04-627Council File # a� - b 27
RESOLUTION
Presented
Refened To
Green Sheet # I ri
Committee Date
Itesolution to Ensure Effective Implementation of Saint Paul's Ban on
Smoking in Bars and Restaurants
1 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is committed to creating heakhy, smoke-free environments; and
2 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is part of the broader Twin Cities metropolitan region; now, therefore be it
3 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council requests that the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services
4 Advisory Committee provide a report on smoking ban ordinances in Minnesota and those under consideration in
5 MinneapolisBloomingtonfHennepin County and other jurisdictions by no later than August 4, 2004; and be it
b RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council reyuests the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Aealth Services
7 Advisory Committee inquire with other public health organizations in the Twln Cities metropolitan area to determine if a
8 regionalized approach to creating smoke-fee bazs and restaurants is feasible and report to the Council on the initial
9 findings by no ]ater than August 4, 2008; and be it
10 FLTIZTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that the administration develop a detailed strategy for consistent
11 enforcement of the smoking ban, including a strategy for financing the enforcement of the ban, and report to the City
12 Council no later than August 4, 2004; and therefore be it
13 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that the administration develop informational materials to
14 distribute to the hospitality industry to assist them in complying with the smoking ban; and report tp the City Council no
I S later than August 4, 2004, on the development of these materials.
Requested by Departrnem of:
Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary
� �//_
By: r'"/" /�//ye � l,Y���t/
r1�r�ayor: Aate GJ
(/�� By:
MINNESOTA
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
Adopted by Council: Date ��y�* `� ° 3,°�0 U°`�
�-
Dy—!o 2'T
DEPARiMENTfOFFICElCa1NCAL ows¢u�mn�o
cl�covrrcu, 7une22,2o04 GREEN SHEET No 205197
COMACT PERSINJ & PIiONE MMIaUDab InXialmata
Councilmember Lee Helgen 6-8650
�.�.��,.�� ��
MUST BE ON COUNG� qGENDA BV (�ATt�
6/23/2004 Suspension "�N
NUMBERFOR ������ �
ROUTING
�� fluNCNLSERVeFSpR FIWIIJnLaEAVIaCCTO
❑ WWM�ORAY.flSSAN!) ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
CTION REQUESTED
Approval ofResolution to Ensure Effective Implementation of Saint Paul's Ban on Smoking in Baxs and Restaurants
RECOMMENDATIONAPPfOVE A OfR2J2CS(R� PERSONALSERVICECONiRALTSMU5TAN5WER7HEFOLLAWINGQUESTIONS:
1. Has this perso�rm everwwked under a contract tor Mis depaRmeM1
PIANNING COMMISSION YES NO
CIB COMMITfEE , � 2. Has ihie pereoMfiim ever been a cily empbyeeT
CIVILSERVICE COMMISSION YES - NO
3 Does this persoNfirm possese a sltill not rwrmallypossessed by any curtent city employee?
YES NO
4. Is Mis pe�soNfirm a farpeted vendoY!
YES NO
Fiq�iain all yes a�viers on sepaiate shcet antl attach to preen shcet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITY (Who, What, When. Where, Why) '
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED .
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
70TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE � ACTNITYNUMBER
FINANCW.INFORMATION (IXPWN)
t�f-�a �
F7
(�'I'I'Y �F S'A�'I' pA�., 39Q City Hal1 Teleyhorze: 651-266-8510
Randy C. Kel[y, Mayor IS West KelLogg Bouleva�d Facsimite: 651-26b-8513
Sairzt Pau1, MN 55102
July 6, 2004
Council President Dan Bostrom
and members of the City Council
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Council President Bostrom and Councilmembers:
In the name of public health, a 4-3 ma}ority of the City Council has sent me a proposed ordinance
that would force Saint Paul residents and hospitality visitors into sealed rooms, 300 square feet or
smaller, filled with concentrated volumes of catcinogens from cigarette smoke. Surely we can
protect the public health in better ways than this, and with good leadership, reason, and common
sense, I believe that we will.
Accordin$ly, and pursuant to sections 6.07, 6.08 and 6.09 and the City Charter, I am vetoing
Councii Files 04-520 and 04-627 I want to stress that this veto is based on the flaws in the 4-3
Council proposal and is not meant to stop debate and action on smoking restrictions. IJltimately, a
unafonn, statewide solution wili best protect the public heatth, but we are not waiting for that as
the only possible solution.
I have already begun working with officials from our neighboring communities to fashion a
regional approach. Last week I discussed the smoking issue with several members of the Ramsey
County Board who want to significantly fighten laws against smoking in restaurants and bars. I
also met last week with officials from Minneapolis, Hennepin County and Dakota County to
discuss the issue. Our meeting brought agreement to shaze informarion about various approaches
with local officials in the seven-county area; this will hopefuily stimulate informed discussion that
could lead to more jurisdictions addressing the issue. Our meering also brought agreement that a
regional approach to regulating smoking in bazs and restaurants makes sense $om an economic
standpoint. With a regional approach we can set aside the false choice of health versus economics
that is presented when one local jurisdiction tries to regulate commerce on its own. The people of
our region deserve no less.
Minneapolis and Hennepin County are already coordinating their efforts and may have solutions in
hand in the near future. Saint Paul should try to sync up our efforts with those of Ramsey County
as we11 as Minneapolis and the surrounding suburhs.
Some history helps explain why it may take more than a few weeks to amve at the best solufion to
this problem. During the 29 yeazs since the state Clean Indoor Air Act was passed, our City has
�
o�-�a�
been led by five different mayors and 45 different members of the City Council and we laave co-
existed, smokers and non-smokers, under the state system of designated smoking and non-smoking
areas. After these 29 years, on May 12, 2004, with no advance community discussion and no
discussion with the Mayor, some members of our City Councii decided that the public health
required nothing less than a total ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in the city of Saint Paul
by this si.uumer. After a short period of public input, the proposal was amended to permit the
closed-in "smoking rooms," and the effective date was delayed to September 1, 2004 and then to
January 2, 2005.
I recognize that in recent years we have come to learn a lot more about the dangers of second-hand
smoke; in my mind those dangers are not open to serious dispute. This accumulated body of
scientific knowledge certainly justifies us revisiting our smoking policies on a local, regionai and
statewide basis and coming up with new and thoughtful approaches. In the last few years and in
the face of the mounting evidence regarding the harm from second-hand smoke, a handful of
Minnesota local governments have experimented with more restrictive smoking ordinances for
bazs and restaurants.
However, the 4-3 proposal from our City Council is both more restrictive and more dangerous than
smoking restrictions enacted by other local governments in Minnesota. For example, in Olmsted
County, the home of the Mayo Clinic and one of the most health-conscions areas of the country,
establishments with at least half of their revenue from alcohol can continue to a11ow smoking if
they meet certain ventilat9on and separation requirements. Duluth has enacted several versions in
recent years, and recently loosened its restrictions on smoking in bazs. Other communities have
rejected attempts to nnpose greater regulation.
As mentioned, the "smoking room" approach proposed by the 4-3 vote of our City Council only
worsens the health of people in our society who are addicYed to nicotine and want to smoke in
places where alcohol is served. The proposed ordinance would force such addicted people to
huddle inside a tiny enclosed room filled with other smokers. The door is only allowed to be
opened for ingress and egress and patrons are specifically baned from even holding the door open
for another person. This proposal harkens back to "smoking rooms" in high sahools when we were
younger — something no one would today consider to be a good pubiic health outcome.
Beyond these very significant pubiic health concerns, there are other reasons why I do not support
the "smoking room" concept:
• This is not a true compromise. None of the people concerned about the effect of the
proposed ban were consulted and none of them support the "smoking room"
alternative.
• There was no public input on the proposal. The concept was added to the proposed
ordinance only after the public hearing closed and without any understanding by the
Councii of the actual cost and impact on business owners or the public.
The true costs were grossly underestimated. The ordinance's author estimated the cost
of a smoking room to be about $5000. Once the proposal was made public, bids were
solicited and it was determined that the true cost was at least $30-50,000 for
construction and even more for ventilation.
o�-� a7
Smoking rooms are not possible in some bars. Some small businesses simply do not
have the space to put in a smoking room. For other businesses, their leases may not
permit such a configuration. Such instances could create an additional economic
disparity behveen bazs that can put in smoking rooms and those that cannot.
• Bar and restaurant owners are not likely to make the capital expendihues necessary for
a smoking room until they know whether regional or statewide regulation will be
passed and what the terms of such regulation will be.
Given the seriousness of the issue and the various approaches taken by other Minnesota
jurisdictions that have considered local reshictions on smoking, I regret that the narrow Council
majority sent me this hastily-produced, flawed ordinance as a"tak�it-or-leave-it" proposition.
Unfortunately, though my staff and I have talked several times with the ordinance's author, the
author has never agreed to consider any compromises that might be acceptabie to me and others in
the community who also have serious ideas about how best to protect the public health.
Repeatedly, the authar has simply expressed his wish that I agree with his position. However, the
public expects that its elected officials should engage in honest give-and-take where matters of this
importance and this level of controversy are concerned. The rigid "my way or the highwa}�'
approach is one of the problems we haue at our national level and we see it now at our state level.
We should not emulate this practice at the municipal level.
Though the "smoking room" concept is both dangerous and unworkable, I have confidence that if
people of good will come together we can come up with much better ideas. As noted, a regional
approach will both increase the public heaith benefits and decrease the economic dislocation that
occurs when a single jurisdiction unilaterally zegulates commerce on its own. I invite members of
the City Councii, the public heaith community, the hospitality indushy and any other interested
members of the public to share their ideas so we can get to the best solution.
In closing, I want to assure the public that I have not carried any water -- and will not cazry any
water -- for the tobacco companies. Their sins are well-documented and indefensibie. To my
knowledge I have not spoken to any tobacco company representatives or their lobbyists since this
ordinance was introduced. They do not set or even influence policy for the City of Saint Paul. My
sole obligation is to the people who live and work and visit in our City. For our tesidents, visitors,
business owners and employees in Saint Paul, I will continue to work over the next few weeks to
fmd the best solntion to this problem.
Sincerely, �
���� c� � �
Randy C. Keily
Mayor
cc: Members of the City Council