Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 8, 2012 <br />reported that the point of the definition is to distinguish between tobacco <br />and tobacco - related devices. He recommended that the wording "tobacco <br />product as well as a" be deleted from the "Tobacco - related device" <br />definition for more clarity. He also noted that the requirement that no <br />more than 50% of gross revenue of the store may be derived from the sale <br />of tobacco- related devices is to ensure that a tobacco store is, in fact, a <br />tobacco store. <br />Nelson again raised the provision in Section 3 that requires submission of <br />financial information to show compliance that 90% of gross revenue is <br />derived from the sale of approved products. The City Attorney again <br />pointed out that provision applies to a license for a tobacco store. Nelson <br />asked if the City required any other businesses to provide financial <br />information. The City Administrator replied that there are other <br />businesses that are required to provide financial information such as those <br />seeking charitable gambling licenses as well as the Fra -Dor business. <br />Nelson pointed out that charitable gambling is a highly - regulated industry <br />and stated that the City is dealing with two little tobacco shops stating that <br />he felt this type of regulation was not needed. <br />Nelson expressed concern with Section 5, indicating that the proximity <br />restrictions were too severe. IIe indicated that there is no location in the <br />City that is not within 500 feet of a place where a child lives. The City <br />Attorney indicated that he would not interpret this provision as Nelson is, <br />and indicated that it is not meant to include private homes in the proximity <br />restrictions. The Council agreed. <br />Nelson took issue with Section 7, 802.070 (c) (4) which addresses the <br />licensee's responsibilities for the conduct of employees. Nelson felt that <br />the wording "to a person under eighteen (18) years of age" should not be <br />struck from that provision. The City Attorney noted that the present <br />ordinance provision is specific to employee actions in selling to a person <br />under eighteen. Given that the ordinance amendment has additional <br />requirements and prohibitions, striking this wording broadens a licensee's <br />responsibility for actions of its employees relative to all provisions of the <br />Tobacco Ordinance. Nelson felt that this provision in addition to Section <br />9 802.090 (a) were traps allowing the City to say the ordinance has been <br />violated and a tobacco license will not be reissued. <br />Nelson asked why the City feels the need to amend its Tobacco <br />Ordinance. Montour pointed out that a number of cities are addressing the <br />issue of sampling, some of which are placing complete prohibitions on <br />sampling. Little Canada addressing the issue of sampling as well, but with <br />this ordinance amendment will be grandfathering in the two existing <br />5 <br />