Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 2012 <br />shop businesses, suggested that 50% might be a reasonable limitation. <br />The City Attorney suggested that there seems to be two categories of <br />tobacco shops, one that sells primarily tobacco and tobacco - related <br />products and the other whose inventory is overwhelmingly pipes and <br />glassware. The City Attorney indicated that there appears to be stark <br />differences in these two types of tobacco stores. He felt that a 50% <br />limitation would place the tobacco store far more into the first category of <br />a store that sells primarily tobacco and tobacco - related products and <br />achieve the City's goals. <br />Blesener noted that the report also outlines an option to require a tobacco <br />store provide proof that 90% of its gross revenue comes from the sale of <br />tobacco and tobacco devices. The City Attorney noted that this relates to <br />the State's paraphernalia laws. I-Ie also noted that City's are not pre- <br />empted from drafting ordinances addressing drug paraphernalia. The <br />Attorney noted that the City of Moorhead is being sued over an ordinance <br />it enacted a couple of weeks ago. That ordinance defines a tobacco - <br />related product, i.e. a pipe is a device whose primary purpose is for the <br />smoking of tobacco. <br />The City Attorney felt that with regard to a tobacco shop there needs to be <br />a balance of the amount of tobacco for sale as well as the devices for sale. <br />John DeRosa, Little Canada Smoke Shop, stated that it is typical to see <br />70% of product display area as devices and the remainder tobacco. <br />DeRosa indicated that 80% of his revenue comes from the sale of tobacco. <br />He also indicated that the devices he sells are for tobacco use only. The <br />City Attorney noted that an alternative to limiting the display area for <br />tobacco - related devices is to require a certain percentage of gross revenue <br />come from tobacco sales. <br />Blesener suggested that the discussion first concentrate on the sampling <br />issue, and asked the Attorney to explain the difference between a total ban <br />on sampling and what the City of Minneapolis did in defining sampling <br />practices to eliminate revenue. The City Attorney noted that a total ban on <br />sampling would prohibit sampling altogether. The Minneapolis adopted <br />an ordinance prohibiting a tobacco store owner from providing a smoking <br />device for the purpose of sampling, providing in exchange for a fee <br />seating within or access to the indoor area of a tobacco products shop, <br />permitting within the indoor area of a tobacco products shop the sampling <br />of any tobacco product which was not furnished by the tobacco products <br />shop on the date and at the time sampling occurs. The Minneapolis <br />ordinance allows a tobacco products shop to distribute single service <br />samples of tobacco suitable for smoking subject to the limitations on <br />indoor sampling or smoking provided in the ordinance. The City Attorney <br />2 <br />