HHS Item 2
November 5, 2015
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
November 3, 2015
TO:
FROM:
Health and Human Services Committee
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
/J
n
j'\Jbc!
SUBJECT:
Worksession:
Bill 41-15, Health - Distribution of Tobacco Products to Minors
Penalties
Bill 41-15, Health - Distribution of Tobacco Products to Minors Penalties, sponsored by
Lead Sponsor Councilmember Rice and Co-Sponsors Council President Leventhal, Council Vice
President Floreen, and Councilmembers EIrich, Navarro, Hucker, Katz, Riemer, and Berliner was
introduced on September 29,2015. A public hearing was held on October 20.
Background
Distributing a tobacco product to a minor already violates County law. The current
maximum penalty is a Class A civil violation, punishable by a fine of $500 for a first offense and
$750 for a subsequent offense. Md. Local Gov't Code, §1O-202(b) authorizes the County to
enforce a County law by a civil fine not exceeding $1000. Bill 41-15 would increase the maximum
civil fine for distributing a tobacco product to a minor to $1000 for a first offense and $1000 for a
subsequent offense.
Distributing a tobacco product to a minor is also a misdemeanor under Md. Criminal Law
Code,
§
10-107, punishable by a fine of $300 for a first offense, $1000 for a second offense, and
$3000 for each subsequent offense within 2 years after the preceding offense.
An
enforcement
official would have the option of citing a violator under the State Criminal Law or under the
County law.
The County Attorney's Office issued a bill review memorandum raising a potential State
implied preemption issue for the existing County law prohibiting the distribution of tobacco, but
ultimately concluded that the Bill is probably not preempted by State law. See ©5-7. Council
staff agrees with this conclusion.
Public Hearing
There were no speakers at the October 20 public hearing.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues
1. Would the Bill apply in all municipalities?
Section 24-9C, Distribution of Tobacco Products to Minors, was first enacted in
Emergency Bill 13-98 on June 30, 1998.
In
order to ensure that the Bill would apply in each
municipality in the County, the Council, acting as the County Board of Health, adopted the law as
a Board of Health Regulation. A copy of Resolution No. 13-1410, adopting the Bill as a Health
Regulation, is at ©8-10. This resolution adopts Bill 13-98 as it was enacted in 1998. Therefore,
the higher fine that would be established by Bill 41-15 may not apply in each municipality unless
the Council later adopts Bill 41-15 as a Board of Health Regulation.
Md. Code, Health-General Art. §3-202 authorizes the Council, sitting as the County Board
of Health, to adopt health regulations applicable in each municipality in the County. County Code
§2-65 implements this authority:
Sec.
2-65. Board of health designated.
(a) The County Council is, and may act as, the County Board of Health.
(b) When meeting as the Board of Health, the County Council has all the
powers delegated to a local board of health under State and County law.
(c) The County Council, meeting as the Board of Health, may adopt any
regulation which a local board of health is authorized to adopt.
Before
it
adopts a regulation, the Board must hold a public hearing after giving
reasonable notice, as specified in the Council Rules ofProcedure, to each
municipality in the County and the public.
(emphasis added)
If the Council wants to ensure that the increased fmes are applicable in each municipality,
the Council could follow enactment of this Bill with a Board of Health Regulation adopted after
notice to each municipality and the public.
This packet contains:
Bill 41-15
Legislative Request Report
County Attorney Bill Review Memorandum
Resolution No. 13-1410
F:\LAW\BILLS\1541 Distributing Tobacco To Minor\HHS Memo.Docx
Circle
#
1
4
5
8
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
41-15
Concerning: Health - Distribution of
Tobacco Products to Minors ­
Penalties
Revised: 10-20-15
Draft No. 5
Introduced:
September 29. 2015
Expires:
March 29, 2017
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: --!.:.No;:::!n.:.::e:....-_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Councilmember Rice
Co-Sponsors: Council President Leventhal, Council Vice President Floreen, and Council members
EIrich, Navarro, Hucker, Katz, Riemer, and Berliner
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
increase the maximum civil fine for distributing a tobacco product to a minor; and
generally amend the law prohibiting the distribution ofa tobacco product to a minor.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 24, Health and Sanitation
Section 24-11
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law
by
original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law
by
original bill.
Added
by
amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill
by
amendment.
EXisting law unaffected
by
hill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves thefollowing Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 41-15
1
Sec. 1.
Section 24-11 is amended as follows:
24-11. Distribution of tobacco products to minors.
(a)
Definitions.
In
this Section the following words have the meanings
indicated.
(1)
Tobacco product means any substance containing tobacco,
including cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, snuff, or smokeless
tobacco.
(2)
Distribute means to:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(A)
give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue;
(B) offer to give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue; or
(C) cause or hire any person to give away, sell, deliver,
dispense, or· issue or offer to give away, sell, deliver,
dispense, or issue.
(b)
Unlawful distribution.
(1)
A person engaged
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
the business of selling or otherwise
distributing tobacco products for commercial purposes must not:
(i)
distribute any tobacco product to a minor, unless the minor
is acting solely as the agent of the minor's employer who
is engaged in the business of distributing tobacco products;
(ii) distribute cigarette rolling papers to a minor; or
17
18
19
20
21
(iii)
distribute to a minor a coupon redeemable for any tobacco
product.
(2)
A person, who is not a person described under paragraph (b
Xl),
must not:
(i)
buy for or sell to a minor any tobacco product; or
22
23
24
25
26
(ii) deliver or sell to a minor cigarette rolling papers.
G)
f:\law\bills\1541 distributing tobacco to minor\billS.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No,
41-15
27
(c)
Subsection (b) does not apply to the distribution of a coupon which is
redeemable for any tobacco product when the coupon is contained in a
newspaper, a magazine, or any other type of publication in which the
coupon is incidental to the primary purpose of the publication, or sent
through the mail.
28
29
30
31
32
(d)
A person has not violated this Section if:
(1)
that person examined a driver's license or another valid
identification issued by an employer, a government entity, or an
institution of higher education; and
(2)
that license or other identification positively identified the buyer
or recipient ofa tobacco product as at least 18 years old.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(e)
If a minor bought a tobacco product from a vending machine, this
Section does not apply to the owner of the vending machine or any
other person with control over the vending machine.
40
41
42
(f)
A person who violates this Section is liable for a [class A] civil
violation. The maximum civil fme is $1000 for
$1000 for each subsequent offense.
~
first offense and
43
44
45
Approved:
George Leventhal, President, County Council
Date
46
Approved:
47
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
f:\lawlbills\1541 distributing tobacco to minor\bill5,docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Health
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
GOALSAND
OBJECTIVES:
Bill 41-15
Distribution o/Tobacco Products to Minors Penalties
Bill 41-15 would increase the civil fine for a violation of County law from $500 for a
first offense and $750 for a subsequent offense to $1000 for each offense.
The penalties under County law are too low.
Eliminate the distribution oftobacco products to minors in the County.
COORDINATION:
Police, Department of Liquor Control
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be determined.
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
To
be
determined.
nla
To be researched.
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
MUNICIPALITIES:
To be researched.
PENALTIES:
$1000 for each offense.
F:\LAW\BILLS\1541 Distributing Tobacco To Minor\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Isiah
Leggett
County Executive
Marc
P.
Hansen
County Attorney
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
DATE:
Uma Ahluwalia. Director, DIllIS
Kristen Kalaria,
Assistant County Attorney, OCA
r.
tIC
13;t
7.13
;;z!.­
Edward Lattner, Chief, Division of Government Operations, OCA
October 12,2015
RE:
Summary
Bil141-15 Distribution of Tobacco Products
to
Minors - Penalties CORRECTED
Bil141-15 raises the maximum civil fine for distributing a tobacco product to a minor in
violation of County Code
§
24-11 from $300
to
$1000.
As
described in further detail below, the
proposed amendment does not raise any legal issues. While a court could find that
§
24-11 itself
is preempted because the Court of Appeals recently concluded that "state law comprehensively
regulates the packaging, sale, and distribution of tobacco products, including cigars, and thus
preempts this field," we believe, on balance, that
§
24-11 is probably not preempted.
Clarity
Bill 41-15 is clear.
Liability Exposure
Bill 41-15 does not expand the County's exposure
to
liability, except as noted below
under "Preemption."
Constitutionality
As tobacco is heavily regulated by the state and federal governments, it
is
necessary to
consider the possibility
that
local regulation in the area may be preempted. Preemption may be
either express or implied. Neither the state nor federal government expressly prohibits local
regulation of tobacco sales. Implied preemption, however, is a significant concern. Preemption
will
be
implied where the state or federal government has regulated a field so forcibly that its
101 Monroe Street, R.ockviUe, Maryland 20850-2540
(240) 777-6700 • TID (240) 777-2545 • FAX (240) 777-6705
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Uma Ahluwalia
October 12,2015
Page 2
intent to occupy the entire field must be inferred.
Mayor and City Council ofBaltimore
v.
Sitnick,
254 Md. 303; 323 (1969). As described below, it is unlikely that a court would find
that
Bi1l41-15, and the underlying Section 24-11, is preempted by state law.
Section
24-11
is Not Preempted
by
Federal
Law
Federal law prohibits sale ofcigarettes to persons under 18 and requires retailers to check
photo identification for persons under
the
age of26. 21 C.F.R. 1140.14. According to the Food
and Drug Administration's most recent guidance document for retailers, the penalty for violation
of Part 1140.14 varies based on the number of violations within a four year period. The penalty
could range from a warning letter for the first violation to $11,000 for six or more violations
within four years. Preemption by federal law is not a concern. The Supreme Court
has
held
that
federal law does not preempt local regulation oftobacco sales to minors.
LoriIIard Tobacco
v.
Reilly,
533 U.S. 525,552 (2001).
Section
24-11
Is Probably Not Preempted
by
State Law
State law also prohibits the sale of cigarettes to minors. The state prohibition is found in
§
10-107 of the Criminal Law Article, Maryland Code. Section 10-107 is almost identical to the
existing county law,
§
24-11 ofthe County Code. Like
§
24-11,
§
10-107 prohibits distribution
oftobacco products, paraphernalia, or coupons redeemable for tobacco products to minors. Both
sections also prohibit other individuals from buying tobacco products on behalfofminors. The
laws differ only regarding the penalties: the state law provides penalties not exceeding $300 for a
first
offense, $1000 for a second offense within two years, and $2000 for a
third
offense within
two years. The existing county law is punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 for a first offense
and $750 for a subsequent offense. Bi1141-15 would increase the fine to $1000 for a
first
offense
and $1000 for each subsequent offense. A separate provision prohibits possession or use of
tobacco products by a minor. Md. Code Criminal Law
§
10-108
The Court of Appeals recently struck down a Prince George's County ordinance
requiring cigars to be sold in packages ofat least five, finding that the ordinance was preempted
by extensive State regulation in
the
field.
Altadis US.A. Inc.
v.
Prince George's County,
431 Md.
307, 309 (2013). The Court specifically held that "state law comprehensively regulates the
packaging, sale, and distribution oftobacco products, including cigars, and thus preempts this
field."
Altadis
at 316. This is not the first time the Court
has
struck
down a local tobacco
regulation on the basis ofpreemption.
In
Allied Vending
v.
City o/Bowie,
332 Md. 279 (1993),
the Court invalidated two municipal ordinances restricting the placement of state-licensed
cigarette vending machines in an effort
to
make tliem less accessible to minors. The Court held
that the comprehensive state regulation "manifested an intent for the state to completely occupy
the field ofthe sale ofcigarettes through vending machines."
Allied Vending
at 310.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
!
I"
i
Vma Ahluwalia
October 12,2015
Page 3
But it is possible to draw some distinctions between
§
24-11 and the ordinances
invalidated by
Altadis
and
Allied Vending.
Both cases relied primarily on the comprehensive
state regulation of tobacco retailers found in Titles 16
and
16.5 ofthe Business Regulations
Article, Maryland Code.
In
conttst, the sale of cigarettes to minors is regulated in the Criminal
Law Article. Thus, it could be argued that this provision is not
part
of the comprehensive civil
regulatory scheme considered by
Altadis.
Also, because the county law differs from the state law
only in penalties assessed, one could argue that there is no potential for confusion
ifdifferent
municipalities have different penalties because the prohibited
acts
are
still
identical. The
potential for confusion created by different municipal requirements
was
one of the concerns cited
by the court in
Allied Vending.
In
addition, after the County enacted
§
24-11 in 1998, the General Assembly amended
§
10-107 (Laws ofMaryland 2007, Ch. 218), and it did not disapprove or even make any
reference to the preexisting County law. The Maryland Court of Appeals
has
previously
concluded that the General Assembly does not intend to impliedly preempt a field containing
preexisting local legislation and the General Assembly takes no action to "ousf' that preexisting
local legislation.
National Asphaltv. Prince George's County,
292 Md. 75,79,437 A.2d 651,
653 n.4 (1981).
In
such cases, the General Assembly is charged with knowledge ofthe
preexisting local law and is said to have acquiesced to the presence oflocal legislation
in
the
field.!
Other
issues
Section 24-11 does not apply to e-cigarettes. This is not a problem, but the Council may
consider amending
§
24-11 to include e-cigarettes,
as
it recently expanded Section 24-9 (the
smoking ban) to do the same.
If
you have any concerns or questions conceming this
memorandum please
call
me.
cc:
Bonnie
Kirkland, Assistant
CAD
Robert
H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney
The Fourth Circuit concluded that
§
10-107,
then
codifiedatMd Ann. Code
art.
27, §§ 404
&
405,
did
not impliedly preempt a Baltimore City law prohibiting cigarette advertising on billboards located
in
designated
zones.
Pe1l1/Adver. o/Baltimore, Inc.
v.
Mayor
&
City Council o/Baltimore,
63 F.3d 1318,1324, 1995 WL 530257
(4th Cir. 1995)
cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. P€1I1/
U.S. 1030,
Adver. o/Baltimore, Inc.
v.
Schmoke,
518
116 S.
Ct.
2575,135 L.
Ed.
2d 1090 (1996)
and
adopted as modified,
101
F3d
332 (4th Cir. 1996).
I
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Resolution No.:
--=.",---,=;..,;..:;.~----
13-1410
Introduced:
July 28, 1998
Adopted:
August 4,1998
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: County Council
Subject: Adoption of Emergency Bill 13-98, Tobacco - Distribution to Minors, as a Board of
Health Regulation
Background
1.
On June 30, 1998, the County Council enacted Emergency Bill 13-98, Tobacco ­
Distribution to Minors. The bill added Section 24-9C, Distribution of Tobacco Products
to Minors, to Chapter 24, Health and Sanitation of the Montgomery County Code.
Maryland Health-General Code §3-202(d) authorizes the Board of Health to adopt rules
and regulations regarding any nuisance or cause ofdisease in the County.
The Board ofHealth fmds that prohibiting the distribution of tobacco products to minors
is necessary to protect the public health and safety in the County.
Action
2.
3.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the Board of Health
for Montgomery County, approves the following resolution:
Montgomery County Code Section 24-9C, Distribution of Tobacco
Products to Minors, as enacted in Emergency Bi1l13-98, is
adopted as a Board ofHealth regulation. A copy of Section 24-9C
is attached.
This is a correct copy of Council action.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment to Resolution No. 13-1410
24-9C. Distribution of Tobacco Products to Minors.
00
Definitions. In this Section the following words have the meanings indicated.
ill
Tobacco product means any substance containing tobacco, including
cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, snuff. or smokeless tobacco.
ill
Distribute means to:
fA}
give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue:
offer to give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue: or
cause or hire any person to give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or
issue or offer to give away, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue.
@
(Q
!.hl
Unlawful distribution.
ill
A person engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing
tobacco products for comniercial purposes must not:
ill
distribute any tobacco product to
~
minor, unless the minor is
acting solely as the agent of the minor's employer who is engaged
in the business of distributing tobacco products:
®
(iii)
distribute cigarette rolling papers to
~
minor, or
distribute to
~
minor
~
coupon redeemable for any tobacco
product.
ill
A person. who is not
~
person described under paragraph
.Qili11
must not:
ill
®
{Ql
buy for or sell
to
~
minor any tobacco product; or
deliver or sell to
~
minor cigarette rolling papers.
Subsection
!.hl
does not
.apply
to the distribution of
~
coupon which is
redeemable for any tobacco product when the coupon is contained in
~
newspaper,
~
magazine, or any other
~
ofpublication in which the coupon is
incidental to the primary purpose of the publication, or sent through the mail.
@.
A person has not violated this Section if:
ill
that person examined
~
driver's license or another valid identification
issued
Qy
an employer,
~
government entity, or an institution of higher
education; and
ill
that license or other identification positively identified the buyer or
recipient of
~
tobacco product as at least
~
years old.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment to Resolution No. 13-1410
ill
If
~
minor bought
~
tobacco
product
from
~
vending machine, this Section does
not
illmlY
to the owner of the vending machine or
any
other person with control
over the vending machine.
ill
A person who violates this Section is liable for
~
class A civil violation.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
HHS Item 2
November 5,2015
Worksession
ADDENDUM
MEMORANDUM
November 4, 2015
TO:
Health and Human Services Committee
FROM:
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative
Attomey~Cj.
SUBJECT:
Worksession Addendum:
Bi1l41-15, Health - Distribution of Tobacco Products
to Minors - Penalties
We received the Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement after the packet was published.
OMB estimated that the Bill would increase revenue from fines from $21,000 per year to $42,000
per year. Finance estimated that the Bill would not have a significant economic impact.
This packet contains:
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
F:\LAW\BILLS\I 54 ( Distributing Tobacco To Minor\HHS Addendum.Docx
Circle
#
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVIlLE, MARYlAND
MEMORANDUM
November 3, 201 5
TO:
George Leventhal, President, County Council
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Diret.1or, Office of Management and Budget
Josepb
F. Beach;
Director, Department
of
Finance
FEIS for Bill 4
J
-15, Health ­ Distribution ofTobacco to Minors - Penalties
FROM;
SUBJECT:
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements for the above­
referenced legislation.
JAH:iz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant (,lIief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices ofthe County Executive
Joy Nurmi, Special Assistant
to
the
County
Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
Joseph
F. Beru::h,
Director, Department of
Finance
Uma Ahluwalia,
Director, Department ofHuman Health Services
Alex
Espinosa,
Office
of
.Management
and Budget
Rachel Silberman. Office of Management
and
Budg.::t
Felicia Zhang, Office ofManagement and Budget
Naeern Mia.
Office of
Management
and
Budget
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impaet Statement
Council Bill 41-15 Health,
Distribution
of Tobacco to Minors -
Penalties
, 1. Legislative Summary.
Bill 41-15 would increase the maximum penalty for distributing a tobacco product to a
minor
from
$500
for
a
first offense
and $750
for
a
subsequent offense to
$1,000
for
a
first
offense and $1,000 for a subsequent offense.
2.
An
estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the
revenues or expenditures
are assumed
in the recorrunended or approved
budget.
Includes
source
of information, assumptions, and methodologies
used.
Bill 41-15 is not
expected to
change County expenditures. The County currently
colldu.cts tobacco compliance inspections andcol1ects fines. Between FY09
and
FY15,
the
Montgomery County Department of Liquor Control (DLC) conducted
an
average of
330 tobacco compliance inspections resulting
in
73 violations on average. However. the
number ofinspections and violations has steadily declined since FY09 from 559 and 117
respectively. to
350
and
49
in
FYI5. Revenues are
expected
to double: $21.600 was
collected by
the
County Attorney's
Office
in
FYI 5, which would
increase
to $42,000
under Bill
41-15.
3. Revenue and expenditure
estimates
covering at
least
the next 6
fiscal years.
Bill
41-15 is not expected
to
change County expenditures.
Assuming
the number of
violations remains constant, revenue collected
from
citations issued for tobacco sales to
minors would remain steady at $42,000 per year (a $20,400 increase over FY15 citation
collections),
v.ith
anestitnated six year total
of$252~OOO.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortization
period
for each bill that would affect
retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not
applicable.
5.
An
estimate ofexpenditures related to County's infonnation technology (IT) systems,
including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
No\aPR~lc.
'(
'n_",.4j'
\ . -•.••
~,'
\.
....,
\.
~
"'",...
\\.)"<
. .
~}
vA
'.
",f-
"
;;
- J:
6. Later actions
that
may affect future revenue and expenditures if the biIl authorizes
future ..
spending.
Not applicable, Bill 41-15 does not authorize future spending.
7. An estimate of the
staff
time needed to implement the
bill.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
No additional staff time is required
to
implement the bilL The County currently conducts
tobacco
compliance
inspections
and
fine collection.
8.
An
explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
Not applicable.
9.
An
estimate of costs when
an
additional appropriation is needed.
Not
appli<;able.
10. A description of
any
variable that could affect revenue
and
cost
estimates.
The
variables
that
could affect revenues are the number oflocations inspecte4
by DLe;
the number ofviolations, and the compliance rate. Because of the constant number of
locations
inspected,
the high compliance rate, and the low number ofviolations in· FY15
~
it
is assumed
that
revenues
\vill
not
increase
significantly beyond
those
estimated
in
#2
of
this fiscal impact. The bill doea not affect cost estimates.
11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures
that
are
uncertain or difficult to project.
Not
applicable.
12. If a bill is likely to have no
fiscal
impact, why that is the case,
Not applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
14. The folloVting contributed
to
and conct¢rM
with
this analysis:
Rachel Silbennan, OMB
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact
Statement
BiU 41-15,
Health -
Distribution of Tobacco
t()
Minors -
Penalties
Background:
The
distribution of tobacco
products
to
minors violates County law. 'Ibis
legislation would
increase the maximum civil
fine
for
distributing
tobacco products to a minor from $500 for the
first
offense and
$750
for
a
subsequent offense
to
$1,000
for
the
fir&'!;
offense
and to$t,OOO for a
subsequent
offense.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Source
of infonnation:
M.ontgomery County Department
of
Liquor Control (DLC). DLC is
responsible
for
conducting iobacco compliance
inspections.
Between FY09 and FY15, there
were an
average
of 73 violations
at
an average
of330 locations. Since
]~Y{)9,
the number of
violations
has
steadily declined from 1] 7 in FY09 to 49 in
FYI5,
Of the number of
inspections
at various retail
stores.
there was
an average
of a 78 percent compliance
rate with
State
law
under
Md. Criminal
Law
Code
§10-I07 and a maximum compliance rate of86 percent in FY15. In
FY15, the
County Attomey's
office collected $21,600
in
fines.
2. A
description
of
any
variable
that
could
affect the economic impact
estimates.
'Ole variables thai
could
affect the economic
impact estimates
are the number of locations
inspected by DLC,
the
number
of violations,
and the compliance rate. Because of
me
constant
number of
locations inspected, the
higb compliance rate.
and
me
low
number
of violations
in
FY 15, Finance assumes
that
those figures \\'illnot change in estimating
the
ecollomic
impact
underBill 4]-]5.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and property values in the County.
Based on the assumptions in paragraph #2 and the increase in the fine from $500
to
$1,000 for
the first
offense,
the amount of collections
by
the
County Attorney
would double from
$21,000
to $42,000.
111[S
would represent a loss of
business
income to retail
f>iores.
However, because of
the low amount of
1059
to business income compared to the total amount of total proprietor's
income in the County - $90.8 million in calendar year 2013 (Source: Bureau of Economic
Analysis, U.S. Department ofCommerce) - the economic impact of Bill 41-15 is insignificant
4.
If
a
mu
is likely to have no economic impact, why is that the
cage?
Bill 41·15
would have
no significant
impact
on total business
inc.ome
in the Cotmty.
5. The following contributed to or
concurred
with this analysis;
David Platt, Mary Casciotti.
and Rob Hagedoom, Finance.
J-­
Page 1
ofl