Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-00 Public Services Com. Minutes - Tobacco - MinorsMINUTES Dublin City Council PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Monday, November 27, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Attending: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair Mr. McCash Mrs. Boring Stephen Smith, Jr., Law Director's Office Chief Rob Geis, Police Division Officer Bruce McKenna, DARE Program Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order. She stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review revisions made by the Law Director to legislation which has been proposed prohibiting possession of tobacco by minors, and to hear the results of the Law Director's research on tobacco vendor licensing. She noted that this legislation was proposed by Dublin School students working with the City of Dublin's DARE officers. A previous committee meeting was held October 26"' at which the Committee requested that Mr. Smith revise the legislation and conduct the research regarding tobacco vendor licensing. She asked Mr. Smith to begin with his recommendations on vendor licensing. Mr. Smith reported that he has researched the possibility of the City of Dublin establishing a tobacco vendor licensing program. His opinion is that, due to current Ohio law, the City does not have the power to enact such a system. Home rule does allow the City significant power, except for one general restriction: that the City's laws cannot be in conflict with the laws of the State of Ohio. Currently, all that is needed in the State of Ohio to sell tobacco products is a State tax license. In his opinion, the City would be unable to restrict that license through another licensing program of its own. He spoke with the Assistant Law Director of the City of Lakewood and the Law Director of the Village of Geneva, communities which have enacted tobacco licensing. Neither of those communities was able to explain how they would handle a conflict with the State tax license, although, to date, neither have had a challenge to the legislation. Mr. Smith summarized that his opinion is that, if challenged, those communities would have an issue with State preemption. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this was a subject that is currently under discussion at the State level. Mr. Smith responded that there are several bills pending regarding tobacco products. At this point, only Senate Bill 218 has cleared both the Senate and House, and since it is near the end of the year, any other legislation will have to be re -introduced in the new year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher invited public comment. Rob Crane, M.D.. 5600 Dublin Road, Dublin, professor at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, stated that he has also researched this question. He suggested that the Law Director has provided a broad interpretation of the State tax license. The State of Ohio issues a license to Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 2 anyone who applies for and pays the fee for the license, but that license provides no safety or health regulations and has no associated police power. Since the City of Dublin under home rule clearly does have regulatory powers, he was initially surprised at the Law Director's opinion. However, he does have some recollection of the firm of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn providing legal support to some tobacco companies and their surrogates. In that case, there would be a conflict of interest. He will research that and share his findings with Council. Perhaps that could be an explanation for this extremely broad interpretation. Certainly the City of Dublin has many regulatory powers over issues that the State also regulates, and under its home rule status is allowed to pass health and/or safety regulations. Dr. Crane also noted that Senate Bill 218 has been passed by both houses. It is currently in the Governor's hands, who is anticipated to sign the bill within the next week or so. Christina Welter, 1950 Arlingate Lane, Columbus, representing Tobacco Free Ohio, stated that at the last meeting she shared the smoking rates in the State of Ohio. She reiterated that the current rate of teen smoking in the state of Ohio is 40%, and that there is no difficulty with youth obtaining cigarettes within Ohio. She reminded the Committee of the information she shared regarding other states which have enacted vendor licensing laws. Recent data indicates that those licensing programs are working. Ms. Welter added that the Ohio Health Department received a grant from the CDC which allows them to do randomly selected compliance checks once a year in thirty-three counties. Franklin County has 2,000 vendors; 100 of those are in Dublin, and none have been checked in the last two years. Ms. Welter stated that the Ohio tax licensing law is difficult to legally interpret. She has tried to collect information for Council on this subject. She has copies of the legislation on both possession and the State sales tax with her tonight. She agreed with Dr. Crane that the Law Director has provided an unusually broad interpretation of the law. The State tax licensing was actually enacted for the purpose of generating revenue, not for a regulated licensing program.. The answer is not in such a strict interpretation. If Dublin prefers not to use a tobacco vendor licensing program, there are other ways to address both the supply and demand. Perhaps a strong program of regular compliance checks could be implemented. She summarized by asking Dublin to take the time and effort, as it has before on so many issues, to develop an effective manner of regulating this for its own community, but also thereby providing leadership to other communities. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher referred to two Ohio communities, Lakewood and Geneva, who have passed legislation establishing a tobacco vendor licensing program and inquired if those laws wouldn't have been challenged by now, if they were, in fact, illegal. Mr. Smith responded that he believes they have been not challenged because they have not been enforced to date. Lakewood has sent out only one letter of warning. Mr. Smith also noted that their firm is large, and he in unaware of others representing tobacco companies. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Smith agreed with the suggestion that there are alternatives to a licensing program. He suggested that the City could set up a graduated system of penalties for vendors who do sell cigarettes to minors. However, the system would not go so far as taking away their ability to sell cigarettes. He explained that Dublin's current law penalizes only the store clerk who actually made the tobacco sale; the proposed legislation before this committee would penalize the minor in possession of the tobacco. Additional legislation could be directed at the vendor or owner of the establishment at which an illegal sale was made. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that while she supports the proposed legislation prohibiting possession of tobacco by minors, she has a concern with confronting a child when she believes that the problem is more fairly addressed by targeting the vendor. She suggested that a fine could be effective; with a substantial fine, they will train their clerks more stringently. She inquired of Chief Geis, which ordinance would be more effective in terms of enforcement. Chief Geis stated that from the standpoint of the street officer, the possession legislation is easier to enforce. Any status offense is handled primarily with diversion, which can be done run either in-house or at the county level. The police support the version being reviewed by Council tonight, which would serve as a companion piece to accompany the one recently passed by the State legislature. With a vendor violation, there is less latitude with the Court, and the criminal penalty process is much more severe for adults and vendors involving a citation, a court appearance and formalized adjudication. Dublin's program for its youth avoids that. There are currently options available to the Police Department, which have not been explored to date, including covert operations to target which vendors have a propensity to sell tobacco to minors. That is currently done to monitor alcohol sales. An ordinance targeting the vendor would be just as effective long term. Their preference would be to have both. Officer McKenna stated that there is an ordinance in place that could be more strictly enforced to target points of sale. If that could be enlarged upon to target the vendor, not just the store clerk, it would be more effective. However, there currently is no law in place to target the juvenile. The one before the Committee tonight would meet that need. The officers would then be able to confront any minors smoking in public. There is an advantage in having this as a local law with a status offense: it would enable the police to deal with this problem similarly to that of curfew violation. His concern is that as DARE officers, they are teaching one message in the classroom —the importance of being drug free; however, the students are presented with a contradictory message when they leave the classroom. The police would like to reinforce their message. He added that a law addressing only vendors would not be sufficient Even if the police achieve good control over the establishments in the City which sell the substance, and the minors are no longer able to have easy direct access, they will find a way of obtaining it either out of the City or from an older individual. A law prohibiting possession is necessary. Chief Geis pointed out that the number one quality of life problem within the community is traffic; the number two problem is youth loitering. Typically, tobacco and/or alcohol are M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 4 associated with youth loitering. Prohibition against possession would give street officers the ability to deal with this problem indirectly as they intervene with possession of tobacco. Dr. Crane inquired if the City has a separate ordinance dealing with alcohol. Chief Geis responded in the affirmative, stating that Dublin's ordinance closely mirrors the State law in nearly every category, except penalties. It affords the City, in the situation of juveniles, the ability to deal with offenses locally rather than sending all violations to Franklin County. Mrs. Boring inquired if a retailer has a valid state tax license, are they permitted to sell anything they choose. Mr. Smith responded that a valid tax license under Section 5743 provides the specific right to sell tobacco products in the State of Ohio. It addresses only tax issues and cannot be revoked for anything illegal, other than tax -related issues. Mrs. Boring stated one point of view that has been shared with her is a concern that with the police confronting juvenile loitering and/or smoking situations, that these juveniles may be labeled as problem youth. Chief Geis agreed, but noted that there is a correlation between youth smoking, youth drinking, and other activities that are either illegal or have negative consequences in the community. Loitering will escalate to graffiti, vandalism, and other situations. This ordinance will provide an additional tool to deal with youth issues. The DARE officers and the youth in the Dublin community are aware of the youth smoking problem, however, and have initiated this particular solution. Chief Geis emphasized that the number one priority of the Dublin Police Department when dealing with youth, particularly with status level offenses, is to redirect that youth. This is typically done through diversion programs. The youth may not enjoy being cited for an offense, but the intent is to impact their future behavior for their own benefit. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that there is an impression that the youth who are smoking are the ones who are not quite in the mainstream, as Dublin would define it. However, if 40 percent of the youth are smoking, there are many athletes, academic achievers, bandmembers, etc. who are also smokers, but perhaps more careful of where they do it. She is concerned with the manner in which this law would be applied. The police would only be able to confront the overt smokers, while the others will go unnoticed. Chief Geis stated that the police have opportunity through the school system to deal with athletes and other students. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the adults in many of those households smoke, so the youth will, as well. Society, in general, does not view tobacco as a drug or an illegal substance. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher directed discussion to the legislation before the committee. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 5 In reference to tobacco vendor licensing, Mr. McCash stated that he has reviewed the sections in the State code relating to tax licensing. He suggested that it can be perceived as a license statute because it deals with taxation, but it may be more a franchise to collect a tax, similar to a vendor's authorization to collect general sales tax and remit it to the State Department of Taxation. Mr. Smith agreed, but added that with that minimal license, those vendors are authorized to sell tobacco. Mr. McCash stated that it more accurately could indicate authorization to sell cigarettes for the purpose of collecting taxes on the sale, but not authorization to sell cigarettes, such as the authorization to sell alcohol. Alcohol is not listed in the taxation section, but is listed in a separate section of the Revised Code. He suggested that if Council would like to seriously consider doing this, a formal Attorney General's opinion should be requested on whether Council can do this from the aspect of a vendor's licensing statute. Mr. Smith responded that Council could request this. There is no case law as no court has addressed this issue to date.. Presently, the state license gives the authorization to sell the tobacco product. Mrs. Boring suggested that it may actually be giving authorization to collect the tax. Mr. McCash agreed that it may be a law dealing specifically with the taxation authorization, and it would be necessary to request the Attorney General's opinion for clarification. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Code does not prohibit the City from imposing sanctions up to revocation; there are other legal avenues to accomplish the City's purpose. It is important to do a cost study of an enforcement program. The penalties must cover the cost; $50.00 is too small a fine. Officer McKenna noted that one concern that must be addressed, which has also been addressed in illegal sales of alcohol to minors. In the scenario where an officer discovers an illegal sale, it is preferable to handle the juvenile locally so as to avoid a court record downtown. However, Franklin County does not like to bifurcate a case. If Dublin pursues a vendor for an illegal sale, the adult and the juvenile must both be sent to Franklin County. So, if the police do not use a confidential informer, but through surveillance do a bi-bust operation and identify a vendor making an illegal sale to a juvenile, that juvenile will be placed in the court system and end up with a court record. If Dublin adopts a vendor licensing law, it will be important that Dublin also maintain control of the licensing program if they want to keep youth violations a local matter. And it is the City's intention to keep the juveniles out of the County juvenile court system. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if it is possible to retain the vendor fines locally. Mr. Smith responded that his opinion is that the City can, but he will verify that. His concern is that even on civil fines, that there would remain the possibility of the case being referred downtown in the M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 6 case of an administrative appeal. With criminal fines, they can always be referred to a higher court. In the civil fine system, there may still be a method to do this. Mr. Smith clarified that there are regulations associated with the liquor license that enable it to be revoked if the vendor makes an illegal sale. There is no such regulation associated with the tobacco tax license. Mr. McCash agreed that the state license authorizes the vendor to collect taxes on any tobacco sold and submit those monies to the Department of Taxation. What he is proposing is that the City require a second license authorizing the vendor to sell tobacco products. If the City revokes the vendor license due to illegal sales, the State license to collect taxes on tobacco sales is intact, but the vendor can't sell the cigarettes. However, this is where an Attorney General's opinion is needed. Chief Geis stated that since obtaining the A.G. opinion could take some time, staff would like to request that the possession legislation be recommended to Council at this time. If the Attorney General's opinion is in the affirmative, the second legislation could be passed subsequently. Mr. McCash stated that he sees no need to delay this ordinance. Dr. Crane noted that 90 percent of tobacco vendor violations are uncovered in compliance checks, so there should be no problem in keeping it as a local matter. Officer McKenna agreed, but added that in the event a vendor wants to contest the charge to a higher court, the juvenile will also be referred to the County court. Mr. McCash agreed that this should not be treated as a criminal offense. The intent is to handle it similar to a minor curfew violation, with a warning and a diversion program to provide education and assistance to the juvenile. In the juvenile's domicile, he/she may be allowed to drink and to smoke, so the legislation should not treat the violation as a crime. The intent is to help the juveniles who can be helped by such a program. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would also be necessary to keep such minor violations in the local jurisdiction due to the fact that Franklin County has much more serious crimes with which to deal. They would throw out tobacco violations, and perhaps begin to disregard other juvenile issues sent down to Franklin County. There is a need to keep them responsive to more serious issues when needed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Smith to clarify the revisions made in the ordinance. Mr. Smith noted that after Senate Bill 218 passed the House this past week, he made a few minor changes so that the City's proposed ordinance is similar to the State legislation. The ordinance prohibits both the purchase and possession of tobacco by a minor. Its final version is much milder. In terms of a juvenile offender, the Courts can identify them as a delinquent or as an unruly child. The earlier version stated that the youth offender could be classified as an unruly child, the lesser of the two. The final version states that the youth offender cannot be classified M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 7 as either, making it simply a status offense. In the earlier version, there were four penalties, and now there are two: a treatment or education program or a fine of not more than $100. These are listed under Section 135.2 1-a. The prior version also allowed an increase in the fine, community service, and driver's license suspension. hi the final version, community service and driver's license suspension can only be imposed if the child fails to pay the fine or attend the program. They have also added language that states the child cannot be detained for the violation. A citation can be issued, but no arrest made. Senate Bill 218 also affected Dublin's code section 135.17, regarding the illegal distribution of cigarettes and tobacco, but it did not make any substantive changes. Mrs. Boring asked if, under the City's home rule power, a higher fine could be set. Mr. Smith agreed that under home rule, the City could make the fine for a crime or state offense higher, as long as the classification is not changed from a felony to a misdemeanor. Basically, this offense is a minor misdemeanor, with a maximum of $100 fine and no jail time. Mrs. Boring inquired if the option of requiring community service could be included. Mr. Smith stated that when he discussed these changes earlier with Mr. Colby, who could not attend this meeting tonight, Mr. Colby pointed out that a major component of the youth diversion program is community service. Mr. Smith stated that he could amend the penalty section to include community service. The standard in Dublin's community service program is 25 hours for a first offense. The State law provides for 20 hours. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she views a little differently. Performing community service or paying a fine in the absence of education would not achieve the City's purpose. Maybe it could be an additional penalty or part of a progressive penalty. Mrs. Boring noted that an educational program alone would not be sufficient a deterrent. Officer McKenna stated that Dublin would design its own educational program. For instance, the HABIT program is a family educational program and requires that a parent attend the session with the youth. Mr. McCash inquired if that would have to be specified in the legislation. Chief Geis clarified that the diversion program is always a voluntary program, in which case the City could either use the fine or community service program. Dr. Crane inquired if suspension of a driver's license is a possibility. Mr. Smith stated that he is not certain that Mayor's Court has that authority. However, since Mayor's Court cannot adjudicate a minor, they would be sent to Franklin County. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 8 Dr. Crane suggesting clarifying in the legislation those things that only Dublin can do. He also inquired about the issue of affirmative defenses. The original version of the bill was opposed by all health organizations due to the large number of affirmative defenses offered to a purveyor. Those have now been trimmed down to two — a parent or spouse. If the vendor believes that a parent or a spouse accompanies the minor, the vendor has an affirmative defense. The most current argument is that all affirmative defenses should be discarded, as no need exists to protect anyone. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the penalty reads that when the youth is picked up he is cited into juvenile court. Is that correct? Mr. Smith responded that it is correct. The child will go to juvenile court unless they volunteer for the City's diversion program. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this appears to conflict with Officer McKenna's statement regarding the intent is to maintain this as a local matter. Office McKenna stated that there are three "fail safes" that the officer uses before a juvenile is referred to Juvenile Court: (1) no further action, (2) office level remedy —the diversion program, and (3) Juvenile Court. After the officer files a citation, it is forwarded to a juvenile detective, who makes the decision as to whether the case goes to Court. On a first offense, the juvenile probably will not go to the Court at all. There is the potential problem of a youth who has committed the same offense numerous times and been given the usual penalties. In the City's alcohol program, the offender may substitute community service one time before additional penalties are imposed. Currently, If the diversion program is no longer an option, the offense is referred to the County Prosecutor's office. Dr. Crane inquired about the need for a local law. Chief Geis stated that the State requires that the City, under home rule, pass companion legislation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that vending machines are required to be in view of the vendor. Many times these machines are placed in cloak or all-purpose rooms. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired of Ms. Welter if any study has been done to determine statistics on how many youth have completed a no -smoking program and succeeded in terminating smoking following the receipt of sanctions of community service, a fine or both. Ms. Welter stated that she personally does not know of any. Dr. Crane agreed that it may be a useful anti -loitering tool, but it has nothing to do with prohibiting smoking. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 9 Mrs. Boring noted that the proposed legislation only states what occurs if the offender refuses Dublin's diversion program, and they are sent to the County Court. Chief Geis stated that higher fines can be established, and the County prosecutor and/or Juvenile Court judge would impose Dublin's fines on the perpetrator. Mr. McCash stated that this section would be the appropriate place in which to address the issue of community service. Chief Geis that when the legislation allows the County Court to impose Dublin's penalties, the judge may opt, through plea bargaining or for other reasons, for a guilty plea with State penalties, and not use the more stringent local fines. Mrs. Boring stated that the fine should be high enough that the violator would choose the diversion program. To that end, she suggested a $200 fine and 25 hours of community service, and a requirement that both the child and parent attend the diversion program. Mr. Smith pointed out that, as a minor misdemeanor, the fine is $100, although, theoretically it can be raised to $1,000.00. As for imposing community service for conviction of a minor misdemeanor, he will have to research that question. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the penalty seems to be targeting the parent. What about the parent who does not opt for the easier diversion program and allows his child to be sent to the County for the heavier fines. Chief Geis stated that for the law to have full force and effect it has to have a valid penalty section. The City is still targeting efforts for a diversion program. Mr. McCash stated that the parent would likely prefer a $100 fine over the 25 hours in the diversion program. It could be necessary to make the fine even higher, perhaps $500.00, for the parent and/or student to choose the diversion program. Officer McKenna noted that a high fine could be construed as unreasonable for a juvenile. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the educational component is the critical piece. Will Dublin Courts develop an educational program? Mrs. Smith stated that he has discussed this with Lisa Wilson, Dublin Probation Officer. She has indicated that because the schools have a tobacco program, the diversion program will require the juvenile to attend that tobacco program along with the community service hours. Officer McKenna stated that the HABIT program is already in place in the schools. The DARE program has no involvement with it. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 10 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if that program would be prepared to accept a large number of youth offenders. Ms. Welter stated that this is a concern. Although there are several educational programs available, there is only one cessation program to actually help the youth offender to quit smoking. Tobacco Free Ohio and the Tobacco Collaborative are looking into this, but currently the resources are not available. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if Council is planning to involve another entity, the schools, in the penalty program, this should first be coordinated with them. Dr. Crane stated that he does not believe placing a student against his/her will in a cessation program will work. However, the ordinance states, "if one is available," so the City is not locked into doing so. He stated that he does not oppose the possession legislation. He does not believe the youth should be permitted to stand outside the schools or other areas and smoke openly defiant of the community's standards. However, the scientific data clearly shows that the only law that effects a change is the tobacco vendor licensing which can significantly reduce the availability of the product. Officer McKenna stated that either or both of the laws would help the community to address the issue. Mr. McCash stated that if the Attorney General's opinion were in the affirmative, it would be much more effective to encourage the surrounding communities to participate. Officer McKenna stated that there might be a problem with excluding all affirmative defenses if the City's law regarding alcohol prohibition has that provision and the State law has it as well. Mrs. Boring stated it could be left in place if it is stated that the parent actually is accompanying the child. Mr. McCash stated that there would be a need to legally define "accompany." Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified with Mr. Smith that the following revisions will be made: Review D-1, Affirmative Defenses in terms of "Accompany." While there is no problem with D-2, D-1 .....Either eliminate, re -word or become more specific with the language. In the Penalty section: If it is permissible, raise the fine to $200, and add 25 hours of community service, as per Dublin's standard. Mr. McCash moved to recommend to Council at the December 11 Council meeting the adoption of this ordinance with the aforementioned amendments drafted by the Law Director. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 11 Following Mr. Smith's inquiry, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher requested Mr. Smith to write it up as emergency legislation to permit a vote at that meeting. She also requested Mr. Smith to fax copies of the revised ordinance to those organization representatives present at this meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated the need to vote on approval of the minutes of the October 26"' Council meeting. Mr. McCash moved approval of the minutes. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash. Officer McKenna suggesting inviting the students who have been involved to the December 11 Council meeting. The Committee agreed. Mr. McCash suggested that since the Committee is looking at this as a two-part issue, that a recommendation should be made to Council to request a formal Attorney General's opinion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a cost is involved. Mr. McCash stated that the A.G. opinion is free. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if in Lakewood and Geneva the local health departments administer the licensing program. Ms. Welter indicated they do, Mr. Smith stated that he discussed a licensing program with the Franklin County Health Department. They indicated that, presently, they do not have the authorization to initiate such a regulatory program. It would be necessary for their Board of Health to pass legislation enabling them to regulate such a program. Mr. McCash stated that he understood that the intent would be to manage it locally. There are several licensing programs now that are handled by the City Manager's office. The cost of the license covers the cost of the program. If the City has the ability to revoke the license, there may not be a serious enforcement issue. Vendors do not want to lose the revenue from the sales. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that another option of instituting regular compliance checks with heavy penalties has also been suggested. That would not involve issuing or revocation of any licenses. Is it really necessary then to request the Attorney General's opinion? Dr. Crane stated that it would be of tremendous benefit for the entire state to have the Attorney General's opinion on this question. Mr. McCash moved to recommend that Council authorize the Law Department to request a formal Attorney General's opinion on whether Section 57436 in regard to tax licensing would preempt the City from enacting a vendor's license for the sale of tobacco. M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc Public Services Committee November 27, 2000 Page 12 Mr. McCash noted that no decision must be made regarding the program at this time. The City is merely taking the initiative to seek the Attorney General's opinion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this will be a separate issue at the December 11 meeting. She requested Mr. Smith to frame the request for clarification of the question for Council. Ms. Welter inquired what the Council's position would be regarding alternatives in the event the Attorney General's opinion should be that there is a conflict. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the committee has confirmed an interest in studying other alternatives. Mr. Smith cautioned that this opinion could take some time to obtain. There is also the remote possibility that this opinion could limit other avenues open to the City for enforcement. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council M:\Committees\Public Services\2000\1 1-27-00 Tobacco - Minors.doc