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 />City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />March 27, 2012 <br />Page 3 <br />they fear that someone at the Flamezz Hookah will find out they called the Police and might <br />damage their cars in the parking lot. She recited a portion of the City Ordinance regarding <br />obnoxious noises and noted it is a violation to operate any device between the hours of 8:00 p.m. <br />and 7:30 a.m. in a manner so as to be audible at the property line. She indicated this was a <br />nuisance all last summer and as neighbors, they deserve the right to be considered. She also <br />expressed concern about the young people who are smoking in the hookah lounge, which is <br />apparently worse than smoking cigarettes. <br />Mayor Faust closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. <br />City Attorney Lindgren reminded the City Council that its role in a public hearing is to determine <br />whether violations of the City's tobacco license ordinance has occurred. He stated it is not a <br />question of whether these are criminal actions because this is a license hearing and the City <br />Council needs to be reasonable and deliberate. He opined that the Criminal Court decision is not <br />relevant to this discussion because the criminal proceeding involved a question of whether <br />something occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. He summarized the evidence, which includes <br />the Police Chief's report of violations as well as incident reports showing smoking in the <br />business, not just sampling. He stated there has been a clear indication of tobacco use and <br />specifically pointed out the City's license as granted requires compliance with the State's Clean <br />Indoor Air Act and the City Council needs to consider whether a violation of that law has <br />occurred. He noted the Clean Indoor Air Act is a law even broader than the City's Ordinance <br />and pertains to any smoking. He reminded the City Council that this is an annual license <br />designed to be renewed on an annual basis and any changes to the standards are known to any <br />licensee. He stated the City Council's options include adopting a motion revoking the license <br />immediately or adopting a motion to extend the license to its full duration of March 15, 2012. <br />Mayor Faust asked if State statute allows the City to be more stringent. <br />City Attorney Lindgren replied in the affirmative and stated the statute allows cities to adopt a <br />more stringent standard specifically with regard to prohibiting sampling of tobacco products, <br />which the City did in 2011. <br />Councilmember Roth asked if the statute defines sampling. <br />City Attorney Lindgren advised the statute does not specifically define sampling, which is why <br />the Police Chief s report includes examples of incident reports where tobacco was being sampled <br />for extended durations of time. <br />Councilmember Stille requested confirmation that the City's ability to be more stringent was <br />upheld in the court case in December. <br />City Attorney Lindgren replied this was correct and the question of whether the City had the <br />authority to adopt its Ordinance was upheld by the Court. Ile noted the recent acquittal of Mr. <br />Kiblawi was related to criminal charges brought for alleged violations of the City's Ordinance <br />and the Court found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained that the criminal <br />