Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Tobacco Retailers Outreach Rptor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL September 18, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' SUBJECT: Tobacco Retailers Ordinance Outreach Report Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager & Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #560 -90 A Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions and a licensing system for new tobacco retailers within the City. As directed by the City Council, Staff met with representatives advocating various positions to solicit their input. Staff is presenting this item to receive additional direction before finalizing the Tobacco Retailer Ordinances. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide Staff with feedback and direction on developing a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance. Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant City Manager BACKGROUND A Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions and a licensing system for new tobacco retailers within the City. The ordinance would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin. A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and /or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 7.2 The City Council received presentations from Staff on possible ordinance provisions and discussed this topic at both the January 17, 2012 and April 17, 2012 City Council meetings. The Staff Reports are included as Attachment 1 and 2. As directed by the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting, Staff has met with interested individuals, groups, and organizations with various positions regarding this issue to solicit input. In particular, Staff has worked with a subcommittee from the Chamber of Commerce to review the ordinance and obtain feedback. Additionally, Staff held two town hall meetings with the tobacco retailers. Staff also met with the American Lung Association and Alameda County Public Health to solicit feedback. The Chamber and Tobacco Retailers proposed several modifications to the original direction received from the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting. DIRECTION RECEIVED FROM CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 17, 2012 MEETING Below is a recap of the direction that was received by the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting. Zoning Restrictions for Tobacco Retailers: 1. Minimum distance from areas where children are present (schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, youth- centers, arcades, commercial daycare centers, pre - schools & City -owned facilities): 1,000 feet. 2. Residential zones are not included in the ordinance. 3. Smoke shops shall be prohibited from siting within 1,000 feet of one another. 4. In regard to approval process for new Tobacco Retailers, a zoning clearance will be used for the siting of new tobacco retailers. 5. Existing retailers will be grandfathered within the ordinance. Tobacco Retailers Licensing: 1. The fee to obtain a Tobacco Retailer License shall be established at full cost recovery: Staff estimated that the annual application fee will be approximately $25 and the annual License Fee will be approximately $290. The License Fee of $290 per retailer will fund one sting operations per year. Additional operations will increase the cost of the fee by multiplying the fee by the number of operations desired; e.g., if the Council were to desire to conduct two operations within a given year, then the license fee would increase to $580 ($290 x 2 operations = $580). 2. Licenses shall be revoked for violations. 3. Revocation periods for violations shall be: • 1 st violation: license revoked for 30 days; • 2nd violation: license revoked for 90 days; • 3rd violation: license revoked for 180 days; • 4th violation or more: license revoked for 1 year. 4. Administrative Penalty in lieu of Revocation will be: • 1 st violation: $1,000; • 2nd violation: an agreement to stop acting as a tobacco retailer for 7 days and $5,000. In addition, the City Council also directed Staff to include single item and flavored cigars as part of the ordinance. Premium cigars would be exempted from this requirement. The Council also provided direction to expand the smoking prohibition in City parks to include community parks. Page 2 of 6 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCES BY THE CHAMBER & RETAILERS City Staff met with the Chamber of Commerce and with the retailers to discuss the Tobacco Retailer Ordinances. Of the 26 retailers within the City, only 8 attended the informational sessions. Primarily, the Chamber and the retailers indicated that they are against the adoption of the proposed ordinances. Many of the retailers believe that they are taking sufficient measures to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. While Staff does not have the data available to verify, many of the retailers that attended the meetings claimed that they had not had more than one violation in 20 years or more, and they worried that businesses that are being proactive and responsible were being punished because of the actions of an irresponsible few. Further, the Cox family, which owns and operates three of the City's Shell stations, presented their employee education program along with the policies and programs they have developed as a model for curtailing the sale of tobacco products to minors, and perhaps as an alternative requirement as opposed to the proposed ordinances (Attachment 3). The Shell stations within Dublin have electronic identification readers that will not allow a sale to occur if the buyer is underage. While the primary position of the Chamber and retailers is to not adopt an ordinance, Staff worked with them to propose ordinance modifications that would alleviate their concerns. The retailers and Chamber indicate they would like to see the City Council establish a taskforce to study the issue in greater detail. The proposed modifications include: Zoning Restrictions for Tobacco Retailers (underline indicates change) 1. Minimum distance from schools: 1,000 feet 2. Minimum distance from all other areas where children are present (libraries, parks, Playgrounds, youth- centers, arcades, pre - schools & City -owned facilities): 500 feet. 3. Remove commercial davcares from definition of areas where children are aresent. Tobacco Retailers Licensing: 1. The fee to obtain a Tobacco Retailer License shall be established at full recovery: application fee approximately $25 and License Fee approximately $290. The annual fee will only be charged if /when the City does not receive grant funding. 2. Revocation periods for violations shall be: • 1St violation: warning • 2nd violation: license revoked for 30 days; • 3rd violation: license revoked for 90 days; • 4t" violation: license revoked for 180 days; • 5t" violation or more: license revoked for 1 year. 3. Fine in lieu of Revocation will be: • 1St violation: warning • 2nd violation: $1,000; • 3rd violation: an agreement to stop acting as a tobacco retailer for 7 days & $57000. 4. There should NOT be a minimum pack size requirement for flavored cigars. 5. The aeriod durina which violations accrue should be 3 vears instead of 5 vears. MEETING WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION & PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT City Staff also met with a representative from the American Lung Association and a representative from the Alameda County Public Health Tobacco Control Program. At that meeting, Staff discussed the proposed modifications that the Chamber and Tobacco Retailers had requested. The representatives from the American Lung Association and Public Health Page 3 of 6 Department did not support any of the proposed modifications by the retailers. Most notably, it was felt that the minimum distance to keep future tobacco retailers from parks and playgrounds should remain at 1,000 feet and that there should be minimum pack size requirement for the flavored cigars. ANALYSIS: Matrix of Proposed Variances Worksheet Page 4 of 6 American City Lung Assn & Chamber & Retailer Decision Point Council Tobacco Chamber & Retailer' Variance Request Draft Control Prg Proposed Variances rationale Direction Proposedi Variances The minimum distance that The 1,000 foot This change opens up future tobacco retailers can requirement should only undeveloped areas in the locate from youth oriented Yes None apply to schools, and all eastern part of the City, areas is 1,000 feet? other locations should be where gas stations, etc. 500 feet. may locate themselves. Define youth oriented areas as Do not include licensed Prevents possible schools, libraries, parks, childcare facilities/ development conflicts playgrounds, youth- centers, preschools. when retailers and arcades, licensed childcare Yes None daycares are trying to facilities/ preschools, and City develop nearby sites. owned and operated recreational facilities? Establish a tobacco retailer Do not charge retailers a Curtail hardship when licensing fee at full cost licensing fee in those funding is available. recovery? Yes None years when grant funding for sting operations is available. The revocation period for A. Add a warning for the A. Prevent a rogue ordinance violations is: first violation and employee from 1. 1st violation within a 60 readjust the violation negatively impacting month period: License penalties accordingly. businesses that rarely revoked for 30 days. have violations. 2. 2nd violation within a 60 Yes None B. Decrease the penalty B. Ensure that only the month period: License accrual period from most egregious revoked for 90 days. 60 months to 36 violators are severely 3. 3rd violation within a 60 months. penalized. month period: License revoked for 180 days. 4. 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revoked for 1 year. Include a fine in lieu of fee for Yes None Add a warning for the first Prevent a rogue employee Page 4 of 6 1S and 2 na violations? violation. from negatively impacting businesses that rarely have violations. Should there be a minimum Maintain the status quo; Maintain a source of pack size for flavored cigars? Yes None i.e., no restrictions placed significant revenue. on these products. Decision Point: Determine the appropriate distance that future tobacco retailers can locate from areas where children are present. A recommendation was made that the minimum distance be 1,000 feet for schools and 500 feet for all other areas where children are present. Reducing the distance to 500 feet from all other areas where children are present would allow for future tobacco retailers, and in particular gas stations, in Eastern Dublin along Dublin Boulevard. Please refer to the attached maps to understand the potential areas in the City where future tobacco retailers could be located if the minimum distance is changed from 1,000 feet to 500 feet from areas where children are present (excluding schools). Attachment 4 shows all areas in the City where children are present with a 1,000 foot buffer and Attachment 5 has a 1,000 foot buffer around schools and a 500 foot buffer around all other areas where children congregate. Should the minimum distance that future tobacco retailers can locate from areas where children are present (excluding schools) be changed from 1,000 feet to 500 feet? ❑ Yes ❑No Decision Point: Determine whether commercial daycares should be removed from the definition of youth - oriented areas. There was a significant concern from 7 -11 representatives that including commercial daycares would inhibit the development process of retailers looking to establish themselves. In particular, it was feared that, in the middle of a tobacco retailers development process, a daycare would site itself within a prohibited footage area from the tobacco retailer, and would finish the approval process before the tobacco retailer could, thereby, rending the tobacco retailers investment in time and money null and void. Additionally, it was felt the children that would leave a commercial daycare would be so young that they would always be with an adult or of an age that there would be no threat of the sale of tobacco products to them. Should commercial daycares be removed from youth- oriented areas? ❑ Yes ❑No Decision Point: Determine if the Tobacco Retailers Licensing Fee should only be charged during the years that the City does not receive grant funding. This recommendation is a moot point in that the City has learned that it will, in all likelihood, lose grant funding once a Tobacco Retailers License is adopted. Should the annual fee will only be charged if /when the City does not receive funding from the tobacco fund? ❑ Yes ❑No Decision Point: Page 5 of 6 Determine if it is appropriate to issue a warning for the first time that a retailer violates the ordinance. The tobacco retailers feel that a warning helps safeguard a business from a rogue employee that sells tobacco products to a minor. The American Lung Association and Public Health do not believe that warnings are necessary since retailers have been receiving warnings for years without any repercussions and there is already an in lieu of revocation process included within the ordinance. Should a warning be issued for the first violation? ❑ Yes ❑No Decision Point: Determine if there should be a minimum pack size for flavored cigars. Currently most of the retailers indicate that they purchase flavored cigars individually wrapped in bulk size (50 per box). Including a requirement for a minimum pack size would require that the retailers develop packaging for the cigars, and raise the cost to purchase them. The Tobacco Retailers feel that a selective restriction on flavored cigars will push sales of the product to other cities and discriminates against people of lower economic means. The American Lung Association and Alameda Public Health feel strongly that there should be a minimum pack size in the ordinance as it would provide an economic disincentive for minors to purchase such products. Staff is unaware of other jurisdictions that have adopted such restrictions, so the City may face legal challenges should the City Council proceed with such provisions. Additionally, the increased penalties (loss of license to sell tobacco products altogether) included within the retailers license may provide enough disincentive to sell such products to minors or at least be a solid first step. Should there be a minimum pack size for flavored cigars? ❑ Yes ❑No Decision Point: Determine if the time that a violation stays on a retailer's record should be reduced from 5 years to 3 years. The tobacco retailers are in favor of this modification because it reduces the potential for severe penalties if a rogue employee sells tobacco products to a minor. The American Lung Association and Alameda County Public Health prefer that the cycle remain at five years, to avoid having the severe punishments go away as such a provision really only protect the egregious violators and would have little to no impact/benefit to the responsible business owner. Should the time be reduced from 5 years to 3 years? ❑ Yes ❑No NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City in addition to other interested parties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 2. April 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 3. Cox Family Stores Employee Education Program 4. Areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer 5. Areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer around schools and 500 foot buffer around all other areas Page 6 of 6 or L9 'I It, DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL January 17, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Counci[members Joni Pattillo, City Manager�16L r o c, CITY CLERK File #560-90 SUBJECT: Report on Tobacco Retailers Ordinances Prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator and Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fiscal Year 2011/2012 City Council initiated work plan goals direct Staff to develop zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The Fiscal Year 2011/2012 budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the City Council: 1) review the Staff report and provide feedback and direction on any preferred option(s) for the development of possible future ordinances affecting Tobacco Retailers and 2) direct Staff, if appropriate, to prepare ordinance proposals with the preferred options. Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager 1»d01_1q11 I -2-1[9PF .Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Background A Fiscal Year 2011/2012 City Council initiated work plan goals directs Staff -to develop both a zoning restriction for new tobacco retailers within the City (Health and Welfare, Item F) as well as a licensing system for all tobacco retailers (Health and Welfare, Item E). A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 8.2 The Zoning Ordinance amendment would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City. Among other things, the ordinance would establish a minimum distance that tobacco retailers would need to maintain from areas where children are present. Studies have shown that tobacco use among the youth continues to rise with a particular impact upon high school students. Numerous California cities and counties have adopted ordinances to regulate the siting of new tobacco retailers. The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organization created a matrix of local ordinances (Attachment 1) restricting tobacco retailers within a certain distance of schools. The matrix is dated April 2011 and includes 24 California cities and counties, of which five are cities within Alameda County. In addition to a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment, Staff was directed to present options for a local tobacco retailer licensing system. The purpose of a local licensing program is to ensure compliance with the business standards and practices of the City and to encourage responsible tobacco retailing while discouraging violations of tobacco - related laws, especially those which prohibit or discourage the sale or distribution of tobacco and nicotine products to minors. In general, any store that would wish to provide tobacco products for sale to the community would have to first obtain a license from the City before so doing. A licensing system is beneficial to the City in at least two ways. First, it provides the City with a strong local enforcement mechanism in penalizing the sale of tobacco products to youth. Violators of such an ordinance could have their licenses revoked for selling tobacco products to underage individuals and /or face significant fines. A second benefit is that a licensing program generally requires a fee to obtain the license, which could be used to cover the cost of enforcement and other tobacco related administrative costs. For many years, the Alameda County Public Health Department has provided the City with grant funding to conduct compliance checks with youth decoys, but in these difficult financial times, such funding may not always be available. NIGli•11►LM1711III11i•161AIDG M1 [61111E] Current Law There are currently no local Zoning Ordinance regulations that specifically place restrictions upon tobacco retailers. Under the current regulations within the Zoning Ordinance, tobacco retailers are treated the same as any other retail use. State Law O No applicable laws or standards. Policy Consideration: Minimum Distance from Areas Where Children Are Present To date, five Alameda County cities have adopted ordinances to restrict tobacco retailers from a certain distance of where children are present, which include: 1. Union City — ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries, recreation centers, religious intuitions or. youth - oriented establishments. 2. Albany — ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 500 feet of schools, childcare centers, public libraries, public community centers, parks or playgrounds. 3. Oakland — ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,000 feet of schools, residential zones, libraries, parks, playgrounds, recreational centers or licensed daycare facilities_ 4. Berkeley — ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,400 feet of schools or public parks. Page 2 of 9 5. San Leandro — ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,500 feet of schools, parks, libraries or recreational facilities. Of the statewide policies, the restrictions from schools range from 500 feet to 1,500 feet, with the majority (14 of 24) restricting sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools. In addition to schools, the majority of the policies (18 of 24) also restrict tobacco retailers within a certain distance of other youth - oriented areas. The most popular other location is parks and/or playgrounds, which 18 cities and counties restrict tobacco retailers near in addition to schools. Attachment 2 includes the locations in the City where children congregate (schools, existing parks, future parks, library, daycare centers and City owned and operated recreational facilities). There is a 500 foot and a 1,000 foot buffer around each of these parcels. Decision Point: Determine the appropriate distance to maintain from a tobacco retailer to an area where children are present and the youth - oriented areas that should be included. Consequences: The greater the minimum distance required from a tobacco retailer to areas where children are present and the more types of areas included will result in fewer locations where new tobacco retailers will be able to locate. What is the minimum distance that should be maintained from a tobacco retailer to areas where children are present? ❑ 500 feet ❑1,000 feet Which areas should be included in the ordinance? ❑ Schools ❑Libraries ❑ Parks ❑Playgrounds ❑Youth Center ❑Arcades ❑ Licensed child care facility or preschool ❑City owned & operated recreational facilities PolicV Consideration: Should Residential Zones be Included in the Ordinance The original City Council initiated Tobacco Retailers work plan goal, which was discussed at the February 24, 2010 Study Session, included establishing a buffer around residential districts in addition to schools and libraries. Of the 24 statewide policies, only one (Oakland) restricts the siting of tobacco retailers within residential zones. Attachment 3 includes all of the existing tobacco retailers in the City. A 1,000 foot buffer from all parcels with a residential land use has been added to this map. Decision Point: Determine if future tobacco retailers should be required to be located a minimum distance from parcels with a residential land use designation. Consequences: if the ordinance requires a minimum distance from a tobacco retailer to parcels with a residential land use designation, then very few new tobacco retailers will be able to locate in the City. As shown in Attachment 3, the majority of parcels designated as commercial are located within 9,000 feet of a residential land use designation. Should the ordinance include residential? ❑ Yes ❑No Policy Consideration, Limited Density of Tobacco Retailers The Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC) developed a Model Land Use Ordinance regulating the location and operations of tobacco retailers. The model ordinance includes a Page 3 of 9 requirement that a future tobacco retailer cannot be located within five hundred (500) feet of a site occupied by another tobacco retailer. Studies' have shown that if tobacco retailers concentrate in a particular geographic area, market conditions and competition could lead to a greater impact on community health and safety resulting from tobacco retailers offering special promotions such as sales or discounts. Attachment 4 includes a map of all of the existing tobacco retailers in the City. There is a 500 foot and a 1,000 foot buffer around each existing tobacco retailer. Several of the existing tobacco retailers are located within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer. Of the five Alameda County cities that have adopted a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance, two include a provision that limit the density of tobacco retailers. Union City restricts retailers within 1,000 feet of other retailers and San Leandro restricts retailers within 1,500 feet of other retailers. Of the 24 statewide policies, six ordinances contain a provision to restrict a tobacco retailer from being located within a certain distance of another tobacco retailer. The distance restrictions range from 500 feet to 1,500 feet. Decision Point: Determine if a provision should be included in the ordinance to limit the density of tobacco retailers and if so, what is the preferred distance. Consequences: if the ordinance limits the density of tobacco retailers in the City, then only one tobacco retailer could locate at fixture commercial centers or at a particular intersection. It isn't uncommon to have gas stations located at multiple corners of an intersection. If this were to occur in Eastern Dublin, then only one of the gas stations would be able to sell tobacco products. Should the ordinance limit the density of tobacco retailers? t7 Yes ❑No If yes, what distance should be maintained between tobacco retailers? ❑ 500 feet ❑ 1,000 feet ❑ 1,500 feet PolicV Consideration: Approval Process for Now Tobacco Retailers All new tobacco retailers would be required to obtain a permit prior to commencing operations. There are two options for the City Council to consider: a Zoning Clearance or a Conditional Use Permit. A Zoning Clearance is approved ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. If a tobacco retailer meets all of the development standards outlined in the ordinance, then they would submit a Zoning. Clearance form that shows compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter regulating the location and operation of tobacco retailers. This is a similar approach taken in the Indoor Recreation Zoning Ordinance Chapter. For indoor recreational uses, if a project meets certain parameters (operates during certain hours, there is adequate parking, etc.) then a Zoning Clearance Application is completed and the Applicant is given the Standard Conditions of Approval that they must abide by. A Planner reviews the I Novak, Reardon, Raudenbush, et al- `Retail tobacco oultet density and youth cigarette smoking: A propensity modeling approach." American Journal of Public Health 96(4):670 -676 (2006) Page 4 of 9 application and signs off on it. In the case of the Indoor Recreational use, if a project doesn't meet all of the development standards outlined in the Recreational Facilities (Indoor) Zoning Ordinance Chapter, a Minor Use Permit is required, which is a more involved process that requires a Public Hearing. The second option is to require a Conditional Use Permit for all future Tobacco Retailers. A Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary permit which requires a Public Hearing either at a Staff or Planning Commission level Decision Point: Determine the approval process for new tobacco retailers. Consequences: Reviewing applications for new tobacco retailers via a Conditional Use Permit process would add to the workload of City Staff. Conditional Use Permits typically take 3 -6 months to process. What process should be used to review future tobacco retailers in the city? ® Zoning Clearance ®Conditional Use Permit Policy Consideration; Existing Retailers There are twenty -five tobacco retailers operating within the City of Dublin. Sixteen (16) out of the 24 ((67 %) of the existing tobacco retailers are located within 1,000 feet of areas where children congregate. A majority of the policies similar to this proposal that have been adopted in California (22 out of 24) do not subject existing retailers to the location restrictions but apply only to new retailers and 7 out of 24 (20 %) are within 500 feet. Decision Point: Determine whether the ordinance should apply to existing tobacco retailers or if the existing tobacco retailers should be grandfathered in. Consequences. if the ordinance applies to existing tobacco retailers, then several of the existing retailers would no longer be able to sell tobacco products. Should the ordinance apply to existing tobacco retailers? LI Yes ®No TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE OPTIONS Current Law There is currently no local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance in place. The City receives grant funding through the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to perform compliance checks each year at Dublin's tobacco retailers to ensure that they are not selling tobacco products to minors. State Law • Tobacco retailers must be licensed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) for each tobacco retail location. • Each retailer must pay a onetime license fee of $100 for each retail location. The license must be renewed annually at no cost to the retailer. • The current license program assesses penalties and fines for businesses that sell tobacco products to minors. The fourth to seventh convictions in a 12 -month period each Page 5 of 9 result in a 90 day suspension of the license. An eighth conviction in a 24 -month period results in the revocation of the retail license. Individual penalties may be assessed upon conviction for tobacco sales to minors. Violators are subject to either a criminal action for misdemeanor or a civil action punishable by a fine of $200 for the first offense, $500 for a second offense, and $1,004 for a third. Both the business and the employee may be prosecuted under State law. The State is only able to take action on license related penalties if 13% or more of youths were able to purchase cigarettes during each year's Statewide survey. State law states that nothing preempts or supersedes any local tobacco control law other than those related to the collection of state taxes, and that local licensing laws may provide for the suspension or revocation of a local license for any violation of a state tobacco control law (California Business and Professions Code section 22971.3). Policy Consideration: Establish a Tobacco Retailer Licensinq System There are many cities throughout California and within the Bay Area that have adopted local tobacco retailer ordinances (Attachment 5). Within Alameda County, four jurisdictions have adopted such an ordinance (Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and Union City). For the City of Dublin, the adoption of a retailer ordinance would move the City from a grade of "C" to an "A" grade as rated by the American Lung Association (Attachment 6). The grade of "C" does not appear to reflect that the City already has a sampling prohibition in place, which would yield one additional point moving the City to a grade of "B." Staff will work with the American Lung Association to see if an additional point is merited. A retailer licensing ordinance would provide greater local control over the illegal sale of tobacco products and would provide a sustainable funding mechanism for program enforcement and administrative oversight. Decision Point: Determine whether the City should consider a retailer licensing system for all existing as well as any future tobacco retailers. Consequences: Provide greater enforcement and local control of tobacco related infractions. An additional burden would be placed upon local businesses to apply for the license. Also, additional staff time will be required to review, approve, and manage the licensing program as well as to conduct hearings for possible license revocations; however, a licensing fee could be established to offset the additional costs to the City. Should Staff prepare a retailer licensing ordinance proposal? CI Yes ❑No Policy Consideration: Establish a Pee to Obtain a Tobacco Retailer License As stated above, the costs of a licensing system can be recovered by the establishment of an appropriate fee. All four of the cities within Alameda County that have adopted a Tobacco Retailer License have also adopted a fee. Among these jurisdictions, fees range from a low of $250 for Albany to $1,500 for Oakland. If the City Council were to choose this option, Staff would work with Police and Finance to determine a recommended annual cost for the license fee, which would be set at a rate that at least recovers some if not all of the program's costs. In particular, the City can only set a fee at a rate that recovers the City's costs for program management. Decision Point: Determine whether a licensing fee should be established. Consequences: A license fee would provide fending to cover the cost of program management and enforcement. A fee would be an additional cost burden for the retailers. In particular, many Page 6 of 9 retailers and consumers believe there are already significant costs and fees placed by government on the sale of tobacco products. If a funding fee is not included, compliance checks, ensuring that tobacco products are not being sold to minors, may need to be suspended should grant funding be unavailable during any given year. Should the retailer license require a fee? ❑ Yes ❑No Should the fee be at full cost recovery? ❑ Yes ❑No If not, what is an appropriate percentage? Policy Consideration: Revocation vs. Suspension for Violations Significant penalties deter infractions with the severity of consequences correlating positively with compliance, i.e., the more severe the consequence, the more likely one is to comply. However, longer periods of revocation will result in lost revenue for the business. The model ordinance prepared by the Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC) recommends that revocations be used instead of suspensions as they have the benefits as outlined below: 1. The burden is put on the retailer to seek to sell tobacco again. Retailers who have little interest in selling may simply choose to stop and not reapply. With suspension, a retailer "automatically" re- acquires the privilege of selling tobacco. 2. Because the retailer must reapply for a license, a new licensing fee must be paid and the retailer is re- educated regarding the requirements of the license by reading and completing the application. 3. Technical, but legally significant, difficulties arise if a license is allowed to "expire" before a final administrative decision regarding a suspension is made (e.g., a court may question how a license can be suspended if that license no longer exists). 4. Enforcement is more clear -cut: a retailer either has a license or the retailer does not. With suspension, a retailer could also have a suspended license which raises the question of how to treat additional violations during a suspension period. Staff would be concerned that the revocation process would provide a more manageable enforcement mechanism. Decision Point: Determine whether licenses should be revoked or suspended for a violation. Consequences: Businesses will lose revenues from being unable to operate as a tobacco retailer. Reapplication fee would be required to obtain a license after revocation. Deter noncompliance with the ordinance. In the case of a violation, should a license be? ❑ Revoked ®Suspended Policy Consideration: Determine Appropriate Revocation Period for Violations In addition to the revocation discussion, TALC's model ordinance recommends the following penalties be assessed as a consequence of an ordinance violation; e.g., a retailer has been caught selling tobacco products to a minor. TALC Ordinance Recommendation: m I 5 violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 10 days. o 2"`' violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 30 days. Page 7 of 9 3 violation within a 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 60 days. 4 or more violations within a 60 month period: License revoke.d /suspended for 5 years. In reviewing the TALC recommendation, Staff believes there may be some inconsistencies in the amount of time that licenses could be revoked /suspended. In particular, the timeframe is less punitive on the front end and severely punitive on the backend; i.e., going from 10, 30, 60 days to five years is a big shift. Also, the recommendation seems to imply that there could be more than 4 violations within a 60 month period, but if the fourth violation results in a 60 month revocation /suspension, then more than 4 violations are not possible. As an alternative, Staff is proposing the following example for the City Council's consideration: Staff Alternative: 1St violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 30 days. 0 2"d violation within a 60 month period: License revokedisuspended for 90 days. 0 3rd violation within a 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 180 days. 0 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revokedisuspended for 1 year. Decision Point: Determine appropriate revocation / suspension period. Consequences: The more significant the penalties, the more likely a business will be in compliance with ordinance provisions. Additionally, the longer the revocation /suspension period, the more revenues that a business will lose, and the more sales tax the City may forfeit. Management of compliance and reapplication will have a staff impact, which could be offset by licensing fees. Staff should prepare violation penalties in accordance with: ® Staff Proposal ❑ Model Ordinance ❑ Other Option: Policy Consideration: Fine In Lieu of Revocation /Suspension Many cities have provided an option for violators to pay a fine in lieu of having their license revoked for a first or second violation. This allows for a penalty to be assessed for violations that have occurred, while giving the retailer an option to keep his /her license. There are times where it may occur that rogue employees go against store policy and will sell tobacco products to minors. In such cases, store management is still culpable for the violation, but taking the license away may be a more serve punishment then required. As such, it may be desired to allow a fine to be paid in lieu of revocation /suspension. Generally, this is only allowed for a 1St or 2"d violation within a 60 month period, as going beyond this would indicate that management is not taking sufficient action to curtail violations of the ordinance. Staff would recommend the flowing fines as part of a proposed ordinance: 1 16t violation within a 60 month period: an administrative penalty of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. After a second violation of this chapter at a location within any sixty -month (60) period: i. an agreement to stop acting as a Tobacco Retailer for at least seven (7) days; and ii, an administrative penalty of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000). Decision Point: Determine whether a fine in lieu of a revocation /suspension is appropriate. Page 8 of 9 Consequences: This option would allow a fine to be paid, which would provide additional revenue to the City. This would also provide an option for the business to determine how a penalty is applied, i.e., do they prefer to pay a fine or lose tobacco sales revenue for a period of time as well as go through the reapplication process with its cost and time commitments. May relieve the administrative workload for Staff in review and approval of reapplications for those businesses that have had their licenses revoked. Should an ordinance proposal include a fine in lieu of revocation /suspension? ❑ Yes ❑No Is the Staff proposal adequate? ❑ Yes ❑No NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Meeting Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Center for Tobacco Policy and Organization Matrix 2. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 500 foot and 1000 foot buffer. 3. Map of existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot buffer around residential land uses. 4. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 500 foot & 1,000 foot buffer around the retailers. 5. Table of Strong Local Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances. 6. Table of Tobacco Control 2010 — California Local Grades. Page 9 of 9 Of bU�lj? It - 8? 7_jli -4 TO: FROM STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL April 17, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager �: - to CITY CLERK File #660 -90 SUBJECT: Report on Tobacco Retailers Ordinance Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager & Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator A Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. As directed by the City Council, Staff is presenting this item to re -cap the discussion from the January 17, 2012 City Council meeting. [a &IVffgjF There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. If an ordinance is adopted that does not grandfather in existing tobacco retailers, it is likely that the City will face legal challenges which have financial implications for the City. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback and direction on developing a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance. Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND Reviewed By Assistant City Manager A Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. The - ordinance would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin. A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 7.4 At the January 17, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council received a presentation from Staff on possible ordinance provisions and had an initial discussion about this topic. The purpose of this report is to re -cap that discussion, provide relevant additional information on probable impacts, and seek direction from the City Council on how to proceed with an ordinance proposal. The January 17, 2012 Staff Report is included as Attachment 1. During the deliberations on this item, the City Council directed that Staff bring this item back for consideration before any additional work was done by Staff and before any meetings were held with the tobacco retailers. ZONING RECAP Minimum Distance to Maintain from Areas Where Children Are Present Decision Point: The City Council opined that the appropriate distance to maintain from a tobacco retailer to youth - oriented areas is 1,000 feet. The areas that should be included in the definition of youth oriented are schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, youth- centers, arcades, licensed child care facilities/preschools, and City owned and operated recreational facilities. Consequences: Of the 25 existing tobacco retailers, seven (7) are located within 500 feet of areas where children are present and 16 are located within 1,000 feet of areas where children are present. Please refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for a map of the areas in the City where children congregate. Attachment 2 has a 500 foot buffer around the areas where children congregate and Attachment 3 has a 1,000 foot buffer around these areas. No future tobacco retailers would be allowed to be located within 1,000 feet of these areas. As illustrated in this map, many of the existing tobacco retailers are located within the buffers surrounding the tobacco retailers. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the minimum distance from youth - oriented areas be 1,000 feet. Should Residential Zones be Included in the Ordinance Decision Point: The City Council opined that tobacco retailers should be required to be located a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from parcels with a residential land use designation. Consequences: If the ordinance requires a minimum distance from a tobacco retailer to parcels with a residential land use designation, then no future tobacco retailers will be able to locate in the City. As shown in Attachment 4, all but one of the undeveloped /vacant parcels is located within 1,000 feet of a residential land use designation. This parcel has a land use designation of Business Park/] ndustrial, which does not allow retail uses. In addition, 24 out of the existing 25 retailers are located within 1,000 feet of a residential land use. Thus, there would be nowhere within the City that a new tobacco retailer could locate, and a conditional use process would be moot as every corner of the City would be prohibited from siting a tobacco retailer. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the City Council not require retailers to be a minimum distance from residential land -use designations. Limited Density of Tobacco Retailers Page 2 of 7 Decision Point: The City Council opined that a provision should be included in the ordinance to limit the density of tobacco retailers in cases where the retailer is a business that primarily sells tobacco products (i.e. Smoke Shops). For these types of uses, tobacco retailers should be a minimum of 1,000 feet from one another. Direction was provided that grocery stores, drug stores and gas stations are not subject to this requirement. Consequences: If the ordinance limits the density of tobacco retailers in the City that primarily sell tobacco products, then there would be fewer such uses in the City. There are currently three "smoke shops" in Dublin that primarily sell tobacco products. Two of these businesses are located within 1,000 feet of one another. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that smoke shops be prohibited from siting within 1,000 feet of each other. Approval Process for New Tobacco Retailers Decision Point: The City Council opined that a provision be included in the proposed ordinance to require that the approval process be through the Zoning Clearance process. Consequences: The Zoning Clearance process takes much less time than a Conditional Use Permit. If an ordinance is adopted that requires a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from areas where children are present and 1,000 feet from residential, then the review process (either Zoning Clearance or Conditional Use Permit) is a moot point since there will be no areas in the City where a future tobacco retailer could be located. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that a zoning clearance be used for the siting of new tobacco retailers. Existing Retailers — "Grandfatherinq" Decision Point: The City Council opined that a proposed ordinance should apply to all existing tobacco retailers within the City. Furthermore, any existing retailers that are in violation of the Ordinance shall be phased out within 1, 2, 3, or more years, depending on the legality of the timeframe. The City Attorney's office has preliminarily researched the issue of "grandfather ing," and whether the City has the authority to restrict tobacco sales at existing sites. If the City wants to phase out existing tobacco retailers, it must establish an "amortization" process whereby retailers are given a period of time to operate such that they can recoup their investment in the business. In particular, the City is not required to allow existing uses to continue indefinitely. However, to the extent that the City would like to eliminate sales at existing sites, it will be necessary for the City to provide the "amortization" period as mentioned for existing uses. California case law clearly holds that while cities may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming property uses without compensation, they must provide a "reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved." The specific length of the amortization period is not established by law. Rather, the appropriate amortization period must be reasonable and commensurate with the investment involved, so the appropriate period should be determined on a case by case basis with respect to particular properties. Potential factors to be considered in establishing an amortization period might include, but are not limited to the amount of money invested in a leasehold or improvements, the length of time remaining on a lease, or additional evidence of undue financial hardship. It is expected that preparation for Page 3 of 7 and the actual conduct of amortization hearings would require a fair amount of additional legal and administrative work. Consequences: If the ordinance applies to existing tobacco retailers and if a 1,000 foot buffer is required from residential land uses, then all of the existing tobacco retailers (25) would be in violation of the ordinance and would be required to phase out the sale of tobacco products. Of the existing 25 tobacco retailers in the City, three businesses sell only tobacco products and related paraphernalia and/or liquor and therefore adoption of an ordinance that applies to existing tobacco retailers will most likely result in the closing of these businesses. For those businesses where tobacco sales are ancillary to the businesses primary focus, these business would, of course, be able to continue to operate, but would perhaps lose a revenue source. Staff believes that legal challenges are likely, resulting in significant staff time and financial resources. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that existing retailers be grandfathered within the ordinance. Option /Impact Matrix Options Existing Tobacco Retailers Future Tobacco Retailers 500 feet from children Seven tobacco retailers are Future tobacco retailers would located within 500 feet of not be permitted to locate in children and would have to areas within 500 feet of areas phase out the sale of tobacco where children are present. products if the ordinance does not grandfather- in existing tobacco retailers. Refer to Attachment 2 1,000 feet from children Sixteen (16) tobacco retailers Future tobacco retailers would are located within 1,000 feet of not be permitted to locate in children and would have to areas within 1,000 feet of areas phase out the sale of tobacco where children are present. products if the ordinance does not grandfather in existing Tobacco retailers. Refer to Attachment 3 Apply Ordinance to Twenty -four (24) of the twenty- All undeveloped/vacant parcels Residential Land Use five (25) tobacco retailers are that are designated as located within 1,000 feet of a commercial are located within residential land use designation. 1,000 feet of a residential land These businesses would have use designation. Including a to phase out the sale of tobacco 1,000 foot minimum distance products if the ordinance does from residential land uses would not grandfather in existing result in no new businesses tobacco retailers. being able to sell tobacco Refer to Attachment 4 products in the City. Refer to Attachment 4 Apply Ordinance to existing All twenty -five (25) of the Not Applicable Tobacco Retailers existing tobacco retailers would be in violation of the ordinance and would have to phase out the sale of tobacco products. Three of the businesses only sell Tobacco /Alcohol products and would most likely go out of Page 4 of 7 Attachment 7 shows all of the various restrictions. As illustrated in Attachment 5, there are no future areas in the City where tobacco retailers could be sited and all of the existing tobacco retailers (25) would be required to phase out the sale of tobacco products in the specified amount of time, if the ordinance requires that all tobacco retailers be located 1,000 feet from residential land uses. If the City Council were to adopt an ordinance that phases out the sale of tobacco products and retailers, it is likely that lawsuits would be filed challenging the legality of the ordinance, which would have financial implications for the City. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Tobacco Retailers ordinance include a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from future tobacco retailers to areas where children are present, but that it does not require a minimum distance from residential districts. Staff also recommends that existing businesses be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to sell tobacco products. Staff has already received significant interest and concern from local and regional retailers, as well as national organizations, that support tobacco retailing. TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSING RECAP In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, the City Council also discussed the establishment of a licensing provision for the sale of tobacco products. A retailer licensing ordinance would provide greater local control over the illegal sale of tobacco products and would provide a sustainable funding mechanism for program enforcement and administrative oversight. Establish a Tobacco Retailer Licensing System Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a retailer licensing system for all existing as well as any future tobacco retailers. Consequences: Provide greater enforcement and local control of tobacco related infractions. An additional burden would be placed upon local businesses to apply for the license. Also, additional staff time will be required to review, approve, and manage the licensing program as well as to conduct hearings for possible license revocations-, however, a licensing fee could be established to offset the additional costs to the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend establishing a Tobacco Retailer Licensing system. Establish a Fee to Obtain a Tobacco Retailer License Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a licensing fee should be established at full cost recovery. Page 5 of 7 business. Refer to Attachment 5 & 6 Limit Density of "Smoke There are currently three Any future "smoke shops" that Shops" tobacco retailers in the City that primarily sells tobacco products primarily sell tobacco products. would not be permitted to locate Two of these retailers are within within '[,000 feet of an existing 1,000 feet of one another. tobacco retailer. Attachment 7 shows all of the various restrictions. As illustrated in Attachment 5, there are no future areas in the City where tobacco retailers could be sited and all of the existing tobacco retailers (25) would be required to phase out the sale of tobacco products in the specified amount of time, if the ordinance requires that all tobacco retailers be located 1,000 feet from residential land uses. If the City Council were to adopt an ordinance that phases out the sale of tobacco products and retailers, it is likely that lawsuits would be filed challenging the legality of the ordinance, which would have financial implications for the City. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Tobacco Retailers ordinance include a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from future tobacco retailers to areas where children are present, but that it does not require a minimum distance from residential districts. Staff also recommends that existing businesses be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to sell tobacco products. Staff has already received significant interest and concern from local and regional retailers, as well as national organizations, that support tobacco retailing. TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSING RECAP In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, the City Council also discussed the establishment of a licensing provision for the sale of tobacco products. A retailer licensing ordinance would provide greater local control over the illegal sale of tobacco products and would provide a sustainable funding mechanism for program enforcement and administrative oversight. Establish a Tobacco Retailer Licensing System Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a retailer licensing system for all existing as well as any future tobacco retailers. Consequences: Provide greater enforcement and local control of tobacco related infractions. An additional burden would be placed upon local businesses to apply for the license. Also, additional staff time will be required to review, approve, and manage the licensing program as well as to conduct hearings for possible license revocations-, however, a licensing fee could be established to offset the additional costs to the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend establishing a Tobacco Retailer Licensing system. Establish a Fee to Obtain a Tobacco Retailer License Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a licensing fee should be established at full cost recovery. Page 5 of 7 Consequences: A license fee would provide funding to cover the cost of program management and enforcement. A fee would be an additional cost burden for the retailers. In particular, many retailers and consumers believe there are already significant costs and fees placed by government on the sale of tobacco products. If a funding fee is not included, compliance checks, ensuring that tobacco products are not being sold to minors, may need to be suspended should grant funding be unavailable during any given year. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that a fee be established at full cost recovery. Revocation vs. Suspension for Violations Decision Point: The City Council opined that licenses should be revoked or suspended for a violation of the ordinance; e.g., selling tobacco products to minors. Consequences: Businesses will lose revenues from being unable to operate as. a tobacco retailer. Reapplication fee would be required to obtain a license after revocation. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that licenses be revoked for violations. Determine Appropriate Revocation Period for Violations Decision Point: The City Council opined that the appropriate revocation /suspension period for violating ordinance provisions is: ® 15t violation within a 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 30 days. 0 2n� violation within a 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 90 days. e P violation within a 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 180 days. 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revoked /suspended for 1 year. Consequences: The more significant the penalties, the more likely a business will be in compliance with ordinance provisions. Additionally, the longer the revocation /suspension period, the more revenues that a business will lose, and the more sales tax the City may forfeit. Management of compliance and reapplication will have a staff impact, which could be offset by licensing fees. Staff Recommendation. Staff would recommend that revocations /suspensions be include as outlined. Pine In Lieu of Revocation /Suspension Decision Point: The City Council opined that a fine in lieu of a revocation /suspension is appropriate under the following conditions: 1. V" violation within a 60 month period: an administrative penalty of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. After a second violation of this chapter at a location within any sixty-month (60) period: i. an agreement to stop acting as a Tobacco Retailer for at least seven (7) days; and ii. an administrative penalty of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000). Consequences: This option would allow a fine to be paid, which would provide additional revenue to the City. This would also provide an option for the business to determine how a penalty is applied; i.e., do they prefer to pay a fine or lose tobacco sales revenue for a period of Page 6 of 7 time as well as go through the reapplication process with its cost and time commitments. Allowing a fine in lieu of revocation would relieve the administrative workload for Staff in reviewing and approving reapplications for those businesses that would have had otherwise had their licenses revoked. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that this item be included as outlined. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City in addition to other interested parties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 2. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 500 foot buffer 3. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer 4. Map of existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot buffer around residential land uses 5. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 500 foot around the retailers 6. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot around the retailers 7. Map that shows all of the restrictions Page 7 of 7 Cox Family (Alcosta Shell, Dougherty Road Shell, and Hacienda Shell) We take the responsibilities of having a State of California Tobacco Retailers license and not selling tobacco products to underage individuals very seriously. Since 1976, the employees of our three Dublin locations have passed well over 100 "Sting" operations conducted by various enforcement agencies. Only once has one of our employees, unfortunately, failed a tobacco sting. That employee was terminated immediately. We put a tremendous amount of time, effort and money into training our employees about their responsibilities and providing them with tools to help ensure compliance with the law. Some of the things that we do / have done are: 1. During the interview process, company representatives explain tobacco sales laws, company policy and the cashier's responsibilities and risks in selling tobacco products to potential employees. This explanation includes: a. Selling tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 results in immediate termination of the employee from the company. b. Selling tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 subjects the company to fines and potential loss of the license to sell tobacco products. c. Selling tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 subjects the employee to criminal and civil penalties which could include personal fines. 2. Upon being employed, tobacco sales laws are reviewed with each new cashier. they are required to sign an acknowledgement that they understand and will adhere to the law and company policy. If they are caught selling any tobacco product to anyone under the age of 18, their employment will be terminated. (See Attached Tobacco Sales Policy). 3. Employees are asked to review and sign a "Weekly Reminder" regarding Alcohol & Tobacco Sales Requirements. (See Attached Weekly Reminder). , 4. Regular reminders regarding the importance of checking ID's for the sale of tobacco products are attached to employee paychecks. (See Attached Examples). 5. All of our Store Cash Registers have been programmed to require the customer's ID to be swiped through the credit card reader for age verification. If the register cannot read the ID, the cashier must enter the customer's birth date. 6. All stores have "Born After This Date ?" Calendars for cashiers to reference when checking ID's. 7. Stand alone ID scanners have been employed as a back up to registers. 8. Cashiers who refuse to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 or passing a sting are given a $100 Recognition Award, (See Attached Payroll Enclosure). 9. "We Card" and STAKE Act public and employee notices and decals are posted at our stores. 10. We have no "Self- serve" displays which allow customers direct access to tobacco products. All tobacco products must be retrieved for the customer by our cashier. Tobacco I � i w a x 4 a. a. El U E3 0 a. W O T N. xw mug mum aW will ?1