Board sets public hearing on adult-entertainment ordinance, debates licensing rules and fees

The board voted to set a public hearing on proposed ordinance 17-96, which would amend local zoning sections addressing adult entertainment establishments, and asked staff to return with draft licensing language and legal guidance.

Board members and staff said the proposed zoning changes will be organized into three parts: definitions, the use table (with conditional use in C1), and use/location standards, including a suggested 1,000-foot buffer from specified uses. Staff recommended copying statutory definitions from Kansas law into the local code rather than relying on a citation.

Why it matters: The zoning changes determine where adult-entertainment businesses could locate in Goodland and establish baseline operating standards; the licensing ordinance would create a local review process and annual oversight. Staff told the board the licensing recommendation is advisory to the city commission, which can alter fee amounts or other terms.

Board discussion focused on several drafting choices and practical impacts. Members asked whether the age threshold should be raised to 21 and whether certain prior convictions should disqualify applicants; staff said those are legal questions and recommended obtaining formal legal advice. The board debated whether to require licenses for owners, spouses and all staff or to limit licensing to owners and the named local manager; several members favored naming a local manager as the responsible licensee to reduce administrative burden and allow annual inspections and background checks similar to existing CMB (consumption) licensing.

The group compared fee models used by other Kansas municipalities: McPherson’s sample combined a larger first-year application component with lower year-to-year fees (an example shown as roughly $500 first year and smaller annual amounts), while Newton’s model used a $2,000 annual fee. The board agreed to recommend a robust starting fee for the city commission to consider and discussed proposing approximately $2,250 for the first year and $2,000 annually thereafter as a starting point for commission discussion.

Members also debated exterior-observation and signage rules. Staff presented draft language that would prevent the interior of adult-oriented businesses from being observable from the exterior and would restrict exterior advertising; some members raised public-safety concerns, noting police need visibility for night checks and that a total window blackout may be problematic. Staff committed to researching clearer examples from other cities and returning with concrete drafting options.

A separate practical issue discussed was how to measure required buffers (from property-line to property-line versus building-to-building). Staff recommended measuring from the property line to make the rule administrable and more restrictive; the board agreed to include a clear measurement rule in the next draft.

What’s next: The board set a public hearing on ordinance 17-96 for the next meeting (motion moved by Matt McKenzie and seconded by Grady Bridal) and asked staff to return next month with edited drafts addressing age/conviction limits (with legal input), manager/license language, signage/exterior-observation wording, buffer-measurement language and recommended fee figures for the city commission to consider.

Ending: After the discussion, the board formally set the hearing date and agreed to continue refinement of both the zoning and licensing drafts before forwarding a recommendation to the city commission.