City Council Study Session Summary 2002 06 11

Home Browse Search

SSSUM 2002 06 11 By allowing smoking and non-smoking areas adjacent to each other without physical separations, customers who do not want to be affected by secondhand smoke cannot go into those restaurants. These task force members who would like stricter regulations on smoking in restaurants and bars would prefer that full no-smoking regulations be implemented, including restrictions that would require restaurant smoking sections be physically separate and independently ventilated from the non-smoking areas. They support draft ordinance #1. Arguments against stricter smoking restrictions are: Requiring separately built smoking sections with independent ventilation would effectively force restaurants that could not afford the modifications to become non-smoking restaurants. The smaller, independent restaurants would be hardest hit. Some of these restaurants cater to a smoking crowd and would be less able to afford the cost of retrofitting a building. These requirements would put Louisville restaurants at a competitive disadvantage, as smokers would drive to other cities to eat. Patrons should be allowed to make their own decisions about eating in a restaurant; thereby making smoking/non-smoking restaurants market-driven. These task force members feel that decisions about smoking sections should be left to the discretion of restaurant owners and that it would be market-driven. They support draft ordinance #2. Although they were unable to reach consensus on how the smoking regulations should affect restaurants and bars, they tried to find some alternatives. The alternatives are: Update the ordinance to require that all restaurants have signs at the front door that explain the restaurant’s smoking and non-smoking policies and give patrons greater information on the smoking sections to help patrons make informed decisions. Consider grandfathering current restaurants. New restaurants would be required to meet stricter regulations of separate rooms and ventilation systems. Offer incentives for restaurants to create physically separated smoking sections. Tavern Licensees, who generally cater to smokers, could be under different regulations. Discussion began on the two proposed ordinances. Mayor Davidson expressed support for draft ordinance #1. He suggested a minor change to offer a ‘tavern license’ provision for establishments such as Gentleman Jim’s and to apply the non-smoking ordinance to restaurants, not taverns. He felt that the City should provide a longer period of time to implement the ordinance, suggesting a ninety- day implementation period versus a forty-five day implementation period. He also recommended placing the Local Licensing Authority in charge of the ordinance. Michele Van Pelt agreed. Chuck Sisk expressed support for a 100% smoking ban. Council directed staff to schedule draft ordinance #1 for a regular City Council meeting after the City Attorney modifies the ordinance to completely ban smoking. 3