Amends Chapter 24 and Chapter 32 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one years of age and require a license to operate a retail tobacco store. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-19.
An amendment for a vote and amendments. All right. On 921. All right. Madam Secretary, I think Councilman Sawyer is stepped out for her proclamation. Can we do Councilman Flynn's first? All right. If you could put 921 on our screens. And Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you will, please put Council Bill 921 on the floor. I move that council bill 921 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I moved to amend Council Bill 19, Dash 921 with the following particulars on page two, strike line seven and eight, and renumbered subsection 24, dash 401. Accordingly, on page six, strike lines four through seven one, line eight, strike C and replace with B, strike lines 12 through 19 one, line 20, strike Perin three and replace with Perin two and on line 32, strike 422, Perin B Perin three and replace with 422 Parente Perin two. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn. I can't believe I have to comment. Nobody understood that the the meat behind all those striking and additions and rememberings was that I fully support this bill's main intent, which is to make it illegal for retailers who sell tobacco products to sell to people under 21. Right now, the ages 18 to 21, I fully support that. I think I and a number of us were a little taken by surprise with some other elements in the bill, which may be which may be subject of a broader discussion, which should be subject to a broader discussion, but were included in this bill. And that's adding distancing requirements to the sellers of tobacco products. And if this were to pass without this amendment tomorrow morning, 84% of every store that sells Cigarets, every 7-Eleven, every King Soopers, every corner store and Diamond Shamrock will find itself in violation. We have a grandfathering provision in here. And we were told by the agency that while it's a simple matter to keep track of 84% of all the stores in Denver from year to year who would have to reapply to keep their grandfathered status when the principal goal is just not sell to people under 21. The goal isn't to to reduce the number of stores that sell to people over 21. At least we weren't told that was the goal, but that could be the effect of this. And the number of stores, particularly smaller neighborhood groceries and outlets like that, for whom selling tobacco legally to customers over 21 may provide a good part of their profit margin and and their revenue for the year. This is something I think this is a policy shift that really should have had broader discussion rather than being embedded in a an ordinance that says it's illegal to sell to under 21. Those stores will lose their license if they sell to under 21. And I think right now that's sufficient. And I would welcome a broader discussion subsequently. So what this amendment does is it takes out only two of those prohibited locations, daycares, because right now, the way it's written, if a if there is a corner store within a thousand feet of a daycare facility, remembering that daycares can be established in people's homes, they can be established from time to time. They can move around. I don't know many toddlers who are going in and trying to pass themselves off, as you know, 18 year olds these days. But daycare seemed not to be appropriate. And it also takes out the distancing between and among. The stores themselves. So if you have a store on the corner and right within 500 feet, there's a King Soopers, which is a category killer as far as sales of cigarets. Suddenly, that small retailer will find himself in a situation of being grandfathered and having to reapply every year for that status in order to keep it. I don't believe those are necessary at this time and there should have been a broader discussion rather than learning about this when it came to counsel in the committee process. We are. This amendment does not affect the distancing requirements that are established in the ordinance from schools, places where children 18 to 21 and under 18 are known to congregate. So rec centers, pools and schools. That's kept in the bill that distancing requirements simply takes out the daycares and the distancing among the retailers themselves. And I would ask members to please consider supporting this change and then engender a broader discussion as to whether this is a regimen that we should have. And let's have the discussion on that and not embedded within an ordinance that simply wants to stop selling cigarets to people under 21. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. If someone in. Here. Who could speak about the in someone here who's in favor of the the proposed bill and could talk a bit about distancing requirements. And demographics regarding cigaret vendors. Thank you. And also, I guess the first question I would have is about the stakeholder process itself. So if you could, you know, mention who you are and who you represent, if anyone. And and then I'll I'll I'll continue. You bet. My name is Tristan Sanders. I'm a public health manager in the Department of Public Health and Environment for the city. And I worked with a group across the city to develop this bill. We did do a stakeholder engagement process over the course of about six weeks, eight weeks. We invited every single retailer in the city and county of Denver that we know of to come to two open listening sessions where we discussed the main provisions of the bill and including the proximity restrictions. We took feedback from everybody. We had a lively discussion about the merits of the different points. And what is before you is what we came up with, given their feedback. And so I think I heard you say this. I just want to make sure that I didn't misunderstand. So there were retailers who were invited to the stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process did include the thousand foot setback, which includes daycares and other retailers. Yeah, so we invited all retailers. We originally had proposed a 1000 foot setback for all of the proximity restrictions, including from other retailers. And based on the feedback that that would be too restrictive as far as the commercial property available for new retailers, we did some mapping and we looked at the number of parcels across the city that would conform and not conform with those restrictions with a number of different scenarios, eliminating them altogether, looking at 500 feet, looking at a thousand feet. And again, what's before you is what was essentially agreed upon as a as a compromise to move forward with those distancing restrictions. So was the setback for retailers, is that a different number besides 1000? Yeah. So the youth facing facilities, the city owned rec centers, pools and schools is 1000 feet, the daycare centers is a thousand feet and the distance from other retailers is 500 feet based on our revised bill. So the 500 foot setback does that is still does that also include 84% of all sooner store owners? Yeah. With with those proximity restrictions, 84% of current retailers would be needing to be grandfathered into those proximity restrictions. And just to comment about that, everybody has to apply for a license. Everybody would have to apply yearly to renew that license. The grandfathering restriction is specific to their location. So as soon as we have the addresses of people that are grandfathered on July 1st of next year, that is the list of addresses that are grandfathered in perpetuity. That won't change. It. Oh, well, that's okay. Thank you for that. So if I am one of the grandfathered addresses and I forget to reapply a month late or a year late, then I still get my application renewed. Not if it lapses. So the location, as long as it's a continuous license, would be grandfathered. But everyone has to apply every year. Everyone has to apply every year. So it isn't as if some folks are having to remember and other folks aren't having to remember. Every business owner has to apply and has. Is this different or is this something that has happened like in the past as well? So like is it part of a part of the process everyone must renew their. Even in, you know, last year or the year before the year before that. This is fairly standard practice for licenses. It is an annual renewal and there's a process that exercises as license takes to notify people of when the renewal date is. They get notification, you know, a few months ahead of time, a few weeks ahead of time at the date that it's expiring. They get notified at the record, but the address, the email, the phone number, etc.. So I think that at least three notifications using multiple communication methods. Maybe you. So I think we're working out those details of the license, but I think we can probably say at least two notifications leading up to the point of the expiration. Okay. And then would there be at least one additional notification after the expiration? Hey, did you forget since. Yeah, well before the. Hey, you've lost your license. Is there a a did you forget you don't have a whole lot of time to apply. It's on. Sorry. Yeah. Please go to the microphone if you're going to talk. Thanks. Sorry for the backseat chatter. I'm Eric Rogers from Department of Excise and Licenses. It does tend to vary by license type because we are moving some of our licenses online. So for example, our short term rental licenses get several automated reminders that your license is needing to be renewed. Some of our other licenses that aren't online yet get fewer than that. And so I'm sorry, I can't I'm not sure exactly how many each license type gets, but this license would be going online. So I would my understanding would be that it would get at least as many as short term rentals, which I believe is three . And would there be one more notice? You know, like you're you've lapsed. If you want to apply, you better do it quickly. Otherwise your grandfather status will be gone. I don't believe we have done that with other licenses, but that's definitely something we could look into. Okay, thank you. I want to go back to the 84% and the distancing requirements. So. Why is there so 84% of all the stores are located next to each other? That seems like a lot of stores if they're, you know, at all, the city is jammed up within 500 feet of one another. Is it can you tell me, are the and those watching can you tell all of us a little bit more about what those neighborhoods are like or, you know, fire? Why are all the retailers close to each other? So we we have certain parts of the city where there is a tremendous amount of density of retailers. It happens to correlate with the density of youth living in our city, and it happens to correlate with the number of violations in our compliance program of sales to youth. And there's a lot of research and data that suggests this isn't coincidence, that where there is more opportunity, you will have more lack of compliance with selling to youth. In fact, there are three sections of our city, I believe, in Council District one, seven and nine where there is a three mile square radius that has each one of them has over 20 retailers just in that three mile square radius. As opposed to that, there's actually an entire council districts that only has 17 total retailers. So it varies significantly across the city. And the only way that we can ensure that it doesn't become more dense after July 1st of next year would be with these restrictions in place. So I think I heard you say and again, I want to make sure that I that I understood it correctly. You said that the locations of cigaret retailers is highly correlated with locations where youth live. That's correct. Is there a way you can statistically identify that as opposed to just the value statement? Is there, you know, like. Well, I mean, I guess you've you've got maps, but are there other ways that you can describe that in a numeric fashion? That's. That's fine. I'm going to get on the spot. No. Okay. Well, fair enough. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for all of your hard work on this. As a parent and the city of Denver, I'm really grateful to you for all that you're doing to protect our kids. This is really fantastic. And so I really appreciate that. But that said, I also see Councilman Flynn's perspective on moving these motions. And for two reasons. I think, you know, when we were talking about the daycare centers come 2040 and Blueprint are really telling us, you know, that we want to have more local businesses in neighborhoods, in walking distance of our homes to get people out of their cars at the same time. Our our information is telling us that more daycare centers are moving into people's homes in our neighborhoods. And so it's sort of hard because we see these two these two trajectories they're going to cross at some point. Right. And so how do we how do we speak for future business owners? This is a tough one because we want more daycare centers. We need more daycare centers. I was talking to someone today who mentioned that down here there are only three daycare centers in the downtown area. I mean, there just simply are not enough. And so, you know, we need to be able to find a way to to to make both of those things work. And I think that by moving this amendment, Councilman Flynn has come up with a compromise that makes sense on on that perspective and that part of things. And then in terms of the the 500 foot between businesses, you know, as long as these businesses are maintaining their their the law. Right. As long as they're selling to people who are over 21, then then they should have the right to do that. As long as if they're not selling to kids, then, you know, we are already taxing our businesses at such incredible rate. We are already putting so much pressure on our small businesses. And now they're looking down the pipeline at, you know, having to keep up with minimum wage. You know, our our our cost of living has not kept up. And, you know, our our wages have not kept up with our cost of living. It's again, this to me. Councilman Flynn is reaching a compromise here with allowing law abiding businesses to provide, you know, people who are over the age of 21 who are making a terrible choice to smoke, do not smoke. People don't smoke. But if you choose to smoke and you're over the age of 21, you know, then then these law abiding businesses are making money at that and they should be allowed to do that no matter how far away they are from another law abiding business. So maybe so to me, even though I'm so grateful for this work that you're doing and I'm so happy that we and so proud that I get to be one of the people who votes yes today. On raising the bar and raising the age of smoking to 21. I also I'm going to support Councilman Flynn in in his motion because they make sense to me in striking a compromise here on some issues that our city is facing that I think are going to are going to be tough as we move forward. And so thank you for all of your hard work. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for also bringing this to the forefront. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. To our council, McKinney. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of questions before I comment. Mr. Sanders, thanks so much for the maps you provided me. You shared that you had a robust stakeholder process. Did you share those maps in the stakeholder process? We did not have these maps developed for the stakeholder process. When where they developed. They were developed prior to committee and after the stakeholder process. And after we receive that feedback, we've posted revisions on our website. When you came to committee A.O., if you recall, I asked you how much the noncompliance was. And do you recall at that time that you said you didn't know it, that you weren't able to provide that information during the committee meeting? The rate of noncompliance. Right. That how many nonconforming businesses with the rules create that you were unable to answer that at committee. So the other question I wanted to ask you about is you I appreciate you also shared, in addition to the maps, you shared some of the background information. I read what you sent me. Change labs, I think, was the source. Did you do a profile of all other cities that had similar restrictions to the ones you proposed in this bill? We did research on other cities. That had similar restrictions in the bill. Did you find a single city that had restrictions on schools, daycare centers and distance from each other? There are many cities in California that have similar proximity restrictions, if not more. And then there are many cities not in California that don't. I didn't find any that had daycare centers. Is that something that's not mentioned in any of the research that you sent me? So is that can you can you share if there's a gap between what you sent me and you did some other research that you didn't send me in daycare centers? No, there's. So we looked in totality of the three at what was available out there. And like I said, many had additional proximity restrictions. None were exactly the same. Yeah. I guess what I would say is, having followed up on what you sent me, I did not find a single city that included daycare centers, pools, recreation centers and all of the locations. I also and this is I'm going to move to comments. So thank you for your your time. I think that the appropriate way to proceed with policy is to say to the public, we have a desire to protect you from acts and here's what we're going to do and propose that in this case, I worry that we are creating a false expectation when we're creating an expectation that we're going to protect you from something. But then 85% of businesses will continue to exist. So, in fact, if you're a firm believer that people should not, you know, be selling tobacco in these locations, but that truthfully, it's going to be continuing to happen, then I think we're setting a false expectation. In my recollection, I do not recall a time when we as a city have in one vote created 85% noncompliance rate in one single vote. So to me, it's about one that the data was not matching up with the recommendations to that. I just don't believe it's it's good government to say to folks, hey, I'm going to make this thing illegal, but really it's not going to be illegal because everyone's going to keep doing it. And I think the other points that, you know, Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Flynn have made about small businesses and just the idea that we really we had we had a committee meeting on this, the council gave very strong feedback about needing licensing. I appreciate how much the department reluctantly agreed to go to that step, but then you skipped us in the process. And again, the data just doesn't match. So in my opinion, this is a prudent amendment because it's it's telling the truth that we're not going to create standards, that we're really not going to be in a position to enforce. So I'm no fan of smoking. No fan of of of youth tobacco use. I think the licensing is key here and I think the licensing going with the G 21, one of the things I'll just comment on real quick so I don't have to chime in on the bill is that we had a conversation, a committee about signage. Even though it's not a requirement in the ordinance. I think there was strong feedback that you need to have a sign that says 21. So I hope you achieve that through rules or regulations or model signage. I think it'd be very confusing to have a sign that says 18 and up when we're passing a law that's 21. So I hope you solved that and I'll be excited to support the bill if this amendment passes. If it doesn't, I I'm going to struggle. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you so much. I don't have any questions for you trust. And thank you so much for meeting with me in between committee and and today I am incredibly supportive of the age increase the licensing requirement also pleased that additional inspectors are being proposed to be added to the team to make sure that retailers are informed of the changes. The compliance is met. I have a couple of vendors in District three that appear to have historic violations. And so I appreciate that you'll be holding them accountable and and the incoming licenses accountable to that in Council District three. Just to echo one of the issues that Councilwoman Sawyer brought up, we have a number of childcare providers that operate in-home. And the movement is to actually get them licensed and to get them providing education and training to the children in the families that they serve. And and and that's the friend and friend and family and friends and family. Neighbor and neighbor care. Thank you. And it actually is a growing movement throughout the city, but we definitely see it in play in District three. And so some of the some of the mapping that was done doesn't reflect those in-home providers. And so our density is greater. The distancing between retailers was one that concerned me, but not quite for the reasons that were mentioned here. For me, it just has to do with who is providing other things in District three, like fresh food and groceries. To my neighbors, we can count on one hand grocers in District three to major and a couple smaller. And so a lot of my neighbors rely on Mart Corner markets. And other retailers for grocery needs. And so I really do worry as we try to and advocate for a grocer for more grocery options, that this might become a barrier. And I don't want that to be a barrier for our conversation for fresh food. And I hate that these kinds of things are pitted against one another. But I am grateful that the changes are being made in support of a higher age limit and better enforcement. That piece just makes sense for my district. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm going to go to Councilman Sandoval because should benefit. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and offer my support. And I have a senior in high school and their ability to get tobacco products is real. I have this conversation on a daily basis. I find Jules and I have this conversation with 17 year old, 16 year olds, 15 year olds. And as I was thinking about this amendment, Northwest Denver is a bit different than Council District three in Councilman tours this area. But we share West Colfax and we also shared northwest Denver has more access to grocery stores. And so because as you sit up here behind the dais and you vote for all of city council and all of the city and county of Denver, I have to offer my support for this amendment, but I also have to echo councilman clenches sign. I think it's it's not okay for people to go into these stores and not see it's illegal to sell to 21. You have to same as a liquor store signage is really important and our teenage kids we're in the area era of instant gratification. If they want a song, they buy it. If they want to Google something, they are able to do it. And so with that, we have to keep up with the times. So they have to see that sign because if not, they won't know they're not there's no education going to be done about this amendment or about this bill for 21 and older. So thank you, Councilman Flynn, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinney, for bringing up the signage issue and thinking councilman. President. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Flint. Rebecca. Thank you. Just a quick question. Interested in the way the bill's worded? I want to make sure I understand how the grandfathering will work. It says that the distancing requirements do not apply to any location that has submitted an application. As of July 1st of 2020 and that these rules are effective January 1st, 2021. So I'm curious, how many locations are there? I'm trying to remember from committee there were 500 and some such proximately 586, approximately 586. I like that it varies, give or take. So how many of them are aware that they may be within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another seller of tobacco products? How many are aware today? Yes. I mean, do they know? Could not answer that. So they don't. Know. It was in our presentation and engagement with stakeholders. However, between now and the application period, our team will actually be visiting every single retailer personally and. They of those 586, give or take, how many came to your stakeholder meeting? So we had somewhere around 17 to 20. However, many of them represented multiple locations. Right. Okay. Like this. Several like a smoke screen. Like a 7-Eleven. That's right. Okay. So what I'm what I'm wondering is if and this gets to what Councilwoman Torres was talking about, if if there's a new retailer who wants to come in and they are after July 1st of next year, say, sometime in 2021, and at a store is going to open up and they want to sell cigarets to over 21 and they are not within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another retailer. They would be given a license, correct? That's right. If a daycare if they met all the other requirements. If they met all the proximity restrictions. Yes. And applied after July 1st. Yes, it would be okay. So if a daycare center then opened afterward. After that new store sometime in 2021. We're bringing in the lawyers. I'm really in trouble now. I'm bored. So if a if a daycare center moved in within 1000 feet of this new store in 2022, they're not, according to the bills written, they would not be eligible for grandfathering. Would we deny them their renewal the next year? So on sabbatical from the Denver City Attorney's Office, I work in prosecution and code enforcement and I advise the Department of Excise and licenses the way the bill is currently written. The standards of denial, the approximate locations our restrictions are located in. The standards of denial. Yes, those standards. Of denial apply to applications for new licensing. So in your. Scenario, if they applied for new licensing and they complied with proximity restrictions. At the time of application for that new licensing, and then they received a license. Then they would have the license that would not affect their renewal if a new daycare center opened up so they could keep renewing every year. Can I suggest then that this is not worded to actually accomplish that? Paragraph three says this subsection B, which is the the reasons for denial based on proximity, shall not apply to any application for a retail store license submitted on or before July 1st, 2020. Are you saying a renewal application doesn't fit under that? That's right. So that that the word application in that section is referring to a new license application. Okay. It doesn't say that, but it was. So a renewal is not considered a retail tobacco store license. A renewal would be considered a retail tobacco store license. But by the standards of renewal have are the standards of denial of renewal have different standards. Okay. I hope that you can appreciate that. I think I believe that that's unclear here, that it would not that strictly speaking verbatim it would not apply to. Sure. And so the language was copied from other ordinances that we have, for example, for marijuana. It works the same way in in marijuana as it says that any application should not be granted in these particular locations and that the. Grandfathering language is different for marijuana. But we've been interpreting it to say that application. That sentence refers to an application for a new license. And trust. And I think the only other thing I would observe in in reference to Councilwoman Sandoval's district, where you had a high concentration and a high concentration of violations, I think the way I read this, it's not the proximity restrictions that will winnow down the number of retailers. It's getting people on violations and then pulling their license, removing their ability to. To sell. If you're talking about narrowing the number of retailers overall, it's the compliance program that may do that. But this includes a very aggressive compliance program. Retailers. Right. Right. So the way to reduce the concentration, the proximity restrictions don't reduce the current concentration. Let's say what what does that in the in the instance of northwest Denver is aggressive enforcement and pulling the licenses. Okay. At what? How many violations would it take for a retailer to lose their license? Completely. Yes. So in a in a renewal application, that is one of the standards of denial, where if they have any violations, we can consider that. Oh, but also at two violations they would get a 30 day suspension notice at three they would get a 60 day. Okay. For and subsequent would be up to a year. Do we do that now with 18 and under sales? We do. And how many retailers have lost their license? I believe we are at 48 retailers across the city that have been restricted sales for up to 30 days that have been issued. Some of those might be an appeal. Thank you. So so I guess, Mr. Perez, what I'm saying is this amendment would not inhibit in any way the enforcement of that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, if you don't mind, if you new people have jumped in. I'll get back to you in a second. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure if this is for Ansel or for Tristin, but I wanted to ask what restrictions there would be on any of the grandfathered addresses. Is it just on expansion of operations, physical improvements to the building? Help me understand what those restrictions would be for someone who is grandfathered in that maybe was thinking about, you know, expanding the business. They've got the physical space to do it. They want to do upgrades to the building. What what are those restrictions? So entrepreneur from the Denver City Attorney's Office, again, just for the record, the. So currently there's no there would not be any new application required if you wanted to, for example, expand the floor plan of your business. Use that for marijuana, for example, we require a. Modification application that's not required for retail tobacco licenses. So the only restriction right now on so there would not be any restriction on grandfathered locations down in the restriction would apply to applications for new licensing. Okay. And then on the restricted sales for people who had been, you know, identified for for having multiple violations, is the restriction on the sales just on the tobacco product or is it a restriction on them being able to operate at all if they're selling other food products, etc.? No, it's just not tobacco products. They're required to remove all tobacco products from their store and not sell sales of tobacco to anybody is not allowed under that suspension. Okay. And then when the public meetings took place. Was the input from them to include daycare centers, or did that come as a recommendation from your department? So we came with the recommendations of what we were intending on, including in the bill, and we asked for their feedback and we listed each proximity restriction specifically and asked, I will say the majority of comments that we got were about the distance from other retailers because as Councilman Flynn's noted, there's 84% that currently would not phone compliance. Without it, though, they would be grandfathered. We didn't hear much, actually, if anything, about the daycare restriction, though. Do you think they understood the implications, especially if you didn't have a map to be able to show, you know, where we have daycare centers across the city. So we we displayed the language that we intended on, including we did not have a map at that time. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll comment on now on the bill as a whole. And so I won't have that chime back in when we go go through whether or not the amendment passes or not. It's interesting because as I look at this, are we have a bill before us not counting the amendments. It's going to say we're going to stop selling below a particular age and we're going to create distance requirements for future retail tobacco licenses. And so we have a current standard that says only X number of retail tobacco license will be able to move forward based off of our distancing requirements. But we have an amendment that essentially wants to lower the distancing requirements. So we're going to say as a city, we're going to allow more. So we're saying we don't believe you should sell to above 21, under 21. Excuse me, but we're going to make an amendment that is going to allow us to put more store stores out in the city. And to me, that seems counter to the spirit of what we're actually trying to do. When I have spoken with constituents, I've not had one constituent say to me, I need more places to go buy retail tobacco. And so for me, supporting this amendment doesn't seem prudent because I don't believe that the statement that we're trying to make as a city, because you can still open a retail location, you just may not be able to sell tobacco. And I'm actually okay with that because there are certain parts of my city maybe you should sell fruit instead of tobacco. And my colleague, Councilman Hines, was asking about the notification process. I can assure you no one is going to let the tobacco license lapse. Why? Because they make a ton of money off of that product. They're not going to forget that. So I can't support the amendment moving forward. Councilman Flynn, I would hope my colleagues would not. I think it does send a mixed message. But I appreciate the colleagues. I appreciate the conversations and hear from one of my colleagues. Do thank, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Nine tobacco. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Mr. Hernan or excuse me, Councilman Hernan. There was no map. Retailers. I maybe this is for you. I would imagine that the retailers are aware of where the other retailers are. Would you say that to be the case? I mean, it's not me speaking. I mean, so they they know they know that they're in a location where they'll sell cigarets. Otherwise, if they were in a location where they wouldn't sell cigarets, they wouldn't be there for very long. I would imagine. Then I guess I'm hesitating because the nature of my question. I realize this call is calling for speculation that probably the department is not in the business of making. So is there a retailer here that that was in the stakeholder process that might be willing to speak tonight? Figured I'd ask. Thank you. Okay. So I guess the comment that I would make is. It doesn't take an MBA to know that you should know where you are in relation to your customers and where you are in relation to your competition. And while I respect that a map kind of drives that home, I'm not sure that a map makes the difference between. Whether, you know, whether a retailer does. I mean, I think at some point, if you if you aren't aware of where your customers and where your competition are, then natural selection will weed you out soon enough anyway. So I respect my colleagues in their reasoned decision. And I, I also I want to be very I want to be very clear that I want to make sure that we have transparency in government. And if there was no in fact, the reason why I was going to oppose the amendment is because there was this stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process had these you know, the language there from the beginning is that we didn't change the language at all in the stakeholder process. I mean, it was it was draft language that was taken to a PowerPoint. So yeah. Okay. So the revised to be 500 feet, that was the only change on that. Right. So stakeholder process was there. We had the information from the very beginning, the language. So I think what's what's giving some of my colleagues pause is the transparency around that stakeholder process. And. And yeah, there was the language. But maybe they could be posited or theorize that some of the people didn't really fully understand what the language was. And I guess my point is, I think that even without a map, I think that cigaret retailers would likely know where their, their customers are and where their competition are even without a visual display. So I'm sorry, I'm kind of working through this real time, but we're also getting information real time. So. So thank you. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Sometimes I don't see anybody else in the queue. I do have a few questions. This one, I think is for you or no trust. And if you could tell me on this task force, could you remind me, were there any seats set aside for council members to participate in their task force? No. This was city staff that worked on them. The bill we took the feedback from the first time we went to committee back in March or April, and we worked on the licensing component between then and when it went to committee most recently. Just a, you know, for future reference, appreciate if you give us a couple of seats on there. I do think that it helps if you look at things like green roofs that have task force and council members can speak to what happened to those those stakeholder meetings and some of the agreements that were reached and how they got there. Sometimes we speak our own weird language. Better to communicate that back. So just a recommendation for anyone considering task forces, I think I always think you get a better result when you include council member spots on there. Councilman Flynn, one of the things that you had mentioned was, hey, this wasn't really the intent. The intent is don't sell to anyone under 21. Setbacks weren't really robustly discussed. We didn't have all the chance in the data. But you're not proposing that we remove all of the setbacks? Only some of them. Can you walk me through some of your thinking on why? Why some of them? And why not just say no setbacks? Let's reset that and have that conversation and come back with that. Why keep some and get rid of others? Sure. Mr. President, I. I accept and agree with the observation that it is a good thing to keep new retail locations away from places where youth are known to congregate. And that is schools, rec centers and pools. I don't put daycare centers and the entire spatial relationship between the retailers themselves among among that category. Again, in that in that realm, the stricter enforcement and pulling of the license itself is what will reduce the concentration of retailers who are violating and are selling currently now to under 18 and after this passes to under 21. So I think it does make sense and it was persuasive in committee to have the thousand foot distance from schools, pools, rec rec centers, but daycare just didn't ring. Again, I mean, you don't have 18 year olds going to daycare these days. It's kids don't congregate. Kids who want to purchase cigarets don't congregate in the daycare. And plus, you have the problems with with the daycares being in-home and being having new daycares causing distancing problems with currently existing retailers. So it makes sense to me to keep the thousand foot restriction from schools, rec centers and pools, but not so . I don't see that reasoning applying to daycare or to or to. Among the retailers themselves. I am looking at when if I can expand on that. Mr. President, please. I'm looking at the presentation interest and made in March at committee and I don't see any mention of proposing distancing requirement in it. In March, we were only talking about raising legal fees to correct. And I think that's the intent and that's the purpose that everybody that I believe that'll pass 13 to nothing. Well, 12 to nothing tonight with one missing. I don't see anyone up here. I haven't heard of anyone opposing that and that that will be accomplished with or without this amendment. But because it wasn't brought to us in March, it wasn't even a topic of discussion. I first learned of it in the Safe House Committee when when Kristen brought it. I think that's a broader policy discussion that needs to be had separately and not muddle up the issue of selling to under 21 with these extra distancing requirements . Thank you, Councilman. And then, you know, I had this in my questions before. Councilman Herndon made a statement that I generally tend to agree with. I don't know if somebody from excise could maybe answer how many establishments with a marijuana license because we have a lot of grandfathered in there based on setbacks, have lost their license from forgetting to apply their rent a few people. You know the burden to remember. What if I forget? What if I haven't gotten them enough notifications? Councilman Herndon made the point that, hey, this is a big part of how I make money, so I know that's probably not likely. You know, I know in my district where we have a huge number of grandfathered marijuana businesses, I don't know of any who have forgotten to apply and lost their grandfathered status. So anti-tobacco from the Denver city attorney's office. I'm not aware of that happening. Marijuana licenses can be very expensive. And so they do keep track of those renewal dates. So I'm not aware of anyone who has inadvertently let the license lapse and then lost grandfathered in based on that. Okay. Thank you. And then I'll just as in the question, just another thing that, again, I do think I wish we would have really dove into this part of this, and I wish that we would have this as a broader conversation across marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, because I feel like sometimes we are talking about what seems like the same thing, but they are all stigmatized, are not stigmatized, looked at in different ways. And we're making different decisions not based on facts. I agree with, you know, Councilman Flynn's statement that there aren't a lot of toddlers coming in from daycares to purchase. I also don't think that and I could be wrong, we haven't had this data. There are a lot of kids at elementary schools who are trying to purchase and elementary schools. There are way more of them than middle and high schools and there are way more charter schools that can also move in and change how things are . Should we be talking about that? Should we be talking about all of these things and how they interact? And I worry a little bit of something similar happening to what happened with marijuana in my district along Broadway in particular, whereby grandfathering everyone and making new rules for everybody else. You now have an area that has a higher concentration of dispensaries than anywhere else in the city ever will. And if we're already are looking at a map that says these establishments are already added density, that research is showing is causing problems. Right. And not where we want them to be and where youth are. And now we're adding this in. It's it's it's protecting areas from ever becoming like that. But those aren't the areas. It's the same disproportionate effect. And I think what we haven't talked a lot about, I think looking at that mapping, it would be similar to marijuana mapping where we're going to see now we've institutionalized and added value to a license that's grandfathered has a higher value. If I can't get a new one anywhere in there, then where I can, that will continue to now institutionalized forever a higher density of these establishments in lower income communities, in communities of color than in other parts of town that will never now are protected from ever getting to that level of density. So I wish we were having a broader conversation about all of that. And what are the effects of a of these things and why are we treating setbacks for these things differently? And so I do think regardless of what happens today, the good news is we can change a lot of that across all of these things. And I do think that we should dove deeper into that and really have conversations that are data driven about who are we trying to protect, what are we trying to protect, and is this an effective way of doing that and what are the unintended consequences? So I just want to make one last observation and then we will vote on the amendment. I think it's very interesting that there's not a single retailer in here today. So as we're debating all this things and how it will impact retailers and losing their license and all this or not one of them here to speak up, which is unusual, I would say, when we talk about these things elsewhere, is when it's somebody who does feel like this is a real threat to their business. So just an observation. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call, we're going to vote on the amendment first. So this is on the amendment that Councilman Flynn has put forward. My secretary, Scott Flynn. I see tobacco. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon No. Hines No. Cashman. Kimmage Right. Ortega. No. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I know. Secretary, please cause voting in the results. Nine eyes, three knees. Minus three nays. Counsel Bill 921 has been amended. And now, Madam Secretary, unless there's somebody I know, a lot of people said they were going to make their comments on the bill as a whole when they made their comments on the amendment. But if there's anybody who was waiting to just make their comments on the bill speak now or we're going to do a roll call on the bill as amended. I don't see anybody. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 921 as amended. CdeBaca, I. Flynn. Hi Gilmore I Herndon. High. Tide. I. Cashman Kenny Ortega I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer I Torres, i. Mr. President, all right. I'm secretary. Please. Because voting in those results. 1212. Hours counts will 921 has passed. Next up, it. Could you please put. Well, did I miss something? No, no. Just don't forget to go back. Yeah. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the item on our screens. That comes from Norman Sawyer. Called out, which was 965. Four questions. And, Councilwoman, go ahead with your questions.