The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA001 - Email correspondence from Gary Youngberg ' Page 1 of 5 RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG to: bobanncamp@aol.com,gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com,GartinForAmes@gmail.com, pforazem@gmail.com, nelson.ames@outlook.com,amber.corrieri@gmail.com, Ivilla@iastate.edu,dvoss@city.ames.ia.us 04/13/2015 02:50 PM Show Details Security: To ensure privacy, images from remote sites were prevented from downloading.Show Images One last point.Commander Huff, in a recent email to me,told me that antique dealers would be excluded from the proposed ordinance and I fail to see the reason behind this.While I have no proof, I would be so bold as to suggest that antique dealers quite possibly would/have handled WAY more secondhand goods than Ames Silversmithing EVER has. Respectfully, Gary Youngberg From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To: bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com; Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: RE: Proposed ordinance Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:34:12-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and the city council, As the council already knows,the owners of Ames Silversmithing are in opposition to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1)Invasion of privacy 2)The amount of time required by businesses to report transactions 3)The reporting of bullion material while excluding numismatics 4)The exclusion of auctions To expand on these and other issues,let me start by saying,once again,the private transactions between our customers and us should not be made available to anyone outside of the parties involved.Ames Silversmithing has worked diligently for nearly 40 years to not only assist the Ames Police Department in the recovery of stolen merchandise,but to also maintain the highest standards of privacy and discretion for our customers. Having considered the reporting requirements,we feel strongly the amount of time required to report these transactions will be especially onerous.This time will take away the time we have to service our customers and I can envision circumstances where we could lose sales due to employees not being available to assist customers at the counter. In addition,the inclusion of bullion products while excluding numismatics is simply not based on logic and reason.City staff's earlier concerns about covering"identifiable"products in the ordinance is viable and,in fact,the overwhelming majority of bullion products sold have no serial numbers or means to identify one from the next.I recently sold 260 1 ounce American Silver eagles to a customer. Every single one of these looks like the next so identifying one from the next is impossible and for that reason,these and other bullion products should be excluded.Why should he or I be required to divulge his private information down the road when he wants to sell them? I spoke with Commander Huff last week and asked him to provide to me the reports of bullion reported stolen since 2012. Commander Huff provided the following: file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web2198... 4/13/2015 Page 2 of 5 Bullion Thefts Geoff M Huff (GHuff@city.ames.ia. Gary, Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. Here are the cases we are aware of. 2012: 1 incident (theft of$492 silver coin and $266 silver coin) 2013: 2 incidents (theft of$614 in silver coins) (theft of$1,900 gold coin, $1,660 gold coin, $1,635 gold coin, $800 gold bar, $900 gold coin, $1620 gold nugget, $450 gold coin, $800 gold coin, $1,620 gold coin) 2014: no incidents in the first half of the year. These figures are a bit mis-leading as the 2013 gold coin incident was a robbery from Chester's Coins when a customer opened a case and stole the items in question.If we remove that single incident,we see the TOTAL dollar amount of bullion products reported stolen from January 1,2012 to mid 2014 is a mere$1372. In addition,I questioned Commander Huff and asked him what he felt would be an acceptable recovery percentage based on an amount of approximately 300 transactions per year in our store alone and he commented that even a SINGLE recovery was "worth"what would go into this from a time and economic perspective and with that,I must wholeheartedly disagree. In closing,we feel strongly the proposed ordinance will drive stolen goods from the area making recovery much less likely.In fact,Commander Huff said as much in his comments to the council on March 3 by stating,and I paraphrase-"We want people to know there is an ordinance in Ames so they won't sell things here". As always,I am requesting you NOT pass the first reading of the proposed ordinance as there are still too many questions and issues left unanswered.You may reach me via email at garylyoungberg@msn.com,call me at work at 232-0080 or on my cell at 515-520-0631. Most sincerely, Gary,Karen,Kirk and Kyle Youngberg Ames Silversmithing From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To: bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com; Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: RE: Proposed ordinance Date:Tue,7 Apr 2015 09:16:00-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and council members- I have included below,with Matthew's approval,a few emails pertaining to the proposed ordinance concerning the selling of precious metals and gems in Ames. I would appreciate further discussion regarding this as there are simply too many variables yet to be discussed. Please feel free to call me at 232-0080 during the day or 520-0631 in the evening. Sincerely, Gary Youngberg Ames Silversmithing Matthew Goodman file://C:ADocuments and SettingsUane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesEIEF34\—web2198... 4/13/2015 Page 3 of 5 x mg@ Thanks Gary. I thought we did a good job trying to balance many issues on this ordinance,but I understand that it isn't enough for your support.Thanks for your input,I think it helped us write a much better ordinance. Take care. Eat and live well, Matthew Goodman I appreciate the reply, Matthew,but I don't think there was any balance to this proposed ordinance.I have yet to see a final draft,but it appears the police essentially got everything they wanted.To not exclude bullion products while excluding numismatic coins is ludicrous as numismatics are much more identifiable than bullion is. Further, if this ordinance passes,the city council will be solely responsible for yet one more intrusion into people's privacy and that is simply untenable. I truly hope you will consider not voting for this ordinance,at least in the form it currently is. Sincerely, Gary P.S. I'm sorely disappointed the police and city staff did not include any of the jewelry stores in the creation of the proposed ordinance. Perhaps had we been included,we could have provided some perspective that would have made the proposed ordinance more workable. Re: Proposed ordinance Sorry to bother you, Matthew,but let me make an additional point.Where do we draw the line on government intrusion into our lives?I realize it is a difficult line to draw and certainly issues regarding safety and health are obvious areas that require government to be involved. But private business dealing are no place for government intrusion,especially when they are more or less fishing expeditions that make store owners and employees do the police's work for them.I'm all for helping the police retrieve stolen merchandise and we have in the past. What comes next?An ordinance requiring us to report any CASH transaction over$100 because someone had cash stolen from them? How Could one ever ID the cash unless serial numbers were written down?It would be impossible and in fact,just as impossible as the police identifying ANY bullion product. I could live with the ordinance if it were just jewelry but not if it includes bullion.THAT would be a better balance.BTW,next free moment,ask Commander Huff how much bullion has been reported stolen in Ames in the last year?While 1 truly don't know the answer to that question,I suspect it is a very small amount. Regards, Gary file://C:\Documents and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web2198... 4/13/2015 Page 4 of 5 RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG i o I.L�tth�w t.�•.�r�:l�n_ii• Well, I start writing and I just can't stop.Has there been any discussion about a trial period for this ordinance should it pass?What expectations of results will be considered acceptable to keep the ordinance on the books?Let's say we log in 300 pieces per year-would the police accept a 10%recovery rate as acceptable?5%?2%1%?These are questions that need to be asked/answered before this ordinance passes.Matthew and they are fair questions to put to the police.The cost/benefit ratio on this should be looked at over a certain period of time and analyzed to see how effective/ineffective the ordinance actually is because a recovery rate that is so minimal would be hard to justify relative to the invasion of privacy and cost to the businesses. Again,thanks, Gary RE: Proposed ordinance RE: Proposed ordina RE: Proposed ordinance GARYYOUNGBERG file://CADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesE1EF34\—web2198... 4/13/2015 Page 5 of 5 From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To:bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com;pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com; mg@fightingburrito.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com;Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: Proposed ordinance Date:Thu,2 Apr 2015 15:42:16-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and city council members, We are writing to express our opposition to an ordinance proposed by the Ames Police Department and city staff.The proposed ordinance would infringe upon our customer's privacy during the selling of precious metals and gemstones by requiring Ames merchants to log this information into a database called Leads on Line.This is an invasion of privacy that should simply not be tolerated. During a presentation to the Ames City Council,Commander Geoff Huff stated that approximately$150,000 of stolen goods were reported to Ames police in each of the last three years,however,only about$30,000 of that amount is jewelry.Commander Huff went on to say he preferred the ordinance be in place so those wishing to sell stolen property are aware of the requirements and not sell it in Ames.Inevitably, this will surely lead to stolen merchandise being sold outside of Ames where such ordinances don't exist and the retrieval of these goods becomes much less likely. In the past,our businesses have voluntarily worked with Ames police to assist in the retrieval of stolen goods and we feel the implementation of such an ordinance will, in fact,yield the opposite result. Should this ordinance pass,any customer that wishes to trade in or sell any precious metal to anyone in Ames will be FORCED to give their personal information to the buyer which will, in turn,be logged into the Leads on Line data bank.We feel strongly that any transaction between our customers and ourselves should be private and discreet. Please call or speak to your city council members and tell them you,too,are not in favor of this invasion of privacy. G-uy, Karen,, Ky1,�.inrl Kirk.Younl;k�� Ames SilversrniUiinF, ,wd Ic,%, if'/ lke and Judy ih_...i: Chrarr's Coin, file://CADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web2198... 4/13/2015 Pagel of 5 RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG to: bobanncamp@aol.com,gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com,GartinForAmes@gmail.com, pforazem@gmail.com, nelson.ames@outlook.com,amber.corrieri@gmail.com, Ivilla@iastate.edu,dvoss@city.ames.ia.us 04/13/2015 02:34 PM Show Details Dear Mayor Campbell and the city council, As the council already knows,the owners of Ames Silversmithing are in opposition to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1)Invasion of privacy 2)The amount of time required by businesses to report transactions 3)The reporting of bullion material while excluding numismatics 4)The exclusion of auctions To expand on these and other issues, let me start by saying,once again,the private transactions between our customers and us should not be made available to anyone outside of the parties involved.Ames Silversmithing has worked diligently for nearly 40 years to not only assist the Ames Police Department in the recovery of stolen merchandise,but to also maintain the highest standards of privacy and discretion for our customers. Having considered the reporting requirements,we feel strongly the amount of time required to report these transactions will be especially onerous.This time will take away the time we have to service our customers and I can envision circumstances where we could lose sales due to employees not being available to assist customers at the counter. In addition,the inclusion of bullion products while excluding numismatics is simply not based on logic and reason.City staff's earlier concerns about covering"identifiable"products in the ordinance is viable and,in fact,the overwhelming majority of bullion products sold have no serial numbers or means to identify one from the next. 1 recently sold 260 1 ounce American Silver eagles to a customer.Every single one of these looks like the next so identifying one from the next is impossible and for that reason,these and other bullion products should be excluded.Why should he or I be required to divulge his private information down the road when he wants to sell them? I spoke with Commander Huff last week and asked him to provide to me the reports of bullion reported stolen since 2012. Commander Huff provided the following:     Bullion Thefts Geoff M Huff (GHuff@city.ames.ia. Gary, Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. Here are the cases we are aware of. 2012: 1 incident (theft of$492 silver coin and $266 silver coin) 2013: 2 incidents (theft of$614 in silver coins) (theft of$1,900 gold coin, $1,660 gold coin, $1,635 gold coin, $800 gold bar, $900 gold coin, $1620 gold nugget, $450 gold coin, $800 gold coin, $1,620 gold coin) 2014: no incidents in the first half of the year. These figures are a bit mis-leading as the 2013 gold coin incident was a robbery from Chesterb Coins when a customer opened a case and stole the items in question. If we remove that single incident,we see the TOTAL dollar amount of bullion products reported stolen from January 1,2012 to mid 2014 is a mere$1372. In addition, I questioned Commander Huff and asked him what he felt would be an acceptable recovery percentage based on an amount of approximately 300 transactions per year in our store alone and he commented that even a SINGLE recovery was Borth-what would go into this from a time and economic perspective and with that,I must wholeheartedly disagree. In closing,we feel strongly the proposed ordinance will drive stolen goods from the area making recovery much less likely.In fact,Commander Huff said as much in his comments to the council on March 3 by stating,and I paraphrase-#e want people to know there is an ordinance in Ames so they wonT sell things here< file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesEIEF34\—web5381... 4/13/2015 Page 2 of 5 As always,I am requesting you NOT pass the first reading of the proposed ordinance as there are still too many questions and issues left unanswered.You may reach me via email at garylyoungberg@msn.com,call me at work at 232-0080 or on my cell at 515-520-0631. Most sincerely, Gary,Karen,Kirk and Kyle Youngberg Ames Silversmithing From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To: bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com; Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: RE: Proposed ordinance Date:Tue,7 Apr 2015 09:16:00-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and council members- I have included below,with Matthew's approval,a few emails pertaining to the proposed ordinance concerning the selling of precious metals and gems in Ames. I would appreciate further discussion regarding this as there are simply too many variables yet to be discussed. Please feel free to call me at 232-0080 during the day or 520-0631 in the evening. Sincerely, Gary Youngberg Ames Silversmithing Matthew Goodman Thanks Gary. I thought we did a good job trying to balance many issues on this ordinance,but I understand that it isn't enough for your support.Thanks for your input,I think it helped us write a much better ordinance. Tale care. Eat and live well, Matthew Goodman I appreciate the reply,Matthew,but I don't think there was any balance to this proposed ordinance. I have yet to see a final draft,but it appears the police essentially got everything they wanted.To not exclude bullion products while excluding numismatic coins is ludicrous as numismatics are much more identifiable than bullion is. Further,if this ordinance passes,the city council will be solely responsible for yet one more intrusion into people's privacy and that is simply untenable. I truly hope you will consider not voting for this ordinance,at least in the form it currently is. file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesEI EF34\—web53 81... 4/13/2015 Page 3 of 5 Sincerely, Gary P.S. I'm sorely disappointed the police and city staff did not include any of the jewelry stores in the creation of the proposed ordinance. Perhaps had we been included,we could have provided some perspective that would have made the proposed ordinance more workable. Re: Proposed ordinance Sorry to bother you, Matthew,but let me make an additional point.Where do we draw the line on government intrusion into our lives?I realize it is a difficult line to draw and certainly issues regarding safety and health are obvious areas that require government to be involved. But private business dealing are no place for government intrusion,especially when they are more or less fishing expeditions that make store owners and employees do the police's work for them. I'm all for helping the police retrieve stolen merchandise and we have in the past. What comes next?An ordinance requiring us to report any CASH transaction over$100 because someone had cash stolen from them? How could one ever ID the cash unless serial numbers were written down?It would be impossible and in fact,just as impossible as the police identifying ANY bullion product. I could live with the ordinance if it were just jewelry but not if it includes bullion.THAT would be a better balance. BTW, next free moment,ask Commander Huff how much bullion has been reported stolen in Ames in the last year?While I truly don't know the answer to that question, I suspect it is a very small amount. Regards, Gary RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG Well,I start writing and I just can't stop. Has there been any discussion about a trial period for this ordinance should it pass?What expectations of results will be considered acceptable to keep the ordinance on the books?Let's say we log in 300 pieces per year-would the police accept a 10`ib recovery rate as acceptable?5%?2%1%?These are questions that need to be asked/answered before this ordinance passes.Matthew and they are fair questions to put to the police.The cost/benefit ratio on this should be looked at over a certain period of time and analyzed to see how effective/ineffective the ordinance actually is because a recovery rate that is so minimal would be hard to justify relative to the invasion of privacy and cost to the businesses. file://C:\Documents and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web5381... 4/13/2015 Page 4 of 5 Again,thanks, Gary RE: Proposed ordinance RE: Proposed ordina RE: Proposed ordinance GARYYOUNGBERG s From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To:bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com;pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com; mg@fightingburrito.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com;Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: Proposed ordinance Date:Thu,2 Apr 2015 15:42:16-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and city council members, We are writing to express our opposition to an ordinance proposed by the Ames Police Department and city staff.The proposed ordinance would infr inge upon our customer's privacy during the selling of precious metals and gemstones by requiring Ames merchants to log this information into a database called Leads on Line.This is an invasion of privacy that should simply not be tolerated. During a presentation to the Ames City Council,Commander Geoff Huff stated that approximately$150,000 of stolen goods were reported to Ames police in each of the last three years,however,only about$30,000 of that amount is jewelry.Commander Huff went on to say he preferred the ordinance be in place so those wishing to sell stolen property are aware of the requirements and not sell it in Ames.Inevitably, file://CADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web5381... 4/13/2015 Page 5 of 5 this will surely lead to stolen merchandise being sold outside of Ames where such ordinances don't exist and the retrieval of these goods becomes much less likely. In the past, our businesses have voluntarily worked with Ames police to assist in the retrieval of stolen goods and we feel the implementation of such an ordinance will, in fact,yield the opposite result. Should this ordinance pass,any customer that wishes to trade in or sell any precious metal to anyone in Ames will be FORCED to give their personal information to the buyer which will,in turn, be logged into the Leads on Line data bank.We feel strongly that any transaction between our customers and ourselves should be private and discreet. Please call or speak to your city council members and tell them you,too,are not in favor of this invasion of privacy. file://C:\Documents and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web5381... 4/13/2015 Page 1 of 6 RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG to: bobanncamp@aol.com,gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com,GartinForAmes@gmail.com,pforazem@gmail.com, nelson.ames@outlook.com,amber.corrieri@gmail.com,Ivilla@iastate.edu,dvoss@city.ames.ia.us 04/14/2015 02:34 PM Show Details Security: To ensure privacy, images from remote sites were prevented from downloading.Show Images To all- Unfortunately I am unable to attend this evenings council meeting where the secondhand ordinance will have its'first reading. I must URGE you to table this ordinance as there are simply too many scenarios that have yet to be discussed.For example, Commander Huff told me Chester's Coins would be excluded due to his"inability"to comply.This is simply no reason to exclude a business.In addition,let me address a very real scenario that occurs countless times in our store. A lady brought in an old gold ring and we used part of it to create a new piece for her.This piece was obviously not stolen and we know her well.As the ordinance now reads,we would be required to log this cut apart ring into the database AND be required to hold the scrap for a 10 day period.That is simply silly.Further,why exclude antique dealers and auction houses?I have yet to receive a viable answer to this question. Here's another.A young man inherits his mom's engagement ring. He wants to have us remove the stone and set it into a ring so he can get engaged the following day.Will we be allowed to take this ring apart or will we be required to hold it intact for the ten day waiting period hence losing the sale to a store down the road who has no ordinance? In closing,please consider tabling the proposed ordinance so further discussion can iron out various details.As it now reads,it is patently flawed. Sincerely, Gary Youngberg Ames Silversmithing P.S.I must also once again state my concerns that IDENTIFIABLE numismatic coins will be excluded from the reporting requirements while NON IDENTIFIABLE bullion products are to be included.The city managers recommendation#58 dated 4-14-15 states"city staff believes this is an enforceable,fair and helpful tool for law enforcement to address theft".We regard this as neither fair nor enforceable and ask the council to have the police clarify WHY they have included bullion and excluded numismatics.Considering numismatics are identifiable and bullion is not,the question remains. From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To:bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com;Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject:RE: Proposed ordinance Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:50:16-0500 One last point.Commander Huff,in a recent email to me,told me that antique dealers would be excluded from the proposed ordinance and I fail to see the reason behind this.While I have no proof, I would be so bold as to suggest that antique dealers quite possibly would/have handled WAY more secondhand goods than Ames Silversmithing EVER has. i1e://CADocuments and Settings\dianexoss\Local Settings\Temp\notesE1EF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015 Page 2 of 6 Respectfully, Gary Youngberg From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To: bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com; Ivilla@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: RE: Proposed ordinance Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:34:12-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and the city council, As the council already knows,the owners of Ames Silversmithing are in opposition to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1)Invasion of privacy 2)The amount of time required by businesses to report transactions 3)The reporting of bullion material while excluding numismatics 4)The exclusion of auctions To expand on these and other issues,let me start by saying,once again,the private transactions between our customers and us should not be made available to anyone outside of the parties involved.Ames Silversmithing has worked diligently for nearly 40 years to not only assist the Ames Police Department in the recovery of stolen merchandise,but to also maintain the highest standards of privacy and discretion for our customers. Having considered the reporting requirements,we feel strongly the amount of time required to report these transactions will be especially onerous.This time will take away the time we have to service our customers and I can envision circumstances where we could lose sales due to employees not being available to assist customers at the counter. In addition,the inclusion of bullion products while excluding numismatics is simply not based on logic and reason.City staff's earlier concerns about covering"identifiable"products in the ordinance is viable and,in fact,the overwhelming majority of bullion products sold have no serial numbers or means to identify one from the next. I recently sold 260 1 ounce American Silver eagles to a customer.Every single one of these looks like the next so identifying one from the next is impossible and for that reason,these and other bullion products should be excluded.Why should he or I be required to divulge his private information down the road when he wants to sell them? I spoke with Commander Huff last week and asked him to provide to me the reports of bullion reported stolen since 2012. Commander Huff provided the following: Bullion Thefts Geoff M Huff (GHuff@city.ames.ia. Gary, Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. Here are the cases we are aware of. 2012: 1 incident (theft of$492 silver coin and $266 silver coin) 2013: 2 incidents (theft of$614 in silver coins) (theft of$1,900 gold coin, $1,660 gold coin, $1,635 gold coin, $800 gold bar, $900 gold coin, $1620 gold nugget, $450 gold coin, $800 gold coin, $1,620 gold coin) 2014: no incidents in the first half of the year. These figures are a bit mis-leading as the 2013 gold coin incident was a robbery from Chester's Coins when a customer opened a case and stole the items in question.If we remove that single incident,we see the TOTAL dollar amount of bullion products reported stolen from January 1,2012 to mid 2014 is a mere$1372. In addition,I questioned Commander Huff and asked him what he felt would be an acceptable recovery percentage based on an amount of approximately 300 transactions per year in our store alone and he commented that even a SINGLE recovery was "worth"what would go into this from a time and economic perspective and with that,I must wholeheartedly disagree. In closing,we feel strongly the proposed ordinance will drive stolen goods from the area making recovery much less likely.In file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015 Page 3 of 6 fact,Commander Huff said as much in his comments to the council on March 3 by stating,and I paraphrase-"We want people to know there is an ordinance in Ames so they won't sell things here". As always,I am requesting you NOT pass the first reading of the proposed ordinance as there are still too many questions and issues left unanswered.You may reach me via email at garylyoungberg@msn.com,call me at work at 232-0080 or on my cell at 515-520-0631. Most sincerely, Gary,Karen,Kirk and Kyle Youngberg Ames Silversmithing From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To: bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com; pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com; (villa@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject: RE: Proposed ordinance Date:Tue,7 Apr 2015 09:16:00-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and council members- I have included below,with Matthew's approval,a few emails pertaining to the proposed ordinance concerning the selling of precious metals and gems in Ames. I would appreciate further discussion regarding this as there are simply too many variables yet to be discussed. Please feel free to call me at 232-0080 during the day or 520-0631 in the evening. Sincerely, Gary Youngberg Ames Silversmithing Matthew Goodman m9C Thanks Gary. I thought we did a good job trying to balance many issues on this ordinance,but I understand that it isn't enough for your support.Thanks for your input, I think it helped us write a much better ordinance. Take care. Eat and live well, Matthew Goodman I appreciate the reply, Matthew,but I don't think there was any balance to this proposed ordinance. I have yet to see a final draft,but it appears the police essentially got everything they wanted.To not exclude bullion products while excluding numismatic coins is ludicrous as numismatics are much more identifiable than bullion is. Further,if this ordinance passes,the city council will be solely responsible for yet file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesEIEF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015 Page 4 of 6 one more intrusion into people's privacy and that is simply untenable. I truly hope you will consider not voting for this ordinance,at least in the form it currently is. Sincerely, Gary P.S. I'm sorely disappointed the police and city staff did not include any of the jewelry stores in the creation of the proposed ordinance. Perhaps had we been included,we could have provided some perspective that would have made the proposed ordinance more workable. Re: Proposed ordinance Sorry to bother you,Matthew,but let me make an additional point.Where do we draw the line on government intrusion into our lives?I realize it is a difficult line to draw and certainly issues regarding safety and health are obvious areas that require government to be involved. But private business dealing are no place for government intrusion,especially when they are more or less fishing expeditions that make store owners and employees do the police's work for them. I'm all for helping the police retrieve stolen merchandise and we have in the past. What comes next?An ordinance requiring us to report any CASH transaction over$100 because someone had cash stolen from them? How could one ever ID the cash unless serial numbers were written down?It would be impossible and in fact,just as impossible as the police identifying ANY bullion product. I could live with the ordinance if it were just jewelry but not if it includes bullion.THAT would be a better balance. BTW,next free moment,ask Commander Huff how much bullion has been reported stolen in Ames in the last year?While I truly don't know the answer to that question, I suspect it is a very small amount. Regards, Gary RE: Proposed ordinance GARY YOUNGBERG I n:M,,Ilhc,� 1� M.M Well, I start writing and I just can't stop. Has there been any discussion about a trial period for this ordinance should it pass?What expectations of results will be considered acceptable to keep the ordinance on the books?Let's say we log in 300 pieces per year-would the police accept a 10%recovery rate as acceptable?5%?2%1%?These are questions that need to be asked/answered before this ordinance passes.Matthew and they are fair questions to put to the police.The cost/benefit ratio on this should be looked at over a certain period of file://C:\Documents and Settings\dianexoss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015 Page 5 of 6 time and analyzed to see how effective/ineffective the ordinance actually is because a recovery rate that is so minimal would be hard to justify relative to the invasion of privacy and cost to the businesses. Again,thanks, Gary RE: Proposed ordinance RE: Proposed ordina RE: Proposed ordiliance GARYYOUNGBERG From:garylyoungberg@msn.com To:bobanncamp@aol.com;gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com;gartinforames@gmail.com;pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com; mg@fightingburrito.com;amber.corrieri@gmail.com;(villa@iastate.edu;dvoss@city.ames.ia.us Subject:Proposed ordinance Date:Thu,2 Apr 2015 15:42:16-0500 Dear Mayor Campbell and city council members, We are writing to express our opposition to an ordinance proposed by the Ames Police Department and city staff.The proposed ordinance would infringe upon our customer's privacy during the selling of precious metals and gemstones by requiring Ames merchants to log this information into a database called Leads on Line.This is an invasion of privacy that should simply not be tolerated. During a presentation to the Ames City Council,Commander Geoff Huff stated that approximately$150,000 of stolen goods were reported file://C:\Documents and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015 • Page 6 of 6 to Ames police in each of the last three years,however,only about$30,000 of that amount is jewelry.Commander Huff went on to say he preferred the ordinance be in place so those wishing to sell stolen property are aware of the requirements and not sell it in Ames.Inevitably, this will surely lead to stolen merchandise being sold outside of Ames where such ordinances don't exist and the retrieval of these goods becomes much less likely. In the past,our businesses have voluntarily worked with Ames police to assist in the retrieval of stolen goods and we feel the implementation of such an ordinance will, in fact,yield the opposite result. Should this ordinance pass,any customer that wishes to trade in or sell any precious metal to anyone in Ames will be FORCED to give their personal information to the buyer which will, in turn,be logged into the Leads on Line data bank.We feel strongly that any transaction between our customers and ourselves should be private and discreet. Please call or speak to your city council members and tell them you,too,are not in favor of this invasion of privacy. yr file://C:\Documents and Settings\dianexoss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web7572... 4/14/2015