City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, February 24, 2009 - - 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Glassheim, Bjerke, Christensen, Kreun, McNamara Absent: Bakken, Gershman (absent due to City Business). Vice President Glassheim called the meeting to order. 1. Smoking Ban Ordinance Swanson stated that this matter was referred to this work session from the last Committee of the Whole meeting. The item was brought to the Council at their request and a draft ordinance which removes nearly all the exemptions has been distributed for discussion purposes. He continued that the Council has three options – they can do nothing, City Council can pass a revised ordinance, or City Council can refer the matter to an advisory vote of the public. He explained that the original ordinance was passed in 2005 and for the draft revised ordinance he took the existing ordinance and modified it. He noted that our 2005 ordinance is currently more restrictive than the State law, in particular in the definition of a bar. Council has previously received information on the processes that could be used to change the ordinance. Kreun inquired what effect any changes would have on the racetrack. Swanson replied that the bleachers are already nonsmoking so should have no effect on them. Likewise, this will not effect the ability for a business to have a smoking area that is semi-enclosed away from their building. He noted that they would still not be able to have any food or beverage served or consumed in the smoking area and it would need to conform to City law in regards to location from the building entrances. Swanson provided examples of some businesses that have put allowable smoking areas in place. Christensen asked about the Hookah Bar and how they would be affected by a change in the ordinance. Swanson stated that they are licensed as a retail tobacco dealer, which is listed as an exemption in the current ordinance, but has been removed as an exemption in his draft. Swanson stated that the primary changes are on page 181 of the draft provided and would remove exemptions for retail tobacco indoor facilities, bars, party rooms, truck stops, and smoking in hospital and care facilities. The group discussed that there are some parts of State Code that may not allow a restriction on hospital and care facilities, however is probably a moot point as the facilities in our community have set a policy of no smoking in their buildings. Swanson stated that again the Council will need to decide if they want to do nothing about changing the ordinance, vote on and ordinance change, or refer to a public advisory vote. He noted that when Fargo’s ban went into place there were two competing initiated measures and they solicited an Attorney General’s opinion on how to implement their ordinance. Glassheim opened the floor for public comments: Dr. Eric Johnson stated his qualifications and reviewed potential benefits to the community if the smoking ban was expanded. He cited examples from studies supporting his beliefs and that business owners may see an increase in business once smoking is banned. Ray Dohman, citizen, stated that he is not in favor of expanding the ban, that he supports the business owners rights and that it is hard for many businesses to continue and feels there are already too many laws governing business. He cited several examples of why he opposes an expanded smoking ban. Jim Porter, 3596 Prairie Dr., expressed support for a comprehensive smoking ban, believes it is a health issue, and that the interests of the business owner needs to be balanced with the interest of the customer and employees. He cited survey results that show support for the expanded ban. Mike McMenamy, business owner and President of Hospitality Group, opposed the ordinance change. He stated that if Council feels a change should be made then believes it should come from a city-wide vote. Christensen responded that we do have businesses affected now and in other communities across the nation and patrons do go outside to smoke and will still allow those outdoor areas and noted some larger cities that have comprehensive bans. Haley Thorson, GF Public Health and Chair of the Tobacco Free Coalition, spoke to the group on behalf of the Coalition in support of the health benefits from an expanded ban. She listed other groups that were included in a packet distributed to Council Members earlier with letters of support for an expanded ban and cited statistics which show positive economic impacts and health benefits result when a full ban is in place. Kreun inquired about the study that was conducted and whether the 900+ responses are normal for a community our size. Thorson replied that according to the consultant that conducted the study a typical sample for a community our size would be about half the amount that we used. McNamara commented that he received a call from someone that stated they worked on the study and feel that it could be skewed as several individuals that they contacted who expressed that they were smokers hung up when they heard what the study was about and that had they taken the study could have different results. Brad Beauchamp, citizen and business owner, opposed expanding the ordinance. He stated that he believes it will have a direct effect on his business and that there will be businesses that close as a result of loss of business if this ordinance change is approved. He cited other examples for other unhealthy behaviors that are as detrimental as second hand smoke but are not the subject of concern. He added that there are a number of establishments where individuals can go and eat and drink that are nonsmoking and that his patrons know he is a smoking establishment and are aware of that when they choose to come there or to work there. Christensen responded that he sees many smoke free establishments that are full and is mindful of the choice argument, but when see nonsmoking establishments being successful and look at the trend in other large cities around the nation that have gone smoke free seems to be the way things are going. McNamara commented that he doesn’t see a public outcry to look at making any changes with this ordinance and had only had 2 calls on the matter, Bjerke has had only 2 calls, and think that have seen in the past when the public is concerned about an issue they call and give their opinions and should have more than a 900 response survey to spur putting an item on the ballot and is a bad precedent to set. Glassheim commented that the bars were exempted when the current ordinance was enacted to put them on a level playing field with East Grand Forks, which still had smoking, but now the State of Minnesota has banned it there and that argument is gone so think that we should remove the exemption and believe that citizens might not be calling as they expect the Council to look at the matter and do the right thing. Bjerke stated that the “right thing” is an opinion that differs between people and if it only takes a survey to get something on the ballot then there are other issues that should also be coming forward and should be handled that way too. Beauchamp commented that the economy is very tough right now and there are several in East Grand Forks that are either near closure or have closed since the smoking ban went into effect and if put one in place in Grand Forks there will be some bars that lose enough business to close. Paul Kobe, 634 Schroeder Dr., stated that he is a nonsmoker, but is against the City Council voting on an expanded ban. He commented that there is no requirement that people have to go there or work there and those that do choose to go to smoking bars make their own choice to do that and he does not believe that the survey accurately reflects the opinion of the community. Ben Welsh, 1116 19^th Ave S, UND graduate student, commented that everyone is aware that secondhand smoke is hazardous and that he has worked in bars in Crookston before and after the smoking ban and there was an increase in business after the ban and for the one he worked in has now expanded and added increased food sales also. Josh Gilleland, business owner, commented on the local economic situation in the bar industry and that margins are down drastically and that makes the proposed change a serious concern for business owners. He continued that if any change were approved would request that a transition period be put in place prior to the change becoming effective to allow businesses to educate their patrons and also to allow the bar owners to make adjustments in their business that will help them withstand the initial drop in business when any new ordinance would go into effect. Some smokers will shift to home parties, etc. initially and also businesses need to be able to make arrangements for outdoor smoking areas to accommodate those patrons that smoke and still come in. He continued that his establishments each hold 400 patrons and if have 80 smokers at each could have 160 outside smoking and need to come up with how to handle that so don’t have other problems from so many uncontrolled outside. Christensen asked whether he was looking for something like Bonzer’s does now with smoking only after certain time and then phase out totally at effective date. Gilleland replied that rather looking at California and they let certain facilities set their own rules on how to transition, because may be different for different places. He added that they do not want to offend the smoker group so would ask that perhaps an effective date would not be set during the winter months, but rather that give time over summer months to help them get patrons used to going outside and then maybe have date late fall to be smokefree. Christensen asked what the options are for outdoor smoking facilities in the downtown. Gilleland stated that he has addition over back of one of his establishments and could possibly do over that, but will be expensive and for his other establishment could acquire some area now used for parking and construct shelter there. Bjerke stated that will also need to meet rules for Downtown Review Board way current regulations are. Christensen stated that could amend those so that these shelters could be constructed. Swanson reviewed the difference between liquor license classes. Major difference between Class 1 and Class 4 is that in Class 1 can have gaming, live bands and dancing, no patrons under 21 on premises and currently allows smoking. The group discussed affect that change could make on what license the business holds. Christensen stated that Council could also review the license structure. Jane Croeker, UND Student Health Promotion Advisor on behalf of President Robert Kelly, read a statement and distributed a copy of a letter of support for an expanded smoking ban from Pres. Kelly. Julie Ludwig, Valley Community Health Centers, distributed a copy of a statement of support for an expanded ban. She stated that as they work with individuals in the smaller communities around Grand Forks, see some that are not able to find work in their own community, have no higher education and come to Grand Forks and can only find work in the bar industry and is detrimental to their health to work with secondhand smoke and encouraged Council to approve an expanded ban to improve the work environment of those individuals. The group discussed the three options available to Council – do nothing, pass an ordinance to amend the current ban, or put on a ballot for advisory citizen vote. Majority felt that Council should react, but were divided on whether to put it on a ballot or pass ordinance. Swanson advised that a draft ordinance should be available, as it would be needed for a Council vote and if putting on the ballot should be finalized to determine ballot language. Motion by Christensen, Second by Kreun that City Council vote on an ordinance change to expand the smoking ban. Aye: 3, Nay: 2. Motion Carried. The group reviewed the draft provided by Swanson. Consensus was to leave the exemption for tobacco stores in existence at a date certain, but to not allow any new stores to be licensed and to also leave the exemption for areas not accessible to the public in owner-operated businesses where there is no employee other than the owner operator. The group discussed outdoor areas and would like to see a couple of options on how to handle these areas in the new draft from Swanson. Exemptions for bars, party rooms, and truck stops are eliminated. Smoking as part of a cultural or spiritual ceremony will remain, as will exemption 5 and 6 related to health facilities in the current ordinance. The group discussed having an effective date of November 1, 2010 to allow business owners the transition period they feel would help their clientele get used to the expanded ban. Bjerke reminded the group that there will also need to be something passed to exempt the shelters from the Downtown Design Review Board requirements as well. He asked about the penalties for violation of the ordinance and whether it is against the individual smoking or the business. Swanson stated that penalties are already addressed in code and reviewed the amounts, that State Code allows for penalty to be assessed against the owner, supervisor or individual if willful violation of the law and that enforcement would be done by Police Department or Fire Marshall. The group discussed that Council could vote on an ordinance change to put an expanded ban in place, but there were some that felt that there should be a vote of the public prior to moving forward. Swanson will prepare a new draft of the ordinance as discussed, which would be brought to a COW meeting, with the next meeting being March 8 for discussion. The Council could then decide at the March 15 Council meeting whether they would like to vote on the expanded ordinance or vote to place the matter on a ballot for an advisory vote of the public. Some still felt that if there was going to be a change it should come from an initiated measure and not from Council. Motion by Kreun, Second by Christensen to bring revised draft to Committee of the Whole meeting on March 8, 2010 for discussion. Aye: 3, Nay: 2. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sherie Lundmark Admin Spec Sr