support.

Yadira Ramos (24:00):

Then I think council member. So I interrupted you, so I want to make sure you finish and

Robert Gazzola (24:10):

then kick because you sort of talk about the enforcement. So when our officers go into establishments like this, and they have the women who work there, typically, District Attorney’s office also has someone available, and they do look at human trafficking as a matter of fact, we have, we’ve conducted a couple of different operations. At the end of last year, we’re part of a human trafficking task force within this return and the idea is to sort of call out the people who may be victims of human trafficking, as opposed to the people who are profiting from that. So that stuff is really looked at. I think this office,

CHECK THIS

Unknown Speaker (25:27):

and I appreciate that you are thoughtful and coordinating that inappropriately. I just want to make sure that the language of our ordinance kind of reflects that same care for the victims, and this is purely potentially me, just not understanding exactly where this fits in our different tools that we have. But what you had mentioned, was that only after a conviction of being guilty of a misdemeanor, then you’re subject to that fine in prison. And imprisonment is that a building violation? I mean, that sounds like what we’re talking about is a criminal violation.

Paul Vacca (26:00):

This is in the licensing procedure. Well, in offense to the licensing procedure, we could bring a court appearance, and then they would be, it will be up to the courts to determine the fine.

Robert Gazzola (26:34):

Typically, any arrests, a violation that’s committed has to go. It gets adjudicated through the court. The fine is used by… is adjudicated through the court.

Yadira Ramos (26:50):

Sorry, I think it’s Kaye and then Lopez, and back to Tarantino… Stern.

Matt Stern (26:54):

Yeah. I mean, I don’t think there’s any disagreement that we want to avoid penalizing people who are being trafficked.

Paul Vacca (26:59):

I understand that.

Matt Stern (27:04):

Or I just want to make sure that

Paul Vacca (27:07):

I totally understand

Matt Stern (27:09):

I understand the legislation is being proposed and that we are making the language that both gives you the flexibility to enforce the law, but in a way that doesn’t unintentionally entrap.

Wil Melendez (27:15):

These are maximum numbers too, just like say pet waste inside it says up to the $200 fine. It’s the court’s discretion. Correct?

Robert Gazzola (27:30):

That’s correct.

Yadira Ramos (27:40):

Council member Kaye and Lopez back to Tarantino.

Sara Kaye (27:43):

One additional thought is I’ve seen in other cities where they posted flyers up in like airports or hotels that provide resources. If you’ve been on trafficking, here’s who you can contact. Could we require that as part of the licensing or special permit that they have to post a sign like that in the work area.

Paul Vacca (27:50):

I don’t see why we couldn’t. Do you have a photograph? Or maybe we can at the time,

Sara Kaye (27:55):

but imagine Florida.

Paul Vacca (27:57):

We’ll see what we can find.

Yadira Ramos (28:00):

Councilmember.

Martha Lopez (28:22):

Tell just wanted to say that it is my understanding that the police department plays a very, very important role here. And even when it comes to trafficking, you are very, very careful and making sure that it goes to the proper channels. And also when it comes to children, to, you know, the Department o Social Services, you know, making sure that the victim gets the help that they need, so that I have known that they have been very, very strong, very strong advocates.

Yadira Ramos (28:50):

Thank you. Councilmember Tarantino,

Albert Tarantino (28:59):

yeah, no, I just want to go back to the legislation. I think that I understand the concern about issues with what’s going on all over the world, really, but I think that what we need to clear up in our own minds is that the legislation is there, not to put anybody in jail, not to to any of those things, the police if they see something is wrong, they have threatened to decide what they want. What they want to do, what Paul’s bringing forward to us is a tool to shut the places down so it can’t continue. So the person that might be being dealing with human trafficking, this will eliminate them from operating an operation that allowed that. So I think the legislation has to stand on its own. It’s not about arrest, it’s not about putting people in jail or Homeland Security, it’s not about any of that stuff. It’s just about the ability of the building department to have a tool to close the place down so they can’t continue doing what they’re doing. The but I don’t argue. It does mean that, and it creates clear penalties, including jail, jail time and fines. And so I agree about anybody in jail, it doesn’t sound operating. You’re going to pull their license. He can’t put anybody not prison, but

Matt Stern (30:01):

it does actually say $2,500 or 15 days imprisonment, that’s or both, that’s entirely spaces and again, just so we’re clear.

Shane Osinloye (30:10):

We’re not sorry, we’re not again, yeah, we’re not against the legislation and the spirit of the legislation, but throughout the history of this entire country, including in New Rochelle, we have seen legislation have a disparate impact on specific populations, so we want to make sure that we’re not contributing to that long legacy of impacting those populations negatively, even as we address this duly overdue issues that we’re finally addressing, and I’m glad that we’re doing it. So we’re going to walk through and have the questions about the $2,500 fines and the 15 days of imprisonment, because that could impact somebody’s lives very disparately than the lives that we’re leading. So yes, we’ll walk through this to answer your question,

Paul Vacca (31:00):

I don’t have the ability to assess fines yes or assess imprisonment. Only the judge can do that if we get to that stage. But if we had a repeat offender that did this, 5678, times, well then they should be fined and they might do some jail time. I find that a little more pressed, but who knows?

Yadira Ramos (32:27):

I think nuance is the person being trafficked, as opposed to maybe the owner of the establishment right, and making sure that whatever legislation we bring to the table doesn’t disproportionately impact someone who’s being trafficked. That’s how reading this up Texas, some of my colleagues was so, yeah, 100% shut them all down. We all live here. We all are raising our families. Have our families here. 100% but just being hyper mindful of how this would shake out, I think, is so the spirit of where you’re going to and how would that sort of impact the owner of the establishment versus someone who’s maybe being who’s a victim of human trafficking, set the foundation for jail time or penalties that would have a disparate impact on them. I don’t think spirit and the intent is to go after the folks that were operating at these facilities.

Paul Vacca (33:18):

Look the first one of these where there was real enforcement. Okay, DHS rolled into town, coordinated with our local PD, and then they got DOB involved. They were investigating this for quite some time that location, and they ended up seizing millions of dollars in assets, and the guy owned more than a few spas in the tri state area. So, I mean, it took a while, but they did their thing, and that has nothing to do with me. I went and found all the building code violations.

CHECK THIS

Albert Tarantino (34:00):

I think the unit traffic, be determined until after the process starts, right? So does the first arrest or identification of illegal activity of that person goes through the process. I don’t think the human trafficking element is identified at that there may not even be an arrest at that point they might see during the investigative speech, right? So it’s kind of subsequent, but I think this is a starting point right to for the for the activity to be identified. And, you know, and I think the human trafficking element is real, but I don’t think it gets identified till after the goes through the clinical process.

Matt Stern (34:30):

So I just have information gathering questions, because I’m not a lawyer and I’m not familiar with the criminal justice system. So you know, you mentioned a judge, obviously, they’re the ones who can impose fines and jail time. Are they looking at this legislation when they as you know, what they use to determine what their options are. Obviously, I’m sure they might also be looking at state legislation.

Paul Vacca (35:06):

Well, they’d be looking at our local code. If we wrote a court appearance ticket for these infractions. They could assess what they feel is necessary. It’s It’s you. It’s I would find it very, very difficult to get a $2,500 fine for an offense here. And to the best of my knowledge and belief, no one has gone to jail on a building code violation in quite some time, we did have somebody go to jail on a contempt charge because he said, told the judge, I will never remove these sheds, and I don’t care what you do. And the judge, the judge, put him in jail for, I think, 45 not removing sheds, telling the judge I will never lose. And then she said, I’m holding no she said, I’ll get you in contempt. And the bailiff took him away, certainly,

Matt Stern (36:00):

just to start the conversation, I want to make it you know, gel with the law right now, this says on page 80, section B, on failing to comply with such an order, the person so ordered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc. I’m just wondering if we can be more specific and say something to the effect of the owner or manager or permit holder, you know, like some of these people who are clearly responsible for the business and provide some flexibility.

Paul Vacca (36:30):

So you want me to look into that? Look at that paragraph, yeah, and

Matt Stern (36:35):

maybe add licensee.

Shane Osinloye (36:40):

Because, again, you know my concern, my only concern, really, is that, you know, you just get, you have somebody that come in, comes in and wants to hustle like a licensee, and they want to catch up, and to catch up, they open up their book of business to other services, you know, as opposed to the business owner that, you know. I mean, we could say, you know, it’s the business owner. You need to control your employees, but all of you have employees, and I’m sure you understand that you can’t control every action that they have all the time, but you know, so maybe we’re looking at the licensees as well and just creating all of that delineation in our language, just to be very Clear, okay, owners operate,

Paul Vacca (37:20):

we will review that paragraph with with the corporation counsel , and

Unknown Speaker (37:46):

we could, I would be comfortable with passing it with need to

Yadira Ramos (37:51):

thank you. We’re only sending the public hearing this evening right, which is for June 10, which means it wouldn’t even get back to us for a vote until the week after the public hearing. So we the staff, has time to review and acknowledge, can we still set the public hearing? We have to do enough changes to suggest holding it? I mean,

Dawn Warren (38:14):

it’s up to the council if you want to make those changes.

Yadira Ramos (38:21):

So would we also hold on right the zoning amendment? Is there an overlap in the delineation? Well,

Dawn Warren (38:30):

the changes that you’re suggesting, I don’t think will have any effect on on the zoning of the zoning 16 has the question that

Yadira Ramos (38:35):

Councilmember stern raised about illegal activity. I just want to make sure we’re being very clear as to what we want coming back right? Back. Right? So if we go through 16, each 16 cross referenc one another. So we voted. This is so much fun. All right, this is so much fun. Procedure. We voted. We voted 15 and 17 in so we have to do a motion. Sorry. I just want to be sorry Councilman Globus, because this because this is I want us to deem this procedurally. I need a motion. Is it on vote? A motion and a second to see take backs like I’m five years old, a motion and a second to withdraw our vote proposing lead agency status for item number 15, motion and a second. Yeah, roll call. Okay. I’m sorry we I don’t know yet, because I got a lot of interruptions, so sorry. One second and I also didn’t have lunch, so we’re going to work with me nice and slow. We would like, what was the word recall, a motion and a second to withdraw our vote proposing lead agency status. It’s going to go to a roll call vote, but I need a motion and a second to get to that part. May I have a motion and a second on the item to recall our vote for item number 15, Austin Lee and Peters roll call vote, please.

Madam Clerk (39:30):

Oh. Uh, Council Member, Lopez,

Martha Lopez (39:35):

okay, so I am somewhat confused, me too. I am assuming that when you give the ticket or the violation is to the other to the person that has the license, not to the workers that are there. So I don’t see why we have to go. Is there other go to the people that are working there who gave them the license? Okay, I’m putting the license. You are to appear in court because A, B and C, then you have people that are working there, and that’s where the police department gets involved and says, Okay, these two categories, we have some victims here, and they are the ones. So I leave it as how I voted before, right?

Yadira Ramos (40:00):

Would you leave

Dawn Warren (40:05):

it? I just kind of want to throw Can I just say one thing, if you read the legislation as a whole, the massage legislation, it’s aimed towards owners and operators. So those provisions are also aimed towards the owners and operators. So if you want, we can obviously change the word to make you feel more comfortable, but I that’s the intent and the overall spirit of the legislation.

Yadira Ramos (40:30):

But things that back. What is it that you would want to see different? What is the directive we’re giving staff?

Martha Lopez (41:00):

I think it’s to more clearly make the owners and operators managers the ones who depart the targets of any sort of penalties. And if that is already the case, as like you’re describing in the legislation, it doesn’t appear to be, but again, it is, because it’s it is because it says, You know what, when you have a business, and if I go to the store and I’m working for the store, and they come and say, there are violations Here, it’s like, okay, or so, that opened the business.

David Peters (41:30):

So let’s clear this out a little further, just for discussion purposes, for the office of Texas, because when you when you get certified, relative, can certify relative to that there’s part of that certification should include other professions insurance, all right, so these individuals, they insure themselves to do that if, in fact, they violate other you know any, any areas associated with their original intent? I’m not sure. These licenses Well, once we, once we put this in place, I think that they certainly would be available. But I’m wondering whether or not they can assure about mentality, because I know, in terms of social work here, you can assure yourself that either Anything could happen that ethically associated with you getting your license, you should not be engaged in. So I’m assuming that would apply to something like this.

Yadira Ramos (42:00):

Okay, learning in real time, if not recall, start going to rewind the clock. I move, we reconsider our action relative to item number 15, which was designated proposal, agency status, a motion and a second, please. Before roll call, we’re gonna do roll call 100% the last time I did roll call, I got dings. I didn’t do motion and a second.

Shane Osinloye (42:30):

So I gotta, like, get a follow, reconsider before you put the motion out. Because if we have to re say the way the motion is put, anyway, I just want to clarify. Just walk us through this a little bit. Yeah, let me just, let me just add this. The intent is, if you, God forbid, or Commissioner gozola, God forbid, we all got called to heaven tomorrow, and there was a new leadership here, right? That the leadership wouldn’t take the same legislation, and then, instead of just targeting the operator or owner, they’re targeting everybody in the establishment, as if it’s some Rico case or something like that. You know, we have, we have instances of the law where everybody in the car is getting a charge, you know, or as opposed to the people that are the actual culprits of inaction. So Are we avoiding that in this legislation as it stands,

Paul Vacca (43:30):

I believe that the intent of this is to go after the operators, not the individuals. And I know when you said you wanted to pull back lead agency, no matter what happens, you are the lead agency. That’s entirely up to you folks, and I gotta tell you what to do. But no matter what happens, you are definitely a lead agency.

Yadira Ramos (44:00):

We wouldn’t be able to designate the public. I’m just trying to since we voted in as a payer like we’re sort of balanced by a procedure, I guess. So. The directive is to make sure that the legislation is focused and I’m not sure who I’m looking at, because I’m not exactly sure who has the issue anymore. It’s been a lot of words, a lot of English and a lot of jargon at 7pm so the concern is to make sure it’s going that the legislation targets the owner, proprietor, manager, operator.

Matt Stern (44:30):

I’m cognizant of the fact that we want to be able to address this as soon as possible. And you know, if, in practice, it’s not, not an issue, right? Like, if it’s always going to be about the owner, the operator, you know, like, I don’t want to just hold it up unnecessarily, if that’s going to be

Albert Tarantino (45:00):

problem is, you don’t know who the owner, the operator. You don’t know the people that are working there doing massage also is one of the business. You don’t know any of it. There’s no way of knowing that so, but what we’re doing is we’re micromanaging everything and saying, What if this? What if that we can go around this table for the next three weeks and never come up with legislation. And you know, I don’t know if you realize, but this activity has been going on in areas where we’re renting out, they’re working out 3000 4000 5000 $6,000 a month apartments are being rented out right next door to where some of these places are operating that some of them, they’ve already closed down. But you know, if we don’t get legislation in place to be able to control this, you know, we’ll be dealing with bigger issues than what we’re talking about now. But there’s no way of pinpointing who is the actual operator. I mean, talk to Paul about one operator has five places. All I can say is that I would equate this to an audience, because every time you peel back another layer in the onion goes, oh, there’s somebody else. Oh, no, wait, there’s somebody else, and you never get, you’d never get the actual person we know.

Paul Vacca (46:00):

People come into the office say, okay, and one of the police officers asked him, What’s, what’s the name of your corporation? I don’t know. You don’t know the name of your own corporation. You’re not the owner. You’re not a corporate officer in the corporation, you don’t know the name your own corporation. We never spoken again, by the way.

Yadira Ramos (46:30):

It’s getting really correct. So I just want to, I just want to just put the palm on the table, and just say, procedurally, it’s a little messy right now, and I understand that 15, 1617, 1819, are related. We did adopt 15 and 17. There’s a motion that was for seconded to recall. I guess technically, procedurally, there’s another word. So just taking it back as like, just normal humans taking Roberts Rules, what is the directive to staff if we’re going to hold this?

Matt Stern (47:00):

Essentially, I’m concerned that we are micromanaging now, like, I’m going back on what I said earlier. Basically, yeah, because, I mean, ultimately, we’re going to have to rely on the judgment of, you know, in the process, as described by the commissioners. So unless there’s a more specific directive that we can give staff, I feel like I’m just, I don’t want to send you guys on a wild goose chase, you know, without clarity from council.

Shane Osinloye (47:30):

So just adding to that thinking, My only concern would be the inverse. But I’d rather see the legislation we make an amendment on it if it becomes a problem, as opposed to holding it up. So in that sense, we’d be at 18. I believe hold on council member tech is trying

Albert Tarantino (48:00):

to all I wanted to say was that, you know, like any other legislation that we’ve passed, we’ve had issues where we missed something, or something came up that we can anticipate or anticipated, but there’s no exactly what it would be. And this is no different than any of that other legislation. We can always come back and tweak legislation. Very useful.

Paul Vacca (48:30):

The code can be fluid. It can be dynamic. It has to change from time to time and work. We’re just trying to take a bad situation and make it

Matt Stern (48:45):

so let’s say I’m comfortable going with this for now. And if we need to adapt, you know, adapt it later. I’m good with that. And

Yadira Ramos (49:00):

Commissioner, you’ve been very good with bringing us, you know, the stories and the nuances of the different happenings. So if we see something where we should make amendments in the future, thank you. Okay, so this is fun.

Dawn Warren (49:10):

You had a motion and second on the table and yet responded. So I say we just move forward to number 19, which is definitely the public hearing for proposed local law intro number three regarding massage establishment.

Yadira Ramos (49:30):

Remember earlier, it’s like there’s a pair. Sometimes I get it 19 is a public motion and a second, designating a public hearing for June. 10 may have a motion and a second testing a public hearing. Tarantino and Lopez. All in favor. Say, aye. Aye.