Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews draft ordinance to regulate smoke and vape shops, including age limits and licensing cap
Summary
City staff presented a draft ordinance to define electronic cigarettes, set purchaser age limits with carve-outs, require licensing and annual fees, establish fines, and cap the number of smoke/vape shops. Council generally supported returning the item for first reading after clarifying enforcement and appeal procedures.
Get email alerts on the Public Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented a draft ordinance amending city code to regulate smoke and vape shops, defining electronic cigarettes and establishing purchase-age rules, licensing, and penalties. The proposal would set an age threshold moving purchases toward 21 with a carve‑out allowing possession at 18 in one’s private residence or with a parent or legal guardian. The ordinance would require annual licensing fees ($250 for a business defined as a smoke shop; $100 for other tobacco sellers), fines in the $75–$100 range for violations, and a local cap of four licensed smoke/vape shops under the city’s definition.
Council members asked staff how the ordinance would be enforced and appealed. Staff said proof of sales is expected to document the percentage of tobacco-related revenue where that threshold is part of the licensing test; square‑footage tests would be administratively verified and any license suspension or revocation would follow an administrative hearing process with the option to seek circuit‑court review. Chief Stevens clarified that state‑licensed cannabis dispensaries are exempt from the local smoke‑shop licensing because they are licensed through the state.
Several alderpersons voiced support for the proposed controls while asking for clarifications on measurement and appeals. One councilmember said the cap of four roughly matches the current local count and noted the ordinance is modeled in part on liquor‑license limits that require council approval to add more licenses. Staff said they would incorporate council feedback and return the ordinance for a first reading at the next council meeting.
Context and next steps: Council did not vote on the ordinance at the committee meeting; staff was seeking guidance and intends to bring the ordinance back for first reading and formal action.

