Admin Order 53-01-03-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 53-01-03-F of the City Manager of the City of Eugene ADOPTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS RETAIL LICENSE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE R-3.515 The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Under provisions of Sections 2.019 and 3.515 of the Eugene Code, 1971 the City Manager has authority to adopt rules for administration and implementation of any provisions of that . Code, including provisions regulating the distribution, sale and consumption of tobacco products within the City. B. Pursuant to that authority, and based on the findings contained in Administrative Order No. 53-01-03 issued on February 9,2001, I proposed the adoption of Tobacco Products Retail License Administrative Rule R-3.515. C. Notice of the proposed rule adoption was published in the Register-Guard for five consecutive days, to-wit, on February 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2001. The Notice was also made available to persons who had requested such notice, aild provided that written comments would be received thereon for a period of 15 days from the first date of publication. There were three written comments received, to which I make the following specific findings: Comments 1 and 2: Vicki Chandler and Rufus Richey objected to the licensing program, the manner in which penalties are imposed, and the ordinance. Findings: These comments address matters established by Council ordinance, which cannot be altered by rules. No changes were made to the proposed rules as a result of these comments. Comment 3. Michael J. Lilly, on behalf of the Oregon Neighborhood Store Association raised 10 objections to the proposed rules, which are summarized as follows: (1) that the requirements for the license are arbitrary and capricious; (2) the rule establishes arbitrary and capricious requirements for displays of tobacco products; (3) the requirement that the retailer notify the City of all changes in owners, manager, or other persons authorized to act on behalf of the licensee; (4) that the indemnity provision of R-3.515-G is an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation; (5) the City lacked authority to adopt the ordinance, so cannot adopt the rule; (6) the ordinance and rule create a tax; (7) the ordinance and rule are an unreasonable restriction of Interstate Commerce; (8) the ordinance and rule create a taking of private property without due process and just Administrative Order - 1 r:\adminord\rules\O 1 tobsales2ao.wpd(03/07 /01)