Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee upholds 120‑day suspension and $2,000 fine for Campus Market tobacco violations
Summary
The committee adopted a hearing officer's recommendation to impose the presumptive penalty—$2,000 and a 120‑day suspension—after a finding of repeated sales of flavored tobacco products at Campus Market.
The Business, Housing and Zoning Committee voted Oct. 14 to adopt a hearing officer’s findings and impose the presumptive penalty for a third violation of Minneapolis’s flavored‑tobacco rules on Campus Market, ordering a $2,000 fine and a 120‑day suspension of the tobacco dealer license.
City records and the hearing officer’s report in the record show three citations earlier this year for selling flavored tobacco at the Campus Market location: Feb. 6, March 6 and April 15, 2025. Inspectors documented products by brand and flavor and provided photographs and written citation notices. Inspectors and business‑licensing staff told the committee they repeatedly educated the licensee and documented the items inspectors said needed removal. The hearing officer concluded the repeated citations after explicit warnings constituted willful noncompliance.
At the committee meeting, the license holder, who identified himself as Mohammed and said he runs Campus Market, said he had previously believed an exclusive tobacco license allowed flavored sales and described difficulty keeping up with frequent product changes. Inspectors responded that the location had not held an exclusive flavored‑tobacco license and that records and the owner’s application indicated the business had applied as a non‑exclusive tobacco dealer allowed only non‑flavored products.
Council members discussed penalties and business impacts. Some members emphasized the council’s unanimous adoption last year of a progressive penalty matrix and said that repeated violations—particularly where staff had provided education and warning—justify the presumptive sanction. One council member said she could not support the full 120‑day suspension because of the business hardship; however the motion to adopt the hearing officer’s recommendation passed on a 5–1 recorded vote (Chair Jamal Osmond cast the lone no vote).
Ending: Business‑licensing staff told the committee that a further violation of the ordinance within 24 months would proceed to license revocation. The committee’s action imposes the $2,000 fine and 120‑day suspension and documents the City’s reliance on progressive enforcement for public‑health and youth‑protection goals.
