CC_Minutes_2013_1021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 21,2013 Page 9 hol license holders, but not specific to e-cigarettes to-date; with sale of e- cigarettes to minors outside current parameters of City license. Councilmember McGehee advised that her intent was to determine disparities be- tween state and local law; with Mayor Roe and Chief Mathwig responding that State law talked about age limits and how to enforce compliance. Jesse GriffithAs another tobacco licensee in the City of Roseville, Mr. Griffith admitted confusion with Chief Mathwig's comments regarding compliance, as their firm had received a phone call from a person appearing to represent them- selves as part of a city sting who had subsequently advised them that they had passed the check. Mr. Griffith admitted that it may be specific to their holding that type of license, but upon receipt of the phone call, they were of the under- standing that they were subject to compliance checks and had been found in com- pliance. Mayor Roe, with concurrence by Chief Mathwig suggested that as the holder of a tobacco license, they probably were reviewed during that round of tobacco licens- ing compliance checks; and that they should assume that they were always going to be subject to such checks. Councilmember Etten questioned Chief Mathwig on how to differentiate from one type of combustible cigarette, e-cigarette, or traditional cigarette in enforcing compliance. Mr. Chief referred to Finance Director Miller's earlier comments regarding regu- lation of cigarettes versus vapors, and if sampling was done in store, then there were enforcement issues. Chief Mathwig advised that enforcement was difficult, as they were required to have probable cause that a law was being violated before they could move to address a situation; but noted that his officers could not ad- dress one versus the other without a clear demarcation line in place as alluded to by Mr. Miller. At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that he was not aware of a prohibition in State law for sale of e-cigarettes to mi- nors, but that the Minnesota Clean Indoor Act for behavior in public and work places were what was being used. Mr. Gaughan advised that current City Code applied to retail establishments and predominantly focused on Hookah lounges and this situation, with other public areas not yet applied to e-cigarettes or the In- door Clean Air Act. Mr. Gaughan advised that his concern was with products that didn't contain nicotine and where the City's authority lay regarding that. As stated by Chief Mathwig, Mr. Gaughan noted that if the City had one regulation for e- cigarettes containing nicotine and another for those not containing it, it didn't provide a clear answer for the City. Mr. Gaughan opined that current technology