Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />April 26, 2011 <br />Page 3 <br />Moonlight. He stated that this might put Wal-Mart or Cub at a disadvantage but it does not have <br />an effect on them because they are not eligible per the terms of this Statute. He stated that it <br />seems odd to protect those businesses against the competitive business practices of a local <br />business. He stated that there is no double standard and the ordinance is a problem. He disputed <br />the City Council's authority to pass the ordinance and the City Council is relying on § 144.417 to <br />enact a local ordinance to enforce the tobacco ordinance; however, it neglects the plain language <br />of § 144.4167 which does not prohibit the lighting of tobacco products by a customer or potential <br />customer. Ile reiterated that the City Council does not have authority to enact the ordinance as it <br />is. He stated that he has received calls from residents and the vast majority of them indicated <br />that the City Council is overreaching, and he and his clients agree. He requested that the City <br />Council reconsider its approach and look at it in a manner of applying the ordinance only to new <br />licensees. He stated that the City required his client to spend a lot of money, per City Code, to <br />put forth a ventilation system that is top notch and the City now seeks to change the ordinance to <br />try to trump State Statute. He stated that he and his client have suggested a fair compromise and <br />his clients will drop their objection if the ordinance is limited to new licensees only. He <br />concluded his remarks by advising the City that his clients have no other option than to fight this <br />should the City Council continue on its current course of action. <br />Mr. Saeed Kiblawi, owner of Flamezz Hookah, appeared before the City Council and reiterated <br />Mr. Brever's statement that other licensees in the City cannot meet the 90% of gross revenue <br />requirement. He stated that he felt the double standard applied to him because the City required <br />him to remodel his space but now says he cannot operate his current business. <br />Mr. Bilal Haidari, 3937 Silver Lake Road, appeared before the City Council and stated that he <br />encouraged Mr. Kiblawi to start his business in St. Anthony. He indicated that from day one, <br />Mr. Kiblawi has been up -front with the City about his tobacco store and the sampling, and the <br />City told him what would be required to open his business. He stated that the City wants to <br />change things after Mr. Kiblawi has spent that much money to build his future and make a decent <br />living, and he did not feel it was fair to take this from him. He stated that if the City felt that the <br />sampling was not acceptable, that should have been made clear from day one and the City should <br />have been up -front with him. IIe asked that the City Council be fair. <br />Councilmember Stille stated that the City Council has been struggling with this debate and the <br />City's moratorium over the past year. I -Ie indicated that the Statute says that people/businesses <br />can have tobacco shops and can light products for the specific purpose of sampling tobacco <br />products. He questioned how you compare sampling for other establishments to the sampling <br />taking place here. I -Ie advised that the City is not shutting down the business or forcing it to <br />close, and tobacco products can continue to be sold, but the practice of sampling prior to <br />purchase will not be allowed. He added that the City is removing the sampling because of <br />ambiguity in the statute. <br />Councilmember Gray agreed and stated if sampling were used in the context of a bar and it was <br />okay to sample beer in the event a customer wanted to purchase the beer, would that mean that <br />people would be allowed to hang around and drink beer there? He questioned whether that was <br />sampling. He stated it appears that people hang out at Flamezz Hookah and smoke, so then the <br />sampling is broadened to include hanging out there and smoking and not to see if the people <br />3 <br />