CC_Minutes_2013_1021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 21, 2013 Page 11 didn't know what it was attempting to regulate. While not being a fan of e- cigarettes in public places, Councilmember Willmus opined that he was far from forming a position to regulate those products, since they were not yet known de- finitively if they were harmful or not. Councilmember Willmus concurred with Councilmember Laliberte in waiting for FDA guidance on this before taking ac- tion. Councilmember Etten sought clarification from Mr. Miller as to whether this simply banned retail sales but not the use of e-cigarettes in public places. Finance Director Miller recognized that as an interesting question, referencing the City Council decision in February of 2012, and deliberate selection of language stated as "any retail establishment;" and if defining that as a tobacco shop, the or- dinance was saying that it was not permitted to use them in retail, but permitted for use elsewhere (e.g. schools, churches, elsewhere) which would not make sense. Personally, Mr. Miller opined that he think the intent was "any indoor es- tablishment." Mayor Roe questioned if that was the actual intent. Councilmember McGehee stated that it was certainly her intent at that time. City Attorney Gaughan stated that his recollection was that amendments in 2012 to Section 306.05, "Indoor Smoking Prohibited" was in response to State law ex- pressly allowing sampling of tobacco at retail shops, with the City of Roseville using its regulatory authority as other cities had done, to prohibit use in sampling and Hookah lounges. Mr. Gaughan noted that the problem then became, if you were to expand the definition of tobacco in the City to e-cigarettes and the like, then disparity was found in where they could be used, since State law already ap- plied to public and work places, therefore a City Code was not needed to cover them, but now there were new technologies that State law and definition had yet to catch up to. Mayor Roe stated that his recollection of the 2012 amendment to City Code was in regulating sales in retail establishments licensed to sell tobacco-related prod- ucts and/or devices; and the linkage was then based on sampling in that section re- lated to the sale of products. City Attorney Gaughan stated that this was his recollection of what was intended in 2012, and because of State law being in place (Minnesota Clean Air Act), the City didn't have to worry about regulating other places since they were already covered under State Law.