My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 10242022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2022
>
CCP 10242022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2022 10:46:49 AM
Creation date
10/21/2022 10:46:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
10/24/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
W RITER’S D IRECT D IAL N O.: (952) 746-2187 <br />E-M AIL:CMOSS @H JLAWFIRM.C OM <br />October 19, 2022 <br />Patrick Trudgeon VIA EMAIL ONLY <br />City Manager, City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Dr. <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com <br />Re: Our Client: Blue Ox Wholesale <br />Our File No.: 32473.0002 <br />Dear Mr. Trudgeon: <br />I write in advance of the Roseville City Council’s October 24, 2022, meeting. Thank you for the <br />opportunity to provide some insight as Roseville continues its process for crafting a licensing ordinance <br />for the sale of products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”). I represent several businesses, <br />including retail stores, in Minnesota’s hemp industry. <br />As Roseville contemplates issues while it drafts its THC licensing ordinance, we ask three points be <br />considered: 1) the licensing ordinance is passed as soon as practicable; 2) businesses previously selling <br />these products be considered first if the number of licenses is restricted; and 3) licensing is required for <br />retail selling products containing more than a trace amount of THC. <br />First, we appreciate the difficulties Roseville, like other cities, encountered whiletrying to craft a licensing <br />ordinance in these circumstances. Unfortunately, Roseville’s current moratorium is causing uncertainty <br />and a loss of business to nearby cities.Products made legal with the revised hemp law are extremely <br />popular. A poll released yesterday reflected 60% approve of the recent legalization in THC edibles and <br />beverages. As a result, a significant amount of income is being lost to Roseville businesses. To assist in <br />the process, I have attached Golden Valley and Shoreview’s licensing ordinances to provide differing <br />approaches. Edina used its tobacco license ordinance as a template for its ordinance. <br />Second, we ask the City Council to provide preference to established Roseville businesses that were <br />previously selling these products - especially if Roseville limits the number of THC licenses issued. <br />Businesses previously selling these products have made investments in products and employee training. <br />Third, we ask the licensing for products be limited to edible or beverages that contain more than a trace <br />amount of THC. Some cities have required licenses for the sale of any cannabinoids, even non- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.