Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 2012 <br />legitimate claim against the City if it enacted an outright ban on sampling. <br />The City Attorney replied that while a business could make a claim, that <br />business would not prevail. <br />Keis indicated that the City should not start on the premise of concern <br />about being sued. The first issue is whether the City wants this activity <br />and noted the police calls that other cities have experienced generated by <br />hookah clientele. Keis stated that the difficult time he has is rationalizing <br />that the State says there should be no smoking indoors, yet has provided <br />this loophole. <br />David Nelson, The Hookah Hideout, stated that the intent of the <br />Legislature was to leave an opening for a niche business such as his and <br />cigar shops. Keis felt that the opening was directed toward cigar shops. <br />Nelson agreed, but indicated that the Legislature left the loophole for good <br />reason. He also took issue with a comment Keis made about hookah <br />clientele, with Keis indicating that his intention related to police calls at <br />hookah establishments. Nelson reported that according to his research <br />there are not many calls for service and the nature of the calls are comical. <br />McGraw stated that for him the issue is the State Law banning indoor <br />smoking and the fact that other businesses must abide by that law. The <br />issue has nothing to do with the patrons of hookah establishments or calls <br />from police. Nelson pointed out that the State Law allows the lighting of <br />tobacco for the purpose of sampling. Blesener felt that the intent was to <br />allow sampling of a free tobacco sample, not to allow someone to <br />purchase tobacco and smoke it at a hookah lounge for 1 to 2 hours. <br />Blesener asked Katie Engman of the Tobacco Coalition what the intent of <br />the Legislature was relative to sampling. Engman replied that the MN <br />Department of Health is trying to get a statement from the authors of this <br />legislation. It was her understanding that the intent was to allow the <br />sampling of cigars. The City Attorney reported that a statement of this <br />nature would not hold up in court. After a vote is taken and a law enacted, <br />it stands on its own. Any ambiguities are subject to interpretation and up <br />to the Legislature to fix. The Attorney felt that the result of the sampling <br />provision was unforeseen and might get dealt with by the Legislature at <br />some point. The City Attorney again pointed out that the City Council has <br />the authority to be more restrictive. <br />Blesener asked if there was consensus on the Council to ban sampling. <br />Montour stated that he did not support such a ban, and pointed out the <br />example of the City getting a hotel /restaurant development that may want <br />to also have a cigar shop. The City Attorney again noted the Minneapolis <br />ordinance that appears to be friendlier to cigar shops than to hookah <br />4 <br />