The URL can be used to link to this page

04-760Council File # Q � — 7 � � Ordinance # ��n sh�t# a�s � . 3 7 ORDINANCE OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Refened To Committee Date : Z7 An Ordinance prohibiting smoking in bazs and restaurants; creating responsibilities for proprietors; prohibiting retaliation; and providing penalties for violation. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIlV: Section 1. That the Saint Paul Legislafive Code be amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 238 to read as follows: CHAPTER 238. PUBLIC SMOKING IN LICENSED LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESTAURANTS Sec. 238.01 Purposes and �ndings of Fact The City Council finds that: Tobacco smoke is a leading cause of disease in nonsmokers and a majar source of indoor air pollution. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, respiratory infections, decreased respiratory function and other health problems. Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 Americans each yeaz from coronary heart disease. Secondhand smoke also causes an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths in America each year. These effects are well documented, and numerous medical and scientific authorities, including the American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the National Insfitute on Occupational Safety and Health, the National CancerInstitute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Toxicology Program and the World Health Organization have recognized the deadly effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. The proposed Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global treaty negotiated by more than190 countries, declazes that "scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Science has been unable to find any level of dilution at which smoke does not cause cancer. Neither the separation of smokers and nonsmokers, nor the introduction of new venUlation systems, can eliminate the health hazards caused by secondhand smoke. C �� ` runli� smoking oia snat arart Tnune �-as-oa.,vpa Page 1 of 5 i� <�g' �� a�1- ��v Employees in smoky workplaces aze at special risk. One study has esrimated that working in a smoky bar for eight hours is equivalent to smoking 16 cigazettes. Also at special risk are children, elderly people, and those with cazdiovascular disease or impaired respiratory function, including people with asthma and those with obstructive airway disease. Objective evidence does not bear out the fear that elimination of public smoldng will hazm a community's economy or result in a net loss of jobs in restaurants and bars. On the contrary, many independent economic studies have shown that the elimination of smoking has no material economic impact on a community. These studies aze drawn from the experience of hundreds of communiries that have successfully eliminated smoldng in workplaces and public places. The states of Califomia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York have adopted laws ending all smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public places, as have the nations of Ireland, New Zealand and Norway. By reducing the exposure of young people to adult smoking and unhealthy role modeling, elimination of smoking in public places furthers Minnesota's goal of reducing youth smoking. There is no legal or constitutional "right to smoke." Business owners have no legal or constitutional right to expose their employees and customers to toxic chemicals, whether in tobacco smoke or otherwise. On the contrary, employers have a common law duty to provide their workers with a workplace that is not unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, the City Council finds and declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: (1) Protect the public health, welfare and safety by better ensuring the ability of citize�s to breathe safe and unconfaminated air; (2) Affirm that the right to breathe has priority over the desire to smoke; and (3) Protectvulnerablepopulations,includingemployees,children,theelderlyand those with chronic health conditions. Sec.238.02 Definitions. As used in this ordinance: (a) "bowling centers and pool halls" means those establishments licensed under Chapter 322 of the Saint Paul L.egislative Code, whether or not they are also a licensed liquor establishment. (b) "Licensed liquar establishmenP' means an establishment that has an on-sale intoxicating liquor license; an on-sale non-intoxicating liquor license ; a wine license and/or a strong beer license issued pursuant to Chapters 409 or 410 of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code, as �� Public Smoking ord final draft Thune 7-28-04.wpd Page 2 of 5 �� Q L� < Oy- 7�0 amended from time to time, but does not include the guest rooms of a hotel or motel. (c) "Other person in charge" means the agent of the proprietor authorized to perform administrative direcrion to and general supervision of the activities within a baz or restaurant at any given time. (d) "Proprietor' means the party who holds the license or licences for a bar or restaurant. The term "proprietor" may apply to a corporation as well as an individual. (e) "Restaurant" has the meaning specified in I.egislative Code Section 331A.04(d)(17)(18)(19)(20) or (21), as amended from time to time, but does not include outdoor areas and does not include the guest rooms of a hotel or motel. (� "Smoking" means the inhaling, exhaling or combustion of any cigar, cigarette, pipe, tobacco product, weed, plant or any other similar article. "Smoking" includes possessing or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment. "Smoking" does not include the use of tobacco by an enrolled member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe as part of a traditional Indian spiritual or cultural ceremony. Sec.238.03 Prohibitions. Smoking is prohibited in restaurants, pool halls and bowling centers and licensed liquor establishments_ - Sec. 238.04 Responsibilities of Proprietors. The proprietor or other person in charge of a bar or restaurant shall: (a) Post "no smoking" signs that comply with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0500, as amended from time to time; (b) Ensure that ashtrays, lighters, and matchbooks aze not provided in any area where smoking is prohibited; and (c) Ask any person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited to refrain from smoking and, if the person does not refrain from smoking after being asked to do so, ask the person to leave. Sec. 238.05 Additionai Private Prohibitions. Nothing in this ordinance prevents the proprietor or other person in charge of any place, including, without limitation, any outdoor space, from prohibiting smoking in any such plac� Public Smoking ord fival draft Thune 7-2&-04.wpd Page 3 of 5 �/,.� A � V U 1 Oy-�c�o Sec. 238.06 Retaliation Prohibited. No person or empioyer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against, any employee, applicant for employment, or customer because the employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke-free environment affarded by this ordinance or other law. Sec. 238.07 Employee's Rights Preserved. An employee who consents to work in a setring where an employer allows smoking does not waive or otherwise surrender any legal rights the employee may have against the employer or any other party. Sec. 238.08 Other Applicable Laws. This ordinance is intended to complement and go beyond the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minnesota Statutes §§ 144.411 to 144.417, as amended from time to time. Nothing in this ordinance authorizes smoking in any location where smoking is prohibited or restricted by other laws. Sec. 238.09. Violation and Penalties. (a) (b) Proprietors. It is a violation of this ordinance for the proprietor to fail to comply with the requirements of section 238.04, or to retaliate against an employee, applicant for employment or customer, as prohibited by section 238.06. _ Penalties. Failure to comply with the requirement of this ordinance shail be a basis for adverse action under Saint Paul L,egislative Code §310.06(b)(7). (c) A licensee who violates any provision of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $300. A licensee who violates any provision of this ordinance within one year after having been deternuned to have committed a previous violation shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000. Each day of violation constitutes a sepazate offense. Sec. 238.10. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance, or its application to any circumstances, is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall be considered severable, and shall be given effect to the masimum extent possible. Public Smoking ord fina] drafr Thune 7-28-04.wpd Page 4 of 5 1' / i� oy- �c�n � 2 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after passage, approval and publicarion, or March 31, 2005, which ever is later. Requested by Department of: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary V By ,,,/// by or: Da[e � �/ B � . J By: Foxm Appr. � by City Attor ey By. �� / / f Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date 7'� Ory oy-��v City Council GREEN SHEET InItlaUDYs No 205137 Dave Thune 651-266-8620 >T BE ON COUNG� AGEN BY (DATE� ��a�/oy TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ■ ��..,�� m„�_ � ❑ �,.,,�„ ❑ �,� ❑,.�.�,�,� ❑�,�,,.� ❑ �.,�R,�..��„ ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) An Ordinance prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants; creating responsibilities for proprietors; prohibiting retaliation; and providing penalties for violation iuq i ic�n qpprove �A� a Ke�ecc PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMIITEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PROBLEM ISSUE, OF TRANSACTION RSONALSERVICE CONiRACTS MUSTANSWEIt TXE FOLLOWING QUESTSONS: Has this persanrTrm ever worked uMer a coMract tor ihis departmeM7 VES NO Has this pe�soNfirm ever 6een a city empbyee? YES NO Dces this persoNfiim possess a sldll not normaltypossessed Dy any curtent ciry employee9 YES NO Is Nis persoNfirtn a targeted ventloYt YES NO COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER I °l �j�1�:Ji17 ,.; , , " , , ' � � � � � � � „ � r.. �, , � � , ,,', , , � ROUTING ORDELZ , � ,, , _ � ., � � � . „ � , . ! BeYow ate coirect for most& � i fhesuc ��oEdoc��.s. � � ;, . rvuhn8s e4uentty�s , , � � � a �', CONTRACTS (assimmes authorized budget e�sfs) ,' ; COibt�CIC;';, �RESOL (amenil budgets/accePY 8ra�ts)' 1 OuYsideAgencg I Depaz4wentDuec� ', � � I,' �r „ � � 2. Dep�tmen[D'uector ' 2. i0ffieeot�in�c�a�SeivlcesDic�ector 3. City;� '` ' ^ 3 CAjrAttomeg � I � , 4.",lvfayorAa� {f� contiacts over $25�000) . 4 ' Ass�stant � ' 5.'"Fb�anRights•(forc�tractsover$SQ00�)" ' S Ci �ouocil � � � G: Q�ceofFmmmcialServices'- 6. OtFice��E�naociak,S� Acco�mtm8 Aceo�nB , � � � � �i � � � „ � t�DM47ISTRA'EIVE ORDIIr.S (BudgeHRev�sion)' ,,. COUNCII: REESOLI7TIO1`I (all otfiecs �d 0id'mances)' 2. tYctiuityhfanggerorDepadm�tAccotmtant 1 I7epmlmenYDir�ctbr � ?- DeP�Director', , , 2 CrtgllTfoii�g � �� . � � �� . � � i 3.' O�ce ofFui�czal Servi'ces Director ," 3 Ivfayor�,Assist�ot � �'� � � � � 4_„� Ci �Cledc r' ��` � �4 ConncH � " 1 � ' tY � � �S", � � � „ 5. � OfficeofF�nanc�l' ces � Se�vi Se Aaconntm8 ' AD IvfIL�IfSTIZATfVE ORDEI2S all othas EXE OI2bER tL� � �, ) CUTLVF ,,a r; � � ��,,�, � �..��.� � � �' i. �� .�,�i , . � �: - sr[m�t-' "'t7aector � � �� I�. ;. �'Dhcector , � � � � � � � � „ , � i � � � �� i� i�o-�.:., � ',..'�� „ � � ��. 2 CAY Atkome9 ' 2. C�fy A{(omeg � , � � 3 Officeof�inmcial Servi ��, �� 3 l�tapor'� "As�sY�nt� �;, � �� ' ,� �, ,�� ; ,'�� 4. City Cla' r , , , , ,�4 °, � Cilg CTeik , „ . , , , � i �� '• , i � TOTALN[IMBELZ�OFSFGIt1ATUREPAGES �� Tndicxte the # of�ages on w}tipfi s�8p�'� re4��",� P��P ar ,flag�ea�h o�tfiese Pagea ' � �� „ �i �, ; � „ . „ AC'�ONREQUES�D �� ' � � �� i ;`� i � �' � , Desmbewl�atflteprolec� t/ . requ,estsceksfnaccompltsh;medfier ;chronolog'icalorderor,otderof '�'tance wluoheverts , mosC,ajipropnate'fortheissue:'Donotwritecompletesentences Begm,eacfiitemmyo��st�ix�axab, ' RECOMLNEI�FDATIdNS , I �' � I I I I � I' � � Complete �f46e issae m ques�on }�as beea P?�� e �F �Y P��c orprrvate � , , , , „ � �� , � � , � � � � � . PERSQ NAti'SERVICE CO TS , � . ,NTRAC . , � � � , T6is,infoxmationwill tfe nsed'Yp deteimxie the citg s, ; '� I � I�abilttyforworlcers compeosatroa cla±ms, taxes �d ProP� ,c�1 se�icehu�ngrules.' ; � '� o ; ' � i II3(�7A'PIISGPROBLEM,LSSUE OPPORT[7AIITY , � �� ., I . � � , Faplain the situation oi coRditi�s'thatcieated a nee�i for your pro,�ector ieq�est ' . „ � „ , � � �� ` � f AD�V �ANCAGESIEAPPROVID „ � Iacheate':wbetherfltis �s simply en emmal budget proeed�ae reqaQed,bp laivlchaiter or whethertheca are'spec�fie ��qaysan wh�cli ��CityoESainYPmil��rtsci'Uz�c'w?llbenefitfromthuFp{oa `ect�'ac,t��.� ` � � ,� � � � DISAD�A�7TAC��E5 TF?!P�ROVED � i �e�eefs��on� to� � asE � s � �G'hat' tic or' � ''ifrta a'ssed � � mise, � oeasses�ents �'orwfiom? VPhen�7For�ko�i�P��i ' p �i, ' ,',i ,�% (eg frafficdelays,, 48ic',�n�cas�s� a�8 >� , � �� i r r, i '� ' DI$ADVt1NTAGES 7F NOT A�'PRdVID , � � `i � �' � VVhatwillbethenegahveconseq�iences�theprom�sed'achonvsnotapproved? Inabi'1�gtodeLvetseivice2 Con� `�' i ? � �� Inghtra�c no�se;aoci�entrake. Loss.ofrevenue? , � �j� I '' ' i� � � g , ' FlNANCfAJ, IlNPACT ' , � ' ` l , ( ' � Althwgt!Ywmust,fa�Iorthei�o�ation}�ouprovidehe�etoiheissueyouare!add[essmg,.mSeneraLYoumustansw� � -r � i , � Lwoquestrons I�ow'�reliisitBomSto-� V�'ho�s;giiingta��ayT � �" , � i � � � � �� r� � � � � � �, �,�� i � 'i�'�,� � � , � . � � � � � � � � i , , � . i � � �, �, � � � � � � � � +'� � � � � „ � � „ � � � � �„ �i� 1 � �� , , , i� �I� l ui.'� i � ,,i� , , i . � � � � . ,� � � ,� ,� , ,.� ,:14� , � r 7" �a. � I . � 4i , a �',i �,e., � , � I,�, ,�i ,, I,r.' � � 4."i�i i i,�. �Ui �'I'.r�� h I��i�� i4ol p � , di�ii Ir�l �h � il' ��.. � III 1 i i„".i i : ;i � �� 1 �� ilily PJ �u � ili . f�l y lp�� ^U 7pilU�Wl'�l� ilili LII ,�II � l �I i�r �� r,!�Yln i,., eulJVlul �=.ir�e. r 1,.�h� i � v� „ i�lr��,liri , i rl'�!��IVh41ln l��:�.. brll �inllall�lll4�ei I.IIIkHft�LillliJ.i�Hu�p11rIVR�4rva I r.�I1�fJ'.'rlll(I1t.� .i„� d�- 7�� CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kel[y, Mayor September 13, 2004 Council President Kathy Lantry And members of the City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Keilogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 390 City Hall Telephnne: 651-266-8510 IS West Ke[logg Boulevard FacsimiLe: 651-266-8513 Saine Paul, MN55102 CQII�( (�agParCn � sEP 13 200� Dear Council President Lantry and Councilmembers: My work to date has been to lead and engage elected officials from the seven county metro area in a regional discussion on components of a regional, workable solution to a smoking ban, and I have done just that. I have also consulted with key health care constituencies and local bar and restaurant owners who are equally concerned about the dangers of second hand smoke. After talking to alI members of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, it is clear to me that there is not a majority who plan to support a total smoking ban in Ramsey County. The maximum compromise they plan to accept is the Olmsted County approach. I believe that it does not make sense to have two different smoking regulations in Ramsey County and the City of St. Paul. To do so would only invite confusion on implementation and enforcement procedures. Additionally, after talking with Washington and Anoka Counties they are likely to look at, if anything, the Olmsted County model. Therefore, a proposal that eliminates almost 90% of second hand smoking in establishments is the best compromise. Accordingly, and pursuant to sections 6.07, 6.08 and 6.09 and the City Charter, I am vetoing Council File 04-760. I commend those in the health care industry who are working in earnest to better the lives of the citizens of St. Paul. I share that passion with them. I appreciate their commitment to work with the rest of the metro area to achieve reasonable, workable smoking restrictions, and I remain committed to helping them in this effort. I also appreciate those in the hospitality industry who have come forward and acknowledged concern about second hand smoke and its affect on their employees. At all junctures of this debate they remained willing to find common ground. � D�/- ��d As I have said throughout this debate, the end result should be, a thoughtFul regional approach that will yield greater health benefits to a larger number of patrons and employees, and not force unintended consequences unnecessarily on our businesses. I believe an ordinance paralleling Olmsted County will best yield these resuits. Sincerely, �� c � �� Randy C. Kelly Mayor of St. Paul 0�-�� SAINT PAUL — RAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH August 25, 2004 To: Saint Paul City From: Rob Fulton, Director Re: Smoke free I have several points I want to discuss with you regarding the proposals that are before you regazding smoke free restaurants and bazs. First, the Community Health Services Advisory Committee, a group of citizens appointed by the City and the County to review pubiic health issues, at its June 2, 2004 meeting affirmed a report prepazed in the latter part of 2001 on tobacco and second hand smoke. This report recommended that all food establishments in the City and the County become smoke-free enviranments. At the June 2 meeting, the Committee passed a resolution recommending the passage of the Saint Paul Ordinance that would prohibit smoking in bazs and restaurants. The report and the letter transmitting the resolution aze attached. Second, Ramsey County Commissioners are holding a public hearing on September 7 to discuss an ordinance the bans smoking in all restaurants, but provides exemptions for bars with food sales less than 50% of their total sales. This is known as the Olmsted model. DeparUnent staff has reseazched the following information. There are 1369 licensed food establishments in Ramsey County including Saint Paul. Oniy 433 of these licensed establishments serve alcohol. Olmsted's experience indicates that about 10% of the total food establishments applied for and were granted an exemption. If this holds true for Ramsey County, that means 137 food establishments would be exempted as bars. A copy of this report is also attached. Third, on August 4, 2004, the Community Health Services Advisory Committee approved a staff report on the status of smoking ordinance activity in other communities. The report, also attached to your packets, reviews the recommendations from the 2002 study; gives a summary of action taken by other govemments at that time, and concludes "that both leadership and decisive action are needed to protect the health of employees and customers in all workplaces including food establishments and bars throughout Ramsey County." I wili be glad to answer any questions you might have. (� � `�1�� Saint Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health Rob Fulton, Director TO: Ramsey County Commissioners Saint Paul City Council Mayor Randy Kelly 50 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102-1657 651-266-2400 Fax: 651-266-2593 TI'I': 651-266-2594 www.co.ramsey.mn.us(ph/ FROM: Mary Ackerman, Chairperson Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee DATE: June 3, 2004 RE: Saint Paul Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking in Bazs and Restaurants At its meeting on June 2, 2004, the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) discussed the current opportunities to create a smoke-free Ramsey County and City of Saint Paul. Two different acUons were taken. First, the Committee reviewed and reaffirmed the Recommendations to Reduce and Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Tobacco and Secondhand Smoke passed by the Coznmittee on January 14, 2002. Second, the Committee passed a resolution recommending and supporting the passage of the City of Saint Paul Ordinance "prohibiting smoking in bars an@ restaurants, creating responsibilities for proprietors, prohibiting retaliation, and providing penalties for violation". The vote on the resolution was fourteen members in favor and one member in abstention. The Committee members directed staff to send the resolution to the City Council, the County Board and the Mayor and include, again, the Recommendations to Reduce and Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Tobacco and Secondhand Smoke created by the CHSAC in January 2002. If you have questions or concerns regarding the work of this Committee, please feel free to contact me at 612 692-5556 or the public health staff person assigned to the Committee, Richard Ragan at 651 266-2454. � �.� printed on racycled paper with a minimum of 20% postronsumer content � e�(- Saint Paul — Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee Resolurion Supporting the Saint Paul Smoking Ordinance Whereas, Second-hand tobacco smoke has been implicated as the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States foIIowing smoking and aIcohol abuse; and Whereas, The financial and social costs of tobacco use are a burden shared by all county residents via the increased cost of private health care, public care programs and property loss; and Whereas, Virtually everyone is at some risk of hann from exposure to secondhand smoke; and Whereas, Smoke-free policies remain the only measure to truly ensure that people aze adequately protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke, and Whereas, On January 14, 2002, the Saint Paul — Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) developed Recommendations to Reduce and Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Tobacco and Secondhand Smoke that included a recommendation to development, support and implement a plan for all food establishments licensed by the City and the County to become smoke-free environments; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, The CHSAC recommends and supports the passage of the Saint Paul Ordinance that would prohibit smoking in bazs and restaurants; create responsibilities for proprietors; prohibit retaliation; and provide penalties for violafion; and Ba It Further Resolved, the CHSAC directs staff to send, once again, the Recommendations to Reduce and Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Tobacco and Secondhand Smoke developed by the CHSAC in January 2002; and Be It Further Resolved, The CHSAC directs the Chair of the CHSAC to communicate the cantents of this resolution as appropriate. oy-�(�o Saint Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health Rob Fulton, Director To: Ramsey County Commissioners Saint Paul City Council Members Mayor Randy Kelly From: Ms. 7oan Johnson, Chair 50 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102-1657 651-266-2400 Fa�c: 651-266-2593 TTY: 651-26Cr2594 www.co.ramsey.mn.us/ph( Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee Date: January 14, 2002 RE: Recommendations to Reduce and Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Tobacco and Secondhand Smoke For the past several months the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee has been investigating ways to make environments within Ramsey County and the City of Saint Paul free from the deleterious effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. As you know, second-hand tobacco smoke has been implicated as th'e third leading cause of preventable death in the United States following smoking and alcohol abuse. The financial and social costs of tobacco use aze a burden shazed by all county residents via the increased cost of private health caze, public caze programs and property loss. Virtuaily everyone is at some risk of harm from exposure to secondhand smoke. Smoke- free policies remain the oniy measure to truly ensure that people are adequately protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. The committee heard presentations from Jeremy Hanson of the IvIinnesota Smoke Free Coalition; Tom Day, Vice president of Governmental Affairs, Minnesota Restaurant Association; Lisa Mazshall, Health Educator, Healthy Communities Section, Saint Paul- Ramsey County Public Health; Mary Buehrens of Tazget Market; and Sheri Smith of the America Cancer Society. Based on the presentations and extensive discussion, the Advisory Committee presents the following recommendations: 1) Preserve the Minnesota Tobacco Endowment FY�nd For the purpose for which it was intended; 2) Set an example of providing smoke-Free public facilities by controlling smoking outside City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County government buildings; and 3) Develop, support and implement a plan for all food establishments licensed by the City and the County to become smoke-free environments. w `J printed on recyckA paper with a rt�inimum of 20% post-consuma conteni � C�y= �c�b Recommendation #1- Preserve the Minnesota Tobacco Endowment Fund for the purpose for which it was intended. • Develop and distribute a position paper regarding the use and possible misuse of the Tobacco Endowment Fund • Modify the City and County legisiative agendas to support the Fund • Review the positions of public health/smoke-free organizations on the use to Tobacco Endowment funds • Prioritize the use of tobacco endowment funds in the order of a. prevention b. cessation c. research on cessation, prevention and diversion programs d. development of and sustainability of support groups for individuals wanting not to smoke e. medical treatment • Provide regular, scheduled accountability reporting Recommendation #2 - Set an exampie of providing smoke-free public buildings by controlling smoking outside City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County government bnildings. • Ramsey County residents have the right to enter government buildings without risking exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke • City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County must exhibit I.eadership on this issue • Expanding the smoke-free work azea will enhance the image of the City and County • Make this effort part of the Model Employer Initiative health/safety concerns • Implement an all-departmenUunions task force/collaborative to study this issue and make recommendations • Investigate the policies of other governments that have implemented smoke-free grounds • Develop and enforce a policy that provides a smoke-free work environment (indoors and outdoors) for staff as they enter/exit Ramsey County and City of Saint Paul buildings. • Develop a program that is self-policing • Use signage to gain compliance with the smoke-free entrances/exits • Advocate for shelters from the weather and away from entrances and exits for employees who aze still smokers • Increase the number/convenience/affordability of smoking cessation programs v� -�c�o • Advocate for smoke-free City and County vehicles Recommendation #3 - Develop, support and implement a plan for all food establishments licensed by the City and the County to become smoke-free environmenfs. • By July i, 2002, create a task force to plan for smoke-free food establishments • Provide second-hand smoke information to support smoke-free places • Deternune % of restaurants that are currently smoke-free • Construct a list of groups that will assist the County in this effort • Form a restaurant group in support of smoke-free restaurants • Work with the Dept of Labor (OSHA) in creating a smoke-free work environments • Create incentives (financiallother) for restaurants to become smoke-free • Detemune which City and County elected official(s} will champion this cause • Study the financial impact and customer satisfaction of jurisdictions that have gone smoke-free • Consider smoke-free bars • Work with other municipalities within Ramsey County to create smoke- free restaurants o�-��.o Saint Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health Rob Fulton, Director August 13, 2004 To: Ramsey County Board of Commissioners From: Rob Fulton, Director of Public Health Re: Information Related to Smoke-Free Ordinance 50 West Rellogg B[vd SaintPaul,MN 55102-1657 651-266-2400 Fax: 651-266-2593 T"I'I': 651-266-2594 www.co.ramsey.mn.us/ph/ At its policy discussion on August 3 the County Board made several information requests of the Department. This memo reports on those questions. 1. Determine, to the extent possible, the number of establishments that the Ordinance would apply to, and estimate the number of establishments that would seek exemption. The following table shows the number of jurisdictions licensed by the four public health licensing entities in Ramsey County. There aze 1,369 food establishments licensed by four jurisdictions in Ramsey County. Of these 32%, or 433, serve alcohol, as determined by liquor licensing data. No. Food Establishments Paul 27 No. Food Establishments Serving Alcohol 278 35 9 111 433 Percent 35 �t is imposs 33 to 33 predict 25 how 32 m anY these would meet the criteria for an exemption by having over 50% o€ the revenue from liquor sales. The best reference is Olmsted County, which, having administered an exemption process, reports that of 447 licensed food establishments, 43 applied for and receiverl exemptions as bars, or about 10% of establishments. If the same number is applied to Ramsey County, a total of 137 establishments could expect to claim exemption as bazs. There are, however, a couple of factors to consider when applying the Olmsted data to Ramsey County. The frrst is that the composition of food establishments in Olmsted Counry may not $��5/2'��4 1�? printed on recycled paper with a¢iinimum of 20'➢o postconsuma wntent � August 12, �004 Page 2 of 4 C�-� l� represent the composition in Ramsey County. The second factor is that several municipalities place limits on liquor licenses, which affects the status of bazs. Two municipalities require that establishments with liquor licenses cannot have more than 50% of their revenue ftom liquor sales (White Bear Township and RosevilIe). Shoreview has a requirement that requires a certain squaze footage of restaurant space in an establishment with a liquor license, essentially creating a 50% requirement. Vadnais Heights "encourages" restaurants instead of bars by charging a lower fee for a liquor license if the establishment has a full restaurant. 2. What will be the exemption process for establishments defined as "bars" and "private clubs?" The Department has outlined an exemption process with several steps. Please note that this is a preliminary process, subject to revision. To be considered exempt from the smoking prohibition a food service establishment would have to meet the standards for exemption in the ordinance. The exemption process would have an initial phase during 2005, during which establishments would make their first application. Exemptions would have a term of one year (July 1 to June 30, except the first year, which would begin upon granting of the exemption), and establishments would seek annual renewal of the exemption. Processes would be in place for proposed establishments that would seek an exemption, as well as existing establishments that wish to change operations and become exempt. The steps for seeking an initial exemption aze shown below to illustrate the administration of exemptions. 1. Establishment submits information and necessazy Sales Ta�c records in a form determined by the Department along with an initial exemption application fee. 2. Departsnent reviews application form for: a. Completeness b. Meeting the revenue standard c. If applicable, meeting the structural and ventilauon standards of the ordinance. 3. Information pertinent to the application is entered into a Department database for the purpose of tracking exemption information; paper files created and labeled appropriately as to data privacy status. 4. If necessary, Department conducts a site visit. 5. If criteria for exemption are met, Department grants the exemption and sends a certificate of exemption to the establishment. 6. Exemption is granted for one year (7une 20 — 7uly 1) and must be renewed annually. 7. Establishment must display the Certificate of Exemption in a public place near the food establishment license issued by the licensing authority. 3. What is the initial and ongoing enforcement process? After an ordinance is adopted the Department would engage in a more complete planning process for implementation, including communications about the ordinance and development of specific enforcement protocols. An example of how this ordinance would likely be enforced follows: a. If a patron is smoking in a no-smoking establishment, the Proprietor should make an effort to stop a patron from smoking. If that person refuses to cooperate, the proprietor may call law enforcement and report the disorderly conduct of the patron. Depending on the situation, the Law Enforcement may respond and deal with the patron as a disorderly person ortrespasser. 8/25/2004 August 12, 2004 Page 3 �P 4 U� 1l� b. If a patron is being allowed to smoke by a Proprietor or Other Person in Charge in a smoke- free establishment (that is, the establishment is in violation of the ordinance), the observer would refer the case to the Department of Public Health; the ordinance provides, however, that other entities authorized to enforce Iaws, such as a public safety department, couId enforce as well. c. The Department would respond to complaints pertaining to a Proprietor allowing smoking in a smoke-free restaurant in a manner appropriate to the complaint and consistent with exisring compliance policies. The range of enforcement options available to the Department include: • Site visits • Verbal warnings • Written warnings • A formal Notice of Violation • A citation • Referral to the County Attorney's Office. 4. What is the e�ected cost of processing exemptions and carrying out enforcement? The Department would divide work into two phases: Start-up and maintenance. The Start-up Phase would begin upon adoption and extend three months beyond the effective date of Mazch 31, 2005, to July 1, 2005. During this phase there would be impiementation planning, outreach and education to the public and regulated facilities, processing of exemptions, and follow up on complaints. The experience of other metropolitan azeas that have implemented smoking bans is that after three months the number of complaints drops dramatically. The maintenance phase would folIow. During Start-up the Department would assign staff from exisring programs to work on some elements of the ordinance, especially the outreach and education. Staff from several Sections of the DeparUnent would be assigned. While there is not an additional dollar cost, this does represent a reallocation of resources. Staff from the Environmentat Health Section would work on the exemption and enforcement elements. Since this Section is entirely fee supported, it is appropriate that those seeking exemption would pay a fee. During Start up the estimated cost per exemprion is in the range of $75 to $100 per exemption. During maintenance that amount would be about $50 to $75 per exemption. Until the number of exemptions is known, the overall cost to the County cannot be estimated. At this time the Departrnent recommends an initial application fee of $100, and a renewal fee of $75. 5. Which bars and restaurants are affected by the prohibition, and which are not? The ordinance defines "bar," "establishment," "private club" and "restaurant." An establishment is a place that is licensed by a health authority (Saint Paul LIEP, City of Maplewood, City of New Brighton or Ramsey County) to serve food and/or beverages. A baz is an establishment that derives more than 50% of its after ta�c sales revenue from liquor sales. A restaurant is an establishment that derives less than 50% of its revenue from liquor sales. A private club is specifically defined, and its revenue from the sale of liquor is not calculated in the definition. Bazs and private clubs are exempt from the prohibition, and smoking is allowed in them, provided they apply for and are granted an annual exemption. If an establishment serves food, but more 8/25/2004 Aug,ust 12, 2004 Page 4 of 4 (�-� -�lQ(7 than half its revenues are from liquor sales, and it applies for and is granted an exemption, smoking is allowed. If a restaurant serves liquor, and wants to allow smoking in the liquor area of the establishment, the ordinance sets the conditions it would have to meet to do that. The establishment essentially has to be divided into two establishments: one that meets the definition and revenue requirements of a bar, and one that meets the definition of a restaurant. The two establishments have to be separated by a continuous floor-to-ceiling wall with closeable doors kept closed, have separate ventilation systems, have a separate health license, and not employ minors. 8/25/2004 C� �l� Saint Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health Rob Fulton, Director 50 West Kellogg Blvd Saint Paul, NIN 55102-1657 651-2b6-2400 Fax: 651-266-2593 TTY: 651-266-2594 www.co.ramsey.mn.us(ph( A Summary of Smoking Ban Ordinances Both Established and Under Consideration in Minneapolis, Sloomington, Hennepin County and throughout Minnesota As everyone now knows, second-hand tobacco smoke has been implicated as the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States following smoking and alcohol abuse. The financial and social costs of tobacco use aze a burden shazed by all county residents via the increased cost of private health care, public care programs and properiy Ioss. Vir[ually everyone is at some risk of harm from exposure to secondhand smoke. Smoke-free policies remain the only measura to truly ensure that people are adequately protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Recommendations Regarding Tobacco The Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) has a history of investigating and recommending actions to reduce and eliminate the deleterious effects of tobacco and secondhand smoke. In January of 2002 the following recommendations were made to the Ramsey County Boazd and the Saint Paul City Council. Recommendation #1 - Preserve the Minnesota Tobacco Endowment Fund for the purpose for which it was intended. • Develop and distribute a position paper regazding the use and possible misuse of the Tobacco Endowment Fund • Modify the City and County legislative agendas to support the Fund • Review the positions of public health/smoke-free organizations on the use to Tobacco Endowment funds • Prioritize the use of tobacco endowment funds in the order of a. prevention b. cessation c. reseazch on cessation, prevention and diversion programs d. development of and sastainability of support groups for individuals wanting not to smoke e. medical treatment • Provide regulaz, scheduled accountability reporting w t�? printed on recycled paper wiN a minimma of 2090 pos4consumer content � (�-1 Recommendation #2 - Set an example of providing smoke-free public buildings by controlling smoking outside City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County government buildings. • Ramsey County residents have the right to enter government buildings without risking exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke • City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County must exhibit L.eadership on this issue • Expanding the smoke-free work area will enhance the image of the City and County • Make this effort part of the Model Employer Initiative health/safety concerns • Implement an all-departmentlunions task force/collaborative to study this issue and make recommendations • Investigate the policies of other governments that have implemented smoke-free grounds • Develop and enforce a policy that provides a smoke-free work environment (indoors and outdoors) for staff as they enter/exit Ramsey County and City of Saint Paul buildings. • Develop a program that is self-policing • Use signage to gain compliance with the smoke-free entrances/exits • Advocate for shelters from the weather and away from entrances and exits for employees who are still smokers • Increase the number/convenience/affordability of smoking cessation programs • Advocate for smoke-free City and County vehicles Recommendation #3 - Develop, support and implement a plan for all food establishments licensed by the City and the County to become smoke-free environments. • By July l, 2002, create a task force to plan for smoke-free food establishments • Provide second-hand smoke information to support smoke-free places • Deternune % of restaurants that are currently smoke-free • Construct a list of groups that will assist the County in this effort • Form a restaurant group in support of smoke-free restaurants • Work with the Dept of Labor (OSHA) in creating a smoke-free work environments • Create incentives (financial/other) for restaurants to become smoke-free • Deternune which City and County elected official(s) will champion this (�-( �C� cause Study the financial impact and customer satisfaction of jurisdictions that have gone smoke-free Consider smoke-free bars Work with other municipalities within Ramsey County to create smoke- free restaurants The recommendations were presented to both the County Board and the City Council but no further action was taken by either elected body. Majority of Minnesotans Prefer Smoke-Free Public Places A Market Strategies survey commissioned by the Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition in August 2002 found that 79 percent of Minnesota voters would support laws requiring smoke-free workplaces, public buildings and restaurants. A November 2001 poll by Hill Research Consultants found that 78 percent of Minnesotans (including 51 percent of smokers) supported a new local law that that would make all workplaces smoke-free; 75 percent (47 percent of smokers) would make all restaurants smoke-free and 59 percent (22 percent of smokers) would make bars smoke-free. On May 27, 2004, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported the following findings from a random survey during May 2004 by the Mellman Group and sponsored by Clean Air Minneapolis and the Hennepin Medical Society: • Nearly 75 percent of Minneapolis residents favor a proposed smoking ban in indoor public places • Four out of five respondents said they think exposure to secondhand smoke is a moderate to serious health hazard • Fifty percent of smokers polled said their right to smoke is secondary to others' right to breathe clean air • About one-third of the residents polled said they would more like patroniza bars and restaurants if there were a smoking ban. Trends regarding Minnesota and National Smoke-Free Policies Smoke-free ordinances have been enacted in Duluth, Cloquet, Moose Lake and Olmsted County and most recently (7/19/04) Bloomington. Cities that have recenfly proposed smoke-free workplace, baz or restaurant ordinances are Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Moorhead and Bemidji. Approximately one-quarter of Minnesota restaurants have voluntarily gone smoke-free. On June 18"', the Minneapolis City Council voted to form a task force charged with making recommendations on an ordinance to the City Council. Recommendations are due 7uly 19`�. The Council approved the ordinance effective March 31, 2005. � ,� • Mayor Kelly vetoed the smoke-free workplace ordinance in Saint Paul and now the Council has 30 days to ovemde the veto. • The final vote on Bloomington's comprehensive, 100 % workplace ordinance passed on July 19` and will take effect September 1, 2004 for all public places. A ban on smoking in bars and restaurants will take effect March 31, 2005. • The process is underway to gather signatures to strengthen Duluth's Ordinance. • The Commissioner's of Beltrami County have voted to move forward with drafting a smoke-free ordinance in Beltrami County. A vote is expected on August 3 rd • Governor Pawlenty has stated that he supports local smoke-free efforts and he would sign a state-wide ban if the legislators could come up with one. Also, more that 50 cities in the state ban smoking in some park facilities and several have adopted total bans. Champlin, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Plymouth and Shoreview are among the cities in the Twin Cities that prohibit smoking in public parks. A committee of the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation has recommended banning smoking in puks. Across the country there aze 291 municipalities, in 25 states, with 100 percent smoke-free coverage in workplaces, bars and/or restaurants. Lincoln Nebraska's smoke-free workplace ordinance takes effect on November 1, 2004. Columbus Ohio passed an indoar public places ordinance that include everything but in private clubs. As of April 2004, ten states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, Utah) have passed laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces, bars and/or restaurants. Conclusion The Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) has inquired with other public health organizations in the Twin Cities metropolitan azea to determine if a regionalized approach to creating smoke-free bars and restaurants. Saint Paul set the benchmark. Bloomington has enacted an ordinance that will withstand a veto. There is huge momentum to ban smoking in public places. The CHSAC has reached the conclusion that both leadership and decisive action are needed to protect the health of employees and customers in all workplaces including food establishments and bazs throughout Ramsey County. The CHSAC urges the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners to take action as soon as possible. � �� : �'uSAC Committee FROM: Richard D. Ragan DATE July 16, 2004 12E: Resolution to Ensure Effective Implementation of Saint PauPs Ban on Smoking in Bazs and Restaurants On June 23, 2004, the Saint Paui City Council passed a resolution establishing an ordinance banning smoldng in bars and restaurants. The Mayor vetoed the resolution/ ordinance and the City Council still does not have sufficient votes to overturn the veto. Another resolution was passed by the City Council at the same meefing that contained several resolves and tasks for the CHSAC to complete. The resolves were: - the Saint Paul City Council requests that the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee provide a report on smoking ban ordinances in Minnesota and those under consideration in Minneapolis, Bioomington, Hennepin County and other jurisdictions by no later that August 4, 2004, and the Saint Paul City Council requests the Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee inquire with other public health organizations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to deternune if a regionalized approach to creating smoke-free bars and restaurants is feasible and report to the Council on the initial findings no later that August 4, 2004 Rob Fulton advised Councilman Lee Helgen that information would be available to the Council following the next CHSAC meeting scheduled for August 5, 2004. Councilman Helgen acceptedthe revised date. Both Rob Fulton and I proceeded expeditiously to coliect the information that was requested. A sLUZUnary of the information has been compiled into a report titled "A Summary of Smoking Ban Ordinances Both Established and Under Consideration in Minneapolis, Bloomington, Hennepin County and throughout Minnesota". �� A Summary of Smoking Ban Ordinances Both Established and Under Consideration in Minneapolis, Bloomington, Hennepin County and throughout Minnesota As everyone now knows, second-hand tobacco smoke has been implicated as the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States following smoking and alcohol abuse. The financial and social costs of tobacco use are a burden shazed by all county residents via the increased cost of private health caze, public caze programs and property loss. Virtually everyone is at some risk of harm from exposure to secondhand smoke. Smoke-free policies remain the only measure to truIy ensure that people aze adequateIy protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Recommendations Regarding Tobacco The Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) has a history of invesrigaring and recommending actions to reduce and eliminate the deleterious effects of tobacco and secondhand smoke. In January of 2002 the following recommendations were made to the Ramsey County Boazd and the Saint Paul City Council. Recommendation #1- Preserve the Minnesota Tobacco Endowment Fund for the purpose for which it was intended. • Develop and distribute a position paper regarding the use and possible misuse of the Tobacco Endowment Fund • Modify the City and County legislative agendas to support the Fund • Review the positions of public health/smoke-free organizations on the use to Tobacco Endowment funds • Prioritize the use of tobacco endowment funds in the order of a. prevention b. cessation c. research on cessation, prevenrion and diversion programs d. development of and sustainability of support groups for individuals wanting not to smoke e. medical treatment • Provide regular, scheduled accountability reporting �� -�� Recommendation #2 - Set an e�mple of providing smoke-free public buildings by controlling smoking outside City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County government buildings. • Ramsey County residents have the right to enter government buildings without risking exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke • City of Saint Paul and Ramsey County must exhibit I.eadership on this issue • Expanding the smoke-free work area will enhance the image of the City and County • Make this effort part of the Model Employer Initiative health/safety concerns • Implement an all-department/unions task force/collaborative to study this issue and make recommendations • Investigate the policies of other governments that have implemented smoke-free grounds • Develop and enforce a policy that provides a smoke-free work environment (indoors and outdoors) for staff as they enter/exit Ramsey County and City of Saint Paul buildings. • Develop a program that is self-policing • Use signage to gain compliance with the smoke-free entrances/elcits • Advocate for shelters from the weather and away from entrances and e;�its for employees who are still smokers • Increase the number/convenience/affordability of smoking cessation programs • Advocate for smoke-free City and County vehicles Recommendation #3 - Develop, support and implement a plan for all food establishments licensed by the City and the County to become smoke-free environments. • By July 1, 2002, create a task force to plan for smoke-free food establishments • Provide second-hand smoke information to support smoke-free places • Deternune % of restaurants that are currently smoke-free • Construct a list of groups that will assist the County in this effort • Form a restaurant group in support of smoke-free restaurants • Work with the Dept of Labor (OSHA) in creating a smoke-free work environxnents • Create incentives (financiallother) for restaurants to become smoke-free • Deternrine which City and County elected official(s) will champion this cause • Study the financial impact and customer satisfaction of jurisdictions that have gone smoke-free • Consider smoke-free bazs c�--t- Work with other municipalities within Ramsey County to create smoke- free restaurants The recommendations were presented to both the County Board and the City Council but no further action was taken by either elected body. Majority of Minnesotans Prefer Smoke-Free Public Places A Mazket Strategies survey commissioned by the Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition in August 2002 found that 79 percent of Minnesota voters would support laws requiring smoke-free workplaces, public buildings and restaurants. A November 2001 poll by Hill Research Consultants found that 78 percent of Minnesotans (including 51 percent of smokers) supported a new local law that that would make all workplaces smoke-free; 75 percent (47 percent of smokers) would make all restaurants smoke-free and 59 percent (22 percent of smokers) would make bars smoke-free. On May 27, 2004, the Minneapolis Staz Tribune reported the following findings from a random survey during May 2004 by the Mellman Crroup and sponsored by Clean Air Minneapolis and the Hennepin Medical Society: • Nearly 75 percent of Minneapolis residents favor a proposed smoldng ban in indoor public places • Four out of five respondents said they think exposure to secondhand smoke is a moderate to serious health hazard • Fifty percent of smokers polled said their right to smoke is secondary to others' right to breathe clean air • About one-third of the residents polled said they would more like patronize bars and restautants if there were a smoldng ban. Trends regarding Minnesota and National Smoke-FYee Policies Smoke-free ordinances have been enacted in Duluth, Cloquet, Moose Lake and Olmsted County. Ciries that have recently proposed smoke-free workplace, baz or restaurant ordinances aze Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Moorhead and Bemidji. Approacimately one- quarter of Minnesota restaurants have voluntarily gone smoke-free. • On June 18�', the Minneapolis City Council voted to form a task force charged with making recommendations on an ordinance to the City Council. Recommendations are due 7uly 19�'. The Council is expected to vote on the ordinance 7uly 23 • Mayor Kelly vetoed the smoke-free workplace ordinance in Saint Paul and now the Council has 30 days to override the veto. • The final vote on Bloomington's comprehensive, 100 % workplace ordinance will be 7uly 19� • The process is underway to gather signatures to strengthen Duluth's Ordinance. �_�(�� • The Commissioner's of Beltrami Counry have voted to move forward with drafting a smoke-free ordinance in Beltrauri County. A vote is expected on August 3 • Governor Pawlenty support local smoke-free efforts and he would sign a state-wide ban if the legislators could come up with one. More that 50 cities in the state ban smoldng in some park facilities and several have adopted total bans. Champlin, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Plymouth and Shoreview aze aznonn the cities in the Twin Cities that prohibit smoking in public pazks. Across the country there are 291 municipalities, in 25 states, with 100 percent smoke-free coverage in workplaces, bars and/or restaurants. Lincoln Nebraska's smoke-free workplace ordinance takes effect on November 1, 2004. Columbus Ohio passed an indoor public places ordinance that include everything but in private clubs. As of April 2004, ten states (Califomia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, Utah) have passed laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces, bars and/or restaurants. Conclusion The Saint Paul-Ramsey County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) has inquired with other public heaith organizations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to determine if a regionalized approach to creating smoke-free bars and restaurants. The CHSAC has reached the conclusion that both leadership and decisive action aze needed to protect the health of employees and customers in all workplaces including food establishments and bars throughout Ramsey County. The CHSAC urges the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners to take action as soon as possibie. 0� -�(�c� �� S�t,��}�} �'� � (` � �3 � c��rcc� �l �� ,�,��s �-�C,� _ �.� :��o �{" u �v� C� uin� t�� -t P� IlQ..'� �wlQ�� ; I"� GL Yl OYI' 6��0 k-t Y1 c.�� C�f�i1ti �.j/' S�{,Y'V I�V l�i?� .� .�'cr� �d �� .,`� � �� , � � m �� i� � �o ��- �. �— Q ��h,o � �-Q. ' � `' �c;��`�2�-�'occ��' G�2�, �. n�� Y�c�� r � �%�� . �.��c�Q �/t-� ji�vrj c` � �o �'�-i L-y� C�r� cc��D � �/�e��n� sz�� - t� �� - - f� ��-�-e. C�t��f- -� bu-�- �� . g � �� & �� n� ��- � � w.� �-�-�� .� e�� -, �. � �� -�.�, � ��.� �'�--� � �ii-� � �� C�z��.�,� � �o�� =-�nv�� r�� , �t� � �.�.� ,.�� u�� , �,-�-�--�- ��--� �? �� G('� �� " � U� C� c� � �--� Q �,�-u..��.� ��rt�� -�-�--C.� `�., .�-e.�G�V� � �.1�--� �� - f� � ��-r , �f `� ��-- � �.�- �t n�s r C 1�� _ �� u.� ` d �_�.? � � ��-e-� c� �t.e�-�'�� -�-��U � �� na� c� �� { m � �-c� ` l ��Z"7 �- �Q r ��'��n s�� nn�-n�' ,8� e� � �f� �G,-,-1 m u.�-n..c=� =�i � � � � � -�--� �� , �� K�� ,�� .�C..� �--e.� ��-�� .f� �� . `� � � �g�-� � �� fi �� i� �� , `� � � s �/-� �� C ��.�-� S i� �a /t� � � �n�c�c� � �-��- - r� �s�-e �� L,c,� � ��..�'� � r,� � �� -�-�--� � �' c� �_�--r�� "� � v Yn� �:�� :��la ��/�" u��Y� �t � �'Yr � �...Q�� -- � '�t? 6�''� � t�l � ,�c��Z � �_ ��`�"'� ��e,� ��%�-�� n v� �� r�2�.- � rn,� -�'�� d� I8 Z( � �� --C-/J d�iYi � ` � '� �-'Y`� � a-�-e - �--��: C G��- l ��Q � Q �.�.� �� d �—�� -� ��,�� .��z a� ��i ��--2/�'�.�. � �?�v � � — �� s � �� -e- � ��- � ��-- �-��.�� `�ea.�-� ��j �n � e�-c� , �'r.�%� �s�'no�.�yt�-. �S C.�� _,�- � c�.�-�2� � � v� G�-e�'�sz �' --�` �m�� ' ��-e_.�-- �`? t�'c.)` � /�Q�� . C� � �/-�-�.��`�� , a..�,-�GP .�-Q-�-� �� -� ��vc��...��c�e �t� � �/'I1 �l' t t''tsr? �'l �� y�'S� e 42-�: �f� �(� � e� o�.�-. �„�� 2�ti-- � , r 3 Lo c�Q- �� e.o ��- �.o�=� �� c e.o �- ��2��J� � arr��r�-�, �'1 ��.c�- tz-�c r o� � �=�-�.��5 -re- y'-�. � � �o�- � �c�, � ��t;�.�'� �l� �v�1c�.,�'� i�-�1�-- c� � � �-�.,e.,v� t�-t, .1�..e-��.� n--z� �� ; C �4 �r.x-� --e.��e� � �� DL�—�(�c� [S �-'Q�" (,c�°`� e-,� .-l�-e.� �'t ,�, �� `t � r0 — �'m� �;� �' � �.�� 1-��'�P--� �- �, �� '.� �i� C��-e.�c..�%� � �..� � ��.�:�.� e-e.a - �- ��' C'��Z,e- �'�-/I/z-� , ! � ' � i . i� � � �hti� J��-r�.- `�-t�.� �' ��> � � ��( �c� y� �coc,�:�-o �y' �,�� '.�rn,�'l��e,� �Q��~��3 ��f°