HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 8812INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8812
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 19, 2006
Page 1 of 4
• SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
rats
At the October 10, 2006, Pre - Council meeting, following a presentation of recommendations from
the Smoking Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Work Group, Council requested the following additional
information:
a. Additional information on why fire stations are exempt from smoking ban in public
buildings.
While there is no specific historical documentation referencing the reasons for exclusion of fire
stations from the 1997 smoking ordinance requirements, staffs understanding is that the
exemption was based upon the fact that firefighters work 24 -hour shifts. In an effort to provide
the same type of exemption allowed to residences or to home businesses after - hours, fire
stations were allowed an exemption so that they could create their own internal policies on where
smoking would be allowed. The ad hoc work group was provided information indicating that
smoking was currently only allowed at fire stations in the vehicle bays when the doors were
open. The group decided to recommend continuing to allow the City the leeway to continue this
practice.
b. Method to continue to take public comment on the issue of prohibiting smoking in bars and
establishments in historic districts
Staff recommends scheduling four public hearings, one in each quadrant of the city, to invite
comment on the recommendations of the ad hoc work group. These hearings would be held in
public facilities, posted as public hearings and notifications made through numerous venues.
c. Provide information on any economic impact a smoking ban might have for business
owners and entertainment venues.
There are volumes of information available on this topic. The ad hoc work group reviewed
numerous research materials, articles and reports — some indicating no adverse economic
impacts associated with smoking bans, while others concluded the opposite. An example
summary of each type of report follows:
In March, 2004, the New York City Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, New York City Department of Small Business Services and New York City
Economic Development Corporation authored a report titled "The State of Smoke -Free New York
City: A One Year Review ". The executive summary included the following narrative, "One year
later, the data are clear. The City's bar and restaurant industry is thriving and its workers are
breathing cleaner, safer air. Since the law went into effect, business receipts for restaurants and
ars have increased, employment has risen, virtually all establishments are complying with the
aw, and the number of new liquor licenses issued has increased — all signs that New York City
bars and restaurants are prospering."
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
No. 8812
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 19, 2006
un a
Page 2 of 4
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
1WS
In February, 2005, Michael K. Evans, Ph.D. of Evans, Carroll & Associates, published an article
entitled "The Economic Impact of Smoking Bans in Ottawa, London, Kingston, and Kitchener
Ontario." The executive summary contains the following: "The results are striking. After the
imposition of the smoking ban (in Ontario, Canada), sales at bars and pubs were 23.5% lower in
Ottawa, 18.7% lower in London, 24.3% lower in Kingston, and 20.4% lower in Kitchener, than
would have been the case with no smoking ban."
Numerous examples of similar studies could be cited on both sides of this issue.
d. How would enforcement of smoking outside of bars occur?, and
e. How would the problem of loitering and noise be addressed?
The ad hoc work group recommendations include a smoking ban inside bars; however, there has
been some concern expressed about the unintended consequences of such a ban, including
requiring bar patrons to go outside to smoke. It is envisioned that enforcement of the smoking
* rdinance would primarily be the responsibility of the Public Health Department, as is currently
he case. Current resources would require enforcement to be complaint- driven. If a complaint is
received about a particular establishment, an investigation would occur the next business day (or
evening). Education would be provided and, if required, citations would be issued to violators of
the smoking ordinance. Problems occurring outside of the establishment would not be violations
of the smoking ordinance but of other City laws and /or ordinances. If enforcement responsibilities
remain as currently structured, loitering, littering and noise complaints would be handled by Police
and /or Code Enforcement officers.
f. Provide Council the number of smoking as well as non - smoking establishments and
restaurants in the city.
Attachment "A" details the information requested.
g. Provide Council the same background information /numbers the Ad Hoc Committee was
given.
A compilation of all information generated and shared with the ad hoc work group currently fills a
3 -inch three -ring binder. All of the materials have been electronically scanned and saved to a CD
that is provided along with this Informal Report.
h. Provide information on best practices in other cities as well as how a smoking ban has
impacted entertainment districts, including enforcement information. Specifically include
information on how Austin handles exemptions.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8812
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 19, 2006
�,�t►Tfq� Paqe 3 of 4
T
i SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
rx
This is difficult to summarize. Most cities benchmarked enforce on a complaint basis only. Most
cities surveyed indicated that there were very few complaints from neighborhoods about noise,
litter, etc., resulting from restaurant or bar patrons congregating outside to smoke. Some cities
issue citations to establishment owners allowing ordinance violations within their establishment,
some issue citations to individual violators, and some issue citations to both. To whom and when
to issue citations appear to be the most noted challenge to enforcement in other cities. Another
challenge referenced is the requirement of inspectors to work more evening hours to respond to
complaints of smoking at a restaurant or bar. Even though the inspection is in response to a
complaint, the inspector will typically, within the next few days, visit the establishment during
evening hours as part of the complaint investigation. Most cities transitioning to a more restrictive
smoking ordinance have not added staffing and /or other resources to enforce; however, some
cities have. New York City, for example, added 50 field inspectors to enforce the ordinance. In
some locations, overtime pay has increased due to the need for increased evening hour inspector
visits.
Staff contacted representatives from six cities with smoking bans: New York, NY; El Paso, TX;
W ustin, TX; Lincoln, NB; Indianapolis, IN; and Dallas, TX. A table with their responses to inquiries
pecific to enforcement challenges is included in Attachment "B." There are also articles and
reports from other cities available on the CD ROM that detail reported enforcement challenges
and /or a lack thereof in several other example cities.
The City of Austin bans smoking in restaurants, bars and within 15 feet of an entrance or exit of a
regulated facility. A recent court ruling altered their methodology for enforcing this ban. Prior to
the court ruling, Austin inspectors were issuing citations to establishment owners. The court
ruling modified this methodology indicating that their ordinance did not appropriately detail what
actions establishment owners were to take to address individuals who chose to smoke in the
establishment despite the owner's objections. The City of Austin is now issuing citations to
individual smokers in violation of the ordinance.
i. Also provide information on impact for Fort Worth entertainment venues, i.e., Texas Motor
Speedway, historic districts.
Based upon staffs understanding of Texas Motor Speedway venues, the recommended
ordinance modifications would only impact a patron's ability to smoke in outdoor service lines.
Bars and lounges are private and therefore exempt. Private suites would be exempt. Seating in
the stadium is outdoors and exempt.
All bar venues in the vicinity of the Fort Worth Stockyards would be impacted by the
ecommended ordinance revisions. Currently exempt, these establishments would transition to
o- smoking environments. Additionally, any restaurant venue that is in compliance with the
current ordinance through air purification or ventilation equipment would also be impacted.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8812
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 19, 2006
�sET� Page 4 of 4
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SMOKING ORDINANCE
ex
pits
A literature review for information specific to entertainment venues resulted in the identification of
one study entitled "Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke -Free
Restaurant Ordinances" published by the American Medical Association in 1999. Although not as
current as some other studies, it is the only research found on the topic. The report included the
following: "This study debunks the tobacco industry allegation that smoke -free restaurant laws
adversely affect tourism. Quite the contrary, implementation of these laws is often associated
with an increase in the rate of growth of tourism revenues." The complete study is available on
the CD ROM.
Additionally, staff surveyed other Texas benchmark cities with smoking bans and received
feedback revealing no evidence of reduced tourism and /or convention business reported since
their bans were imposed.
Public Hearing- Recommendations
ity Council tasked staff with development of a recommendation for the coordination of public
NWhearings on this topic now that the ad hoc work group recommendations are finalized. Staff
recommends four public hearings, one in each quadrant of the city. It is also recommended that
Dr. Harriet Harral's existing facilitator contract be amended to allow her to facilitate, document
and report to Council on the public hearing citizen feedback.
The proposed public hearing schedule is as follows:
Tuesday, January 16 at 7 p.m. — R.D. Evans Community Center, 3242 Lackland Rd.
Monday, January 22 at 7 p.m. — Hand ley-Mead owbrook Community Center, 6201 Beaty St.
Thursday, February 1 at 7 p.m. — Southwest Community Center, 6300 Welch Ave.
Monday February 12 at 7 p.m. — North Fort Worth Baptist Church, 5801 North 1 -35W
Feedback from these public hearings will be presented to Council by the end of February 2007.
For further information on this topic, contact Joe Paniagua at 817 - 392 -6191 or Dan Reimer at
817- 871 -7201.
�I
Charles R. Boswell
ity Manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
r�
Q
Z ~
W �
�O
2
O
Q LL
f�
�U
cu
LL
O
E
U)
1
O
Z
C6
CD
0
E
co
O
1
co
1_
c6
m
C
cu
co
W
E
co
cu
co
W
O
U-
w3
C
m
E
0
U
CD
C
O
C
O
nA
x41 Palle;sul
iz
N
V
;uewdmb3
C
tC
6ul )JowS
cc
C_
co
01
r
O
M
sales 104031V %OL
C
CL
tC
N
S
M
Was OS>
CA
C
V
0
O
Y
E
le
E
o
-49)
NI
S.
CO
E
O
O
O
In
`2 2
E
E
c
O
a
cn
cn
Z
o
E
o
o
M
z
O
O
O
o
m
m
X
O
O
-t
o
W
CO
r
O
O
CO
x41 Palle;sul
iz
N
;uewdmb3
6ul )JowS
cc
co
01
r
M
sales 104031V %OL
CL
tC
N
M
Was OS>
CA
0
y
co
co
L
C7
NI
S.
cc
0
O
m
ado
r-
w
O
°
0)
CO
BuplowS #
N
to
N
L
N
M
>
.L
L-
W
N
0!
m
m
ca
u_
c
cn
a
cu
m
a0
qt
CO
r
O
O
1'-
v
N
N
O
to
sa ;iS legal
U
N
N
L
O
c
S
0
m
C
m
E
Q
a�
S
E
m
O
L
m
c
-o
m
W
pO
O
O
C
O
C
co
c
0
Q
t
co
0
0
N
C
N
O
0
cc
ML
W
CL
4)
CA
0
y
co
co
L
C7
cc
0
O
m
Cc
N
:3
LL
U
N
co
C
M
N
to
N
L
N
M
>
.L
L-
W
N
0!
m
m
ca
u_
c
cn
a
cu
m
U
N
N
L
O
c
S
0
m
C
m
E
Q
a�
S
E
m
O
L
m
c
-o
m
W
pO
O
O
C
O
C
co
c
0
Q
t
co
0
0
N
C
N
O
0
C
ATTACHMENT "B" FORTWORTH
PUBLIC HEALTH
Enforcement Survey of Cities with Bar /Lounge Smoking Ban in Place
Agency
Challenges Reported
New York, NY
* Night time enforcement has proved to be a difficult challenge. Complaints about after -hours
Brian Minor
smoking. Had to increase the department's budget to enforce smoking in bars /lounges
518 -402 -7600
* Forced to hire off -duty police officers to assist in compliance
El Paso, TX
* No challenges from neighborhood groups
Sue Adams
* Enforcement of smoking restrictions in bars are done by the El Paso Police Department
915 - 543 -3645
* Bars have created patios for customers to go outside to smoke
* Operator /owner is responsible for the enforcement (City holds owner /operator responsible)
Austin, TX
* No complaints filed about bar patrons smoking or congregating outside
Corina Moore
* No neighborhood association complaints filed concerning smoking
512 - 972 -5653
* Environmental section of Austin's Health Unit is charged to enforce the Smoking ordinance
* Biggest challenge is enforcing no smoking in bars and not having the authority to
hold the bar owner responsible (recent court ruling)
Lincoln, NB
Chris Schroeder
* No neighborhood challenges
2-441 -8040
* Complaints about cigarette litter
* Police have the enforcement power to write citations
Indianapolis, IN
* Biggest challenge is the classification of bars vs. restaurants. A bar is defined as an
Liza Smith
establishment that does not employ any person under 18 years old. This created a
317 - 221 -3099
legal loop hole that allowed restaurants to be classified as bars and continue to smoke
Dallas, TX
No complaints from neighborhood groups. Bars are exempt if alcoholic beverage sales >75%
Chauncy Williams
Most complaints centered around bars located in restaurants. Initially Health and Police
214 - 670 -8966
officers issued numerous citations to smokers. Ordinance only requires owner /operator to
post "NO SMOKING" signs.
October 9th, 2006