Memo-Smoking Ban
Department of Administration
. Memorandum
To: Hopkins City Council
From: Jim Genellie
Date: August 4, 2004
Subject: Smoking Ban
Attached is material concerning smoking bans
. Ban threatens city's smoking compromise, Star Tribune, August 4, 2004
. Bloomington OK's smoking ban, Star Tribune, July 20, 2004
. Bloomington ordinance prohibiting smoking in public places and places of work
. Smoke-Free Workplaces/Restaurants & Bars Study, Bloomington Advisory Board of Health
. Chapter 234. Indoor Smoking, City of Minneapolis ordinance
. Eden Prairie Resolution urging County-wide ban on smoking, City of Eden Prairie
. Sampling of Smoking Ban Ordinances
. Olmsted County Resolution and Ordinance
. Duluth Ordinance
. . Moorhead Ordinance
. St. Paul smoking ban: Where there's smoke, there's ire, Star Tribune, May 9, 2004
.
\Admin MEMO ,doc
. Ban threatens city's smoking compromise
Published August 4, 2004
In St. Louis Park, Mayor Jeff Jacobs likes to say, "Process for us is the result."
So other govellllnents' quick action against smoking in bars and restaurants has put
consensus-building St. Louis Park in a strange position.
With Hemlepin County considering a countywide smoking ban, the city could soon be
overtaken by CUlTent events.
St. Louis Park reached a carefully considered compromise last fall after more than a year
of discussion among people from all sides of the smoking debate -- young adults, medical
professionals, restaurant owners and others.
The goal of the long, cordial discussion was to not "tear the community apart," said Brian
Hoffman, the city staff member who served on the committee. They wanted to avoid the
acrimonious debate that took place in Eden Prairie.
What St. Louis Park came up with was a tobacco smoke disclosure program.
. By next month, the program will be fully in place: The city will monitor nicotine levels in
restaurants and notify customers, by posting signs, of the establishments' levels of
second-hand smoke.
Rather than pay the $700 testing fee that funds the program, six restaurants in the city
chose to opt out by banning smoking.
St. Louis Park's careful compromise could be short-circuited by the Hennepin County
Board if the board chooses to ban smoking in bars and restaurants throughout the county.
Of course, if smoking is bmmed altogether, there would be little need to monitor nicotine
levels.
At an Aug. 23 study session, the St. Louis Park City Council will consider a resolution
asking the county to pass such a countywide ban, Jacobs said.
St. Louis Park residents and elected officials from throughout the metro area have asked
the council to consider joining a more regional approach to the smoking issue.
The St. Louis Park measure would be similar to one passed by Eden Prairie last month.
That resolution prompted Hennepin County Board Chainnan Randy Jolmson to say that
the county would consider a ban if cities representing more than half of the county's
. population followed Eden Prairie's lead.
Bloomington and Minneapolis have done so by banning smoking in restaurants and bars .
within their borders.
A resolution by St. Louis Park would get Johnson within a few thousand people of the
population figure he said he needs to bring a countywide ban up for consideration.
So if SL Louis Park takes action later this month, it could help push the county to\vard
undoing the city's own smoking compromise.
f':') Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
e
.
. Bloomington OKs smoking ban
Chao Xiong
Star Tribune
Published July 20, 2004
The Bloomington City Council early today approved the Twin Cities area's first citywide
smoking ban, a move some say could lead the way for other local ordinances.
Public comment on the ordinance went until about 11 :30 p.m. Monday; the council's 6-1 vote
came 75 minutes later.
The ordinance will take effect Sept. 1 in public places and workplaces. Smoking also would be
prohibited within 25 feet of entrances, exits, open windows and ventilation intakes. The smoking
ban will take effect March 31, 2005, at restaurants, bars and gambling venues. Outdoor patios
can be split evenly between smoking and nonsmoking.
The ban includes the Mall of America.
Council Member Amy Grady said, "The bottom line for me is the health issue."
Vem Wilcox, the only council member to vote against the ordinance, said "I'm not a big fan of
govenU11ent. I'm a fan of less govemment and less govemment restrictions. One of the sticking
. points [for me] was hmiing local businesses."
A standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 people packed the council chambers Monday
night. About 60 more people listened to the meeting from an auditorium across the hall, and
another dozen loitered in the lobby. Seventy-five people were scheduled to speak.
Pat Reicheli, a fonner smoker who was found in 1997 to have lung disease and carried a portable
oxygen tank, came to speak in favor of the ordinance.
"1 needed to show people what happens to people who smoke," she said. "I'm a walking example.
"This will be the accessory of the 2000s," she said as she tapped her oxygen tanle "It's one thing
that 1 have one. 1 smoked. But how about the people who don't smoke and have gotten sick?"
Some restaurant owners and charitable organizations such as the VFW, American Legion and
Knights of Columbus said the ordinance would hurt their charitable gambling operations.
During a break in the meeting, Jim Algeo, a member of the Bloomington Lions Club, told a
reporter, "I wouldn't disagree that smoking is bad for your health and second-hand smoke is bad
as well. 1 think people should have a choice of where they go. This is voodoo politics. n
He said he favors a countywide smoking ban rather than a city ban because it would put
. everyone on a level playing field.
1
The vote in Bloomington, the metro area's largest suburb, comes as a flurry of smoking-ban .
proposals are being considered by other suburbs, Minneapolis. St Paul and Hennepin County.
The Bloomington council agreed to revisit the ordinance if other metro-area cities pass less-
restrictive smoking bans that could potentially lure customers from Bloomington bars and
restaurants.
The Minneapolis City Council is expected to vote on its proposal Friday.
A Mimleapolis task force, wurking behind closed doors since mid-June, wrapped up its work late
Monday. It recommended a full smoking ban at bars and restaurants effective March 31. 2005.
Six Minneapolis council members already me signed on to support the ban, but a seventh vote is
needed for passage, Council Vice President Robert Lilligren and Council Member Scott Benson
are considered the swing votes.
The St. Paul City Council is scheduled to vote July 28 on whether to overtum Mayor Randy
Kelly's veto of a council-approved smoking ban.
The City Council is "concemed about being an island, and since we [the different city councils]
don't all vote in one huge meeting on the same day. everyone's nervous, 'Gee, are we going to be
the only city?' " said St. Paul City Council Member Dave Thune. "The Bloomington vote is
incredibly impol1ant" .
KelTi Pearce Ruch, an aide to Helmepin County Board Member Gail Dorfman, said the county
\villlikely take up the issue next month after waiting to see what different municipalities do.
Hennepin County Board Member Randy Johnson said the Bloomington vote will definitely
encourage the county to \vork 011 a countywide ban.
A public hearing on the Bloomington measure earlier this month drew heated opinions on both
sides of the issue, including bar owners who urged a delay in imposing any changes.
Tn the wake of that heming. the American Cancer Society released a poll of 400 Bloomington
residents that shmved 68 percent of Bloomington voters suppOlted a citywide smoking ban in
public buildings and workplaces.
Staflwriter Rochelle Olson contributed to this report.
'(: Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
.
2
. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-
AN ORDTN^NCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN P1JBLlC PLACES
AND PLACES OF WORK
The City Council of the City of Bloomington hereby ordains:
Section I, That Chapter 11 ofthe City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 12
PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY
ARTICLE II. PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Division O. SmokinQ Prohibited
SEC. 12.79. [RESERVED] FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE.
The City Council finds that:
(a) Tobacco smoke is a leadino cause of disease in nonsmokers and a major source of indoor air
pollution, Secondhand smoke causes heart disease. lunq cancer, respiratory infections. decreased
. respiratory function, reproductive problems and other health problems, Secondhand smoke kills an
estimated 35,000 to 62.000 Americans each year from heart disease, Secondhand smoke also
causes an estimated 3,000 lunq cancer deaths in America each year,
(b) These adverse health effects are well documented and numerous medical and scientific
authorities. includino the American Medical Association, the Surqeon General, the National Institute
on Occupational Safety and Health. the National Cancer Institute, the Environmental Protection
Aoency. the National Academy of Sciences. the National Toxicoloqy Proqram and the World Health
Orqanization have recoonized the deadly effects of exposure to secondhand smoke,
(c) There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Neither the separation of smokers and
nonsmokers. nor the introduction of new ventilation systems, can eliminate the health hazards
caused bv secondhand smoke,
(d) Emplovees in smoky workplaces are at special risk, One study has estimated that workinq in a
smoky settinq for eiqht hours is equivalent to smokinq 16 ciqarettes, Also at special risk are
children, elderlv people. and those with cardiovascular disease or impaired respiratory function.
includinq people with asthma and those with obstructive airway disease.
(e) Objective evidence does not bear out the fear that elimination of public smokinq will harm 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 smokinq has no material
economic impact on a community, These studies are drawn from the experience of hundreds of
communities that have successfully eliminated smokinq in workplaces and public places, The
states of California. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York have adopted
laws endinq all smokinq in bars, restaurants, and other public places, as have the nations of
Ireland, New Zealand and Norway,
(f) By reducinq the exposure of vounq people to adult smokino and unhealthy role modelinQ,
elimination of smokinq in public places furthers Minnesota's ooal of reducinq youth smokinQ.
(q) There is no leQal or constitutional Uriqht to smoke," Business owners have no leqal or constitutional
riQht 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 danQerous,
------ -----
Tl1erefore, tile City Council declares tl1at the purpose of this ordinance is to: .
( 1 ) Protect the public health safety and welfare by better insurinq the ability of citizens to
breathe safe and uncontaminated air:
(2) Affirm tl1at the riqht to breathe has pnority over the desire to smoke; and
(3) Protect vulnerable populations Includlnq employees, children, the elderly and those with
chronic health conditions
SEC. 12.80. [RESERVED] DEFINITIONS.
The followinq words and terms, when used in this Division. shall have the followinq meaninqs
unless the context clearly Indicates otherNise,
Bar - a portion of an establishment where a person can purchase and consume alcoholic
beveraqes,
Office - a bUlldinq, structure or area used by the qeneral public or servinq as a place of work at
which principal activities consist of professional. clerical or administrative services, An office includes, but
is not limited to, professional offices offices in financial institutions, business offices. telemarketinq offices
and qovernmental offices
Other Person in Charge - the aqent of the proplietor authorized to perform admlllistrative
direction to and qeneral supervision of tile actIVities within a place of work and public place at any qiven
time,
Place of Work - any enclosed. indoor location at which two or more Individuals perform any type
of a service for consideration of payment under any type of employment relationship, includinq but not
limited to an employment relationship With or for a private corporation, partnership, individual, or
qovernment aqency, TillS term includes any location where two or more individuals qratultously perform
services for which individuals are ordinarily paid, Examples of a place of work include enclosed, indoor
areas of an office, a public conveyance, a factory, a warel1ouse, a hotel or motel, and other locations
where services are performed under an employment relationship, Enclosed, Indoor areas of private
clubs, and rooms used for private meetinqs or social functions, are "places of work" if two or more .
persons actinq under an employment relationship proVide c1eaninq, caterinq, food or beveraqe service,
maintenance or other support services In the location,
Proprietor ~ the party, reqardless of whether tile party is the owner or lessee of the place of work
or public place, who ultimately controls, qoverns or directs the activities within the place of work or public
place, The term "proprietor" may apply to a corporation as well as an individual.
Public Place - any enclosed, indoor area used by the qeneral public or servinq as a place of work,
includinq, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public
conveyances, auditOriums, arenas, meetlllq rooms, common areas of rental apartment buildlnqs, and
educational facilities other than public schools,
Restaurant - a food and beveraqe service establishment, whether the establishment serves
alcoholic or nonalcoholic beveraqes,
Smokinq - the in hallnq, exhallnq or combustion of any ciqarette, clqar, pipe or any other IIqhted
smoklllq eqUipment Smokinq includes carryinq a liqhted ciqarette, ciqar pipe or any other liqhted
smokinq equipment
SEC. 12.81. [RESER\fEQ] PROHIBITIONS.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) no person shall smoke in public places and places of work.
includinq outdoor and bar areas of restaurants,
(b) To ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter public places and places ot work and that persons
entennq such places are not exposed involuntarily to tobacco smoke. smokinq is prohibited within
twenty-five (25) feet of entrances, exits, open windows and ventilation intakes of public places and
places of work,
(c) The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to:
( 1 ) Private residences,
(2) Motor vehicles,
(3) The use of tobacco as part of a traditional Indian spIritual or cultural ceremony,
(4) Sleepinq rooms of hotels and motels which are rented to quests, .
-.. - .----
. SEC. 12.82. [RESERVED] RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS.
The proprietor or other person in charqe of a public place or place of work where smokinq is
prohibited shall:
(a) Post "nonsmokinq" siqns that comply with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota
Rules Part 4620,0500:
(b) Ensure that ashtrays, liqhters and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smokinq is
prohibited; and
(c) Ask any person who smokes in an area where smokinq is prohibited to refrain from smokinq and, if
the person does not refrain from smokinq after beinq asked to do so, ask the person to leave or
use any other means which may be appropriate to obtain compliance.
SEC. 12.83. [RESERVED] RETALIATION PROHIBITED.
No person or employer shall discharqe, refuse to hire. penalize. discriminate aqainst or in any
manner retaliate aqainst any employer, applicant for employment or customer because the employee,
applicant or customer exercises any riqht to a smoke-free environment provided by this ordinance or
other law,
SEC. 12.84. [RESERVED] PRIVATE PROHIBITIONS.
Nothinq in this DIvIsion prevents the proprietor or other person in charqe of any place. indudinq,
without limitation. any residence, motor vehicle or outdoor space, from prohibitinq smokinq in any such
place,
SEC. 12.85. [RES~R\fED] OTHER LAWS.
This Division is intended to complement the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Mmn, Stat.
&&114.411 to 144,17. as amended from time to time. Nothinq in this Division authorizes smokinq in any
. location where smokinq is prohibited or restricted by other laws,
SEC. 12.86. PENALTY.
Violation of any provision of this Division shall be a petty misdemeanor.
SEC. 12.87. SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this Division is held invalid, the remaininq provisions shall be considered severable
and shall be qiven effect to the maximum extent possible.
SEC. 12.88. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Division shall become effective on September 1 , 2004.
Passed and aJopkd this day of .1004.
ATTEST: Mayor
Secretary to the Council
APPROVED:
. City Attorney
..--
.
Smoke-Free Workplaces/Restaurants & Bars Study
Bloomington Advisory Board of Health
2004
Acknowledgments
The Bloomington Advisory l30ard of Health is responsible for studying significant public health
issues and bringing its findings and recommendations to the City Council for consideration. We
extend our appreciation to the City Counci I for the opportun ity to study this important publ ic
health issue. Thanks to Bloomington's business and community leaders, local health
organizations. and tobacco advocacy groups for pat1icipating in our informational interviews and
providing us with valuable information and different perspectives. We are grateful to
representatives from Duluth, Olmsted County, and Eden Prairie for participating in a panel
discussion and sharing "'lessons learned" from their experience in proposing local smoking bans.
Appreciation is extended to Diann Kirby for facilitating the panel discussion. Thanks also to
I3loomington Publ ic Health stall' who gathered in formation, analyzed studies, made
presentations, and wrote the final report.
. Bloomington Advisory Board of Health Members
Carolyn Anderson
Lynnette l3uckley, a.T.
Anne Cassens, R.N,
Clinard Phibbs, M.D.
J. Ole Tranby*
Joseph Yenkosky, Ph.D., Chair
Karen Zcleznak, Staff
Report written and prepared by Rosalind Johnson, M.P.H., Eileen O'Connell, M.A., L.A,D.C.,
Elizabeth Songalia, M.P.H.. Karen Zeleznak, M.P.II., and Diane Anderson.
*EYL'lIsed absencefi'DIn/he May 25, ]()()4, A dv is 0/:1' Board (){ffealth meeting when smoking ban recummendatiuns
were proposed and approved
.
I
Table of Contents .
A c know I eJgme n ts ..........................................,..,................................................. I
Executive SUlnnlurv ............ .................. '............. ..................., ................"". ....... I
Study Findings ............. ................ ............., ...................... ................. ......... I
Recommendations ..... .................. ..............', ,................... ...................,... ... .,
-'
13ackground ........'.', .........'........ ..........", ............... ..................... .......................... 4
Advisory Board of Health Study Charge ................................................... 4
Study Methods ................. ................' ............. ..................... .................."". 4
Publ ic Health' s Smoke-F ree \\i orkplaces/Rest8urants and
13a rs Act i v it i es .............,........"""........................................................... 5
Current Smoking Status or Bloomington Workplaces/Restaurants.
and Bars ..,.. ...........""" ................. ................... ........................ .............. ::>
Bloomington Smoking and lleahh Data ..............,..................................... 6
I. iterature Rev iew
Background on Smuk ing and Secondhand Smoke ....................... ............. 7
Health Effects of Secondhand Smuke on Adults and Children ................. 7
Health Effects (11" Secondhand Smoke on Employees and Customers ....... 7
Economic Impact of Smoke-free Regulations on Restaurants .
and 13 a rs . ' . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .... .. .. .. .. .. 8
Trends Regarding Minnesota and National Smoke-free Policies .............. 9
Majority of Minncsotans Prefer Sll1okc-f'ree Public Places ....................... q
The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules and Enforcement ........................... II
Summary of Key Informant Interviews ........,..................................................... 12
Lessons Learned - Panel Discussion Meeting ..................................................., 14
Best Practices of a Clean Indoor Air Ordinancc ................................................. 17
Recommendations and Conc I usion:o. ........ ..................... ........................ .........,.... 18
References........ .................,... ....,...........".. .................... .......................... ............ 2U
^ prcn d i ccs .............................................................................................,............ 24
A. Smoke-tj'ee Dining Guide t\X Bloomington. March 2004
B. Fundamentals ofCIc~ll1 Indoor Air Policy
e
i
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bloomington Advisory Board of Health and the Public Health Division have a long history
of working on tobacco control initiatives to prevent tobacco use by youth, reduce illegal sales of
tobacco products to underage teens, help adults quit smoking, and reduce the public's exposure
to secondhand smoke. Many local strategies have been used to reduce secondhand smoke
exposure including public education, media campaigns, workshops, consultation with worksites
and restaurants, and the adoption of smoke-free policies in all City-owned buildings and
vehicles. entrances, and certain park properties.
In February 2004. the Bloomington City Council requested the Advisory Board of Health study
the issue of requiring bars and restaurants in the community to be smoke-free. The Advisory
Board of Health held monthly study sessions from March to June.
The goals of the study were:
l. To gain a better understanding of current trends, activities, and research concerning smoke-
free workplace policies in restaurants and bars; and
") To develop recommendations for the City Council's consideration.
"--.
During this tour-month period, several methods were used to gather data and information
includ ing:
. Review of the Public Health Divisions's activities related to smoke-free
. workplaces/restaurants and bars
. Updating the list of Bloomington's smoke-free restaurants and bars
. Review of local health data about tobacco, health risks, and chronic disease
. Literature review of scientific studies about the health impact of secondhand smoke,
economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants and hal'S and trends regarding smoking bans
and publ ic attitudes
. Interviews with representatives from voluntary and health care organizations, businesses, and
the hospitality industry about their perspectives and experience regarding smoking bans
. Meeting with representatives from other Minnesota cities who have already proposed
smoking bans to hear about their experiences and "lessons learned"
. Review of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) rules and regulations
Study Findings
The Advisory Board of llealth identified the tollowing as key study tindings:
l. Bloomington has a long history of implementing proactive tobacco prevention initiatives
and has promoted the voluntary adoption of smoke-free policies in workplaces and
restaurants.
2. The medical research demonstrating the negative health effects of secondhand smoke is
extensive and growing.
.
~
~l. There is nu sale Icvelul'exposure to tobacco smuke.I' .
[;, According tu a Hennepin County population health study: 86 perccnt of Gloomington
adults have one ur more risk factors 1'01' heart disease. Based on a recent CDC
recommendation. peupk \\ith heart disease risk 1~1Ctors should avoid smoky
env ironments. I
c. Some populations ~lre especially at risk fur problems caused by secondhand smoke
such as inl~1l1ts. chi Idrcn. and others with chronic diseases (e ,g.. asthma).
d. Employees in \vorkplaces that permit smoking arc at increased risk for various health
problems.' c,
~ The government" s 1'0 Ie of protecting the pub! ic' s health inc ludes the responsibi lity to
.L
implement coml11LlI1ity-wide measures to improve the health of its residents (c.g.. Cood
safety. water sanitation. childhood immunization requirements).
a. Several cities in the metropolitan ~lrea and C:ireater Minnesota are proposing smoke-
free ordinances or currently studying the isslle.
h. The number or' city and state snwkc-free workplace/restaurant and bar ordinances is
increasing across the United States,
-t. Numerous well-researched studies report either no impact or a positive economic imp8ct to
restaurants and bms in communities that adopt smuke- free workplace ordi nances.7.li
). F mployees and customers of restaUr8nts and bms are not protected from secondhand smoke
under the rules or the 1975 Minnesota C lean Indoor Air Act (Me! AA). .
6. Recent polls conducted in Minnesota and rVlinneapolis sho\v broad public suppoli for
implementing smoking bans in public places. including restaurants :md bars,
Recommendations
At the Advisory Board of Health meeting on May 25. 2004. the following recommendations
\vere made based on the prem i se that all employees and customers should be protected li'om
secondhand smoke exposllre and be 8hle tn work or dine in a smoke-fh~e environment.
The Advisnry B08rd ol'llealth recommends the following:
I. Ban smoking city-vvide in the following areas:
. workplaces. including restaurants and hal'S (indoor and outdoor)
. public places. including outdoor bars and eating areas
. entrances (within 25 reel) to \\orkplaees and public places
') Continue to allL)\\' hotels and motels to designate guest rooms as smoking and non-
-,
smoking as provided under the Minnesota Clean! ndoor Air Act.
These study findings and recommendations will he presented to the Bloomington City Council
for consiJer8tion at the June 28. 2004. study meeting.
.
"
. BACKGROUND
The City of Bloomington and Bloomington Public Health have a long history of being proactive
in tobacco prevention effOlis and promoting smoke-free environments. In the early] 990'5, the
City Council passed a local ordinance making it more difficult for underage youth to purchase
tobacco products. [n 1992, thc City of Bloomington adopted a smoke-free policy for all City
buildings and City-owned licensed vehicles. In 200 I, the City passed an ordinance banning the
use of tobacco at Bush Lake Beach, the Family Aquatic Center. and all City-owned athlctic
fields during youth athletic events. The City also adopted a 25-foot smoke-free zone around all
city building entrances.
Advisory Board of Health Study Charge
In February 2004, the Bloomington City Council requested that the Advisory Board of Health
study the issue of requiring bars and restaurants in the community to be smoke-free. The goals
of the study were to ( I ) gain a better understanding of the currcnt trends, activities, and research
concerning smoke-free workplace policies in restaurants and bars and (2) develop
recommendations for the City Council's consideration. The Advisory Board of Health held
monthly study sessions from March to June.
Study Methods
. The Advisory Board of Health study included the following:
I. A review of health data specific to Bloomington citizens aged 18 and older peltaining to
tobacco use and chronic diseases
'1 A I iterature rev iew assessing secondhand smoke and its health effects on populations, the
"-.
economic impact of smoke- free regulations on restaurants and bars, state and national
smoke-free policy trends, and public attitudes regarding smoke-free public places. Because
ofthe volume of published information available on this topic, the review was limited to the
most current and scicntifically-based research
3. Information about smoke-free workplace activities in metropolitan communities and Greater
Minnesota
4. An updated listing of Bloomington's smoke-free bars and restaurants
5. Key informant interviews with local business leaders who would be affected by a smoke-free
workplace/restaurant and bar ban and organizations that have worked on community smoke-
free workplace bans
6, ^ panel discussion on May 6, 2004, at Bloomington Civic Plaza with representatives from
Duluth, Olmsted County, and Eden Prairie to hear about their experiences and "lessons
learned" in proposing a smoke-free tobacco ordinance
.
4
Public Health's Smoke-Free \Vorkplaces/Restaurants and Bars Activities .
[n the past ten years, Gloum i ngton Public Health has conducted many activ ities to promote
vt'lluntar) adoption of smoke-free restaurant ~lIld bar policies and helped residents locatc smoke-
ti'ec eali ng estab I ishlllents. These acti v ilics inc luded:
. I n 1993, thc Smoke- Free Fating Fstabl ishment Recognition Program was launched by the
Rloolllington I kart & Health Program, Advisory Board of I !ealth. and City of Bloomington,
Restaurants were recognized during a City Councilmecting, with the mayor and the
/\dvisory Board uf Health chair presenting lhe owner or tmmager "vith a special recognition
pial] lie. In 1994, approximately 30 perccnt () f Bloomington restaurants were smoke-II'cc. In
reccnt years the recogn ition plaque has been presented directly to the restaurant's
manager/owner.
. Bloomington's Smoke- Free Dining (iu ide is updated periodica Ily and is ava i lable on the
City's Web site. at \\\\ \\ .tricit\'partlll.Ts.orL'. and in print form.
. Consultation and educational matcrials on how to implement a smoke-free policy have been
provided to interested restaurants and \\orkplaces.
. Bloomington's smoke-free restaurants havc been promoted through stories and press releases
in the Sun Current. City ncwsletters, cahle TV. paid advertising. and other print pieces.
. Surveys and ll)(us groups with restaurant o\vners and managcrs have been conducted to
delermine smoking status and level of interest in adopting a smoke-free policy.
Current Smoking Status of Bloomington Workplaces/Restaurants and Bars
There is no Bloomington-specific data on the percent of workplaces that are smoke-free. In a e
I c)9C) survey. approximately two-th i rds (64 percent) of Minnesota' s emp loyed popu Iation
reported that their workplace had an indoor no-smoking policy. The remaining une-third
indicated that they either did not have an official \vorkplace policy or had a policy that did not
cumpletely elil1l i nate exposure to secondhand smoke, II Data from the 2000 U. S. Census was
analyzed for trends within smoke-hce workplace policies for different occupational groups, In
I qt)C), over three-fourths of white collar workers \vere covered by smoke-free policies. while less
than ha I r (.:1.3 percent) of the nation's 6.6 mi II ion Cood preparation and service occupation
workers benefited from this protectiun."
According to Hloomingt0n's Licensing Department and the Health Division:
. There are over 250 estahlishments that serve fC)(ll[ and are open to the public. including
restaurants, bar/restaurants, co nee shops, food court vendors. and fast food places.
. Eighty-three ofthcse tl.:wd establishments have a liquor. wine, and/or beer license.
. Excluding the Mall of America (rvIOA)' 68 or Rloomington's restaurants have been
identified as smoke-free. (See Appendix A: Smoke-free Dining Guidc for Bloomington.)
Many of these are fast ftlod cha in restaurants such as McDonalds, Subway. B urger King.
Wendy's. and Kentucky Fried Chicken and have multiple locations in Bloomington. Coffee
shops (c,g,. Starbucks. Caribou) are generally smoke-free.
. rive private clubs allow smok ing. These are A merican Legion Post 550. Minnesota Valle)
Country Club. Knights of Columbus. VFW Post 1296, and Eagles 3208.
. In the Mall of America, 8 restaur:J1lts, several coffee shops (e.g.. Caribou. Cinnabon). and
three food courts with shared dining are smoke-tl.cc.
. Eleven MOA restaurants or bar/restaunlnts allel\V' smoking. e
:;
-.-.---..-
. Bloomington Smoking and Health Data
The Survey of the Health of Adults, the Population, and the Environment (SHAPE) is an
ongoing health surveillancc project that monitors the health of adults in Hennepin County.
SHAPE was conducted in 1998 and 2002. The 2002 survey was conducted in collaboration with
Bloomington Public Health. The SHAPE 2002 data allow local-level analyses of key health
indicators, providing public health officials and policymakers an opportunity to identify
cmcrgll1g Issues.
In Bloomington. 17 percent of adults (18 and older) smoke regularly and 83 percent are non-
smokers.J This smoking rate is slightly lower than the state rate of 18 percent.II'
The leading risk factors for hear1 disease are overweight. physical inactivity, smoking, diabetes,
and high blood pressure (hypertension ).17 Table I shows the percentages of Bloomington
residents ages 18 and older that have 0-5 of these risk factors for heart disease. According to the
SHAPE survey, 86 percent of Bloomington adults have one or more risk factors for heart
disease.)
Table 1: Percent of Bloomington Residents
with Risk Factors for Heart Disease
o factors ]4.1%
I factor 35.6%
. :. factors 33,5'%
3 tac tors 14.6%
4 factors 1.9%
5 factors 0.3%
,\'ource: SHAPE 2001
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that people at risk of
coronary heart disease (CHD) or with known coronary artery disease should avoid all indoor
environments that permit smoking.4 This recommendation is based on substantial research
indicating that exposure to tobacco smoke, even at low doses, greatly increases the risks of hcm1
attack and CI-ID.
Table 2: Percent of Bloomin ton residents who re art chronic disease
Asthma ]3.5%
I--leart disease or all" illa 7.1'7'0
Source: SIIAPE 2002
Over [3 percent of Bloomington adults have been diagnosed with asthma and 7 percent have
been diagnosed with heart disease or angina.! Secondhand smoke is strongly linked to the
development or asthma in young children and is also a clearly identified ilTitant which can
precipitate asthma attacks in children and adults who have already developed asthma. IS,]'!
. Exposure to secondhand smoke also increases the risk of fatal and non-fatal heart disease.D)
6
LITERATURE REVIEW .
Background on Smuking and Secundhand Smoke
Secondhand smoke. also known as environmental tobacco smoke (FTS), is a complex chcmical
mixture emitted by a lit tobacco product or exhaled by a smoker. Secondhand slTIoke contains
thousands of chemicals, including morc than 50 known cancer-causing agents and 200 known
poisons. In 1992 the US Environmental Protection Agency published a major assessment of the
respiratory hcalth risks of exposure to secondhand smoke.1 ~ Secondhand smoke is a h U1llan lung
ulrcinogen. responsible tl.)r approximatcl) 3.0UO lung cancer deaths annually among U.S.
nonsmokers." Secondhand smokc has been classitied as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's
carcinogen assessment guidelines (other C:lrcinogens on this list are asbestos and radon), This
class i ticatinn is reserved for those compounds or mi:durcs that have been shown to cause cancer
in humans. based on studies in human populations.ls
Numemus authorities have determined that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health.
These authorities include the llS Fnvirunment<ll Protection Agency. the World Health
Organization, the American Medical Associatiun. the American Lung Association. the American
Cancer Association. the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and IIealth, the National
Academy 01' Sciences, the U .S. Occuration~d Safety and Health Administration, and lhe Oflice
or lhe l i.S. Surgeon General.
Health F:ffects of Secondhand Smokc on Adults and Children
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.12 Scientific and medical literature has .
CUll firmed that exposure to secondhand smoke causes many illnesses ill nonsmokers incl ud ing:
. cancer (lung. nasal sinus. and possibly uthers )cl
. heart disease'] 'I
. asthma.22 and
. low birth weight.'1
Int:lt1ts and ch i I drcn arc part icularly vulnerable lo sec~)ndhand smoke. which causes:
. respi ratory tract infections (chest colds. si n usi tis, bronchitis, and pnellmon ia )clc)
. asthma (inc I uding more frequent c:\acerbations and more severe symptoms )21 2)
. middle ear infections (often necessitating surgery to insert ear tubes) 'I 'l
. decreased lung function (coughing. wheezing, increased mucus production)2>
. and possibly adult cancers (leukemia, Iymphoma).-"
Secondhand smoke is also linked to sudden infant death syndrome (independent ofbi11h weight
and gestational age). c),:~
Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Emplo)'ccs and Customers
^ revie'v\ of research on restaurant employees fOllnd that secondhand smoke is a significant
occupational health hazard for food-service workers.' Hospitality employees working in settings
with no restrictions on customer smoking :lre exposed to secondhand smoke on a regular basis at .
7
. work. A study 0 f cmployces found that workers in businesses that permit customer smoking
have higher levels of cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) in their saliva and repOli a higher
prevalence of respiratory and irritation symptoms than employees in sllloke-li'ee workplaces.c'
Studies havc shown that smoke-free workplaces not only protect non-smokers from sccondhand
smokc, they also encourage smokers to quit or to rcduce their consumption,I'D'
A recent study conducted in a Minnesota casino found that non-smoking casino patrons had
increased levels ofa tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in their urine following a 4-hour visit to
the casino. These findings demonstrate that exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke in a
public. commercial sctting results in increased levels of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogcn in
these individuals.27
Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Regulations on Restaurants and Bars
Extensive research has been conducted on the economic effects of smoke-free regulations on
restaurant and bar revenucs. When reviewing this research, it is important to consider study
methodology, funding source, and publication venue. Thc best studies for examining economic
effects of smoke- free regulations on restaurant and/or bar revenues look at hard data such as
l1lunicipaltax receipts and/or employment statistics.
Studies funded by the tobacco industry have Llsed less rigorous methodology including anecdotal
information and non-representative surveys of restaurant/bar proprietors and patrons. For
. instance, surveys may indicate that restaurant/bar owners perceive an economic downturn, but
only sales tax receipts collected over at least a one-year period can tell the real story.
A review of 97 studies that made statements about economic impact found that 100 percent of
well-designed studies reported no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar
laws on sales or employment. The review also found that all of the studies concluding a negative
impact were supportcd by the tobacco industry-94 percent of the tobacco-industry-supported
studies found a negative economic impact compared to none of the non-industry-supported
stud ies.7 Other research findings:
. In a study comparing a diverse group of cities and counties, municipalities with
ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars (e.g., Aspen and Telluride,
Colorado, Sacramento and Palo Alto, California) showed no decrease in revenues
compared to municipalities with no such ordinances (e,g., Vail and Steamboat Springs,
Colorado, Mountain View and Fresno, California).R
. Sales tax data fj'om 81 localities in 6 states consistently demonstrate that ordinances
restricting smoking in restaurants have no effect on revenues."
. A study of 3 states and 6 cities found that sl11okc-ti-ee ordinances do not appear to
adversely affect, and may increase, tourist business,lo
. A study analyzing sales-tax and mixed-beverage-tax data for 12 years preceding and I
. year following implemcntation of a smoking ban in EI Paso. Texas found that no
8
statistically significant changes in rest~lurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking .
han took effect. II
. [n a study cLlmparing 5 counties \\ ith restaurant smoking ordinances and 5 similar
counties ,vith no such ordinances. no :Jdverse economic effects were found on the
restaurant industry. This sludy was conducted in NClIth Carolina. the number one
lobaeco-produe i ng stilte in the ll.S. J'
. One yem tIll 10\\ ing implemenlatil H1 of a smoki ng ban in New York City. husiness
receipts for restaurants and hal'S have increased. employment has risen. virlually' all
estab Ii shments are comply ing \v ith the Imv. and the numher of new I iq uor licenses has
increased. The vast majorit:-/ oi' New Yorkers support the law and say they are more
likely to patronize bars and restauranL now that they are smoke-free."
Trends Regarding Minnesota and National Smokc-Free Policies
In Minnesota. smoke-free ordinances have been enacted in Duluth. Cloquet. Moose Lake. and
Olmsted Counly. Cities that h8ve recently proposed smoke-free \vorkplacc or rest8urants and
bars ordin8nces are Minneapolis. St. PauL Moorhead and Bemidji. Several other Minnesota
c itics 8re 81so study ing this issue. One-qu8rter of Minnesota restauranls ha ve vo luntari Iy gone
smoke-free.
/\Itngether. there are 291 municipalities, in 25 slales. with 100 percent smoke-free coverage in at e
least one of the three main categories (workplaces. reslaurants, and bars). Since S0111e h8ve 100
percent sl11oke- f"rec coverage in more than one category, the numbers are not mutually
exclu:-.ive/
As of April 2004. nine states (California. Connecticut Delaware. Florida. Idaho, Maine. New
York. South Dakota. lItah) had p8sscd bws prohibiting smoking in at least one c8tegory
(workplaces. rcsl8ur~lIltS. or bars ).:: In Massac husetts. a b ill to ban indoor smoki ng in all
wnrkplaces-inc Iud i ng bms and restauranls is aW8iting the Governor's signature.'" Noll': 1/1
.Tllnt' }()()-I. {his hi!! mls signed ill/o !0l1'.
As or April 2004. 92.::1 mill ion Americans (::12.8 percent of the population) are covered by 100
percenl snlllke- free \-vorkplace and/or restaurant and/or bar laws.""
Majority of Minncsotans Prefer Smoke-Free Public Places
A Market Strategies survey commissioned by the Minnesot8 Smoke-Free Coalition in August
2002 t'L)und that 79 percent of Minnesota volers would suppOIi a bw requiring smoke-free
\\ urkpbces. publ ic bu i Idings. and reslaur8nts. The survey found that suppoti transcends party
and ideo lugieal di fferenees. with a majority () i' se If-identified Republ ieans. Democrats. and
I ndcpendents strungly supporting suc h legislalion.; I
A November 200 I poll by 1-1 ill Research Cunsultanls found that 78 percent of Minnesotans
(including 5 I percent of smokers) supported a Ilevv local law that would make all workplaces .
l)
. 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. This survey of ],104 adults also
found that 76 percent (55 percent of smokers) agreed that non-smokers' rights come first when
discussing smoke in public indoor places.c
Other Minnesota entities (Duluth, Olmsted County) have conducted local surveys to determine
the level of public support for a smoking workplace ban, including bars and restaurants. All
have reached the same conclusion: the majority of their residents support smoking bans in
workplaces and/or restaurants and bars. On May 27, 2004, the Minneapolis Star Tribune
reported the following findings from a random survey of 600 registered voters conducted during
May: 11
. Nearly 75 percent of Minneapolis residents favor a proposed smoking ban in most indoor
public places. Twenty-tive percent said they would oppose it; 3 percent were undecided.
. Four out oftive respondents said they think exposure to secondhand smoke is a moderate to
serious health hazard and the right of customers and employees to breathe clean air
outweighs the rights of smokers.
. Fifty percent of thc 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 be more likely to patronize
restaurants and bars if there were a smoking ban, Eight percent said they would be apt to
visit a non-smoking establishment less often if there were a smoking ban.
. This survey was conducted by the Mellman Group. sponsored by Clean Air Minneapolis and the
Hennepin Medical Society, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
A survey of 1,224 residents of Olmsted County, conducted before a smoke-free ordinance was
enacted, found that 72 percent of respondents said they would choose a smoke-free restaurant
over one where smoking is permitted. Seventy percent said they would select a smoke-free bar
over one where smoking is permitted. The majority of respondents said they would not dine out
or visit bars or nightclubs more often or less often iratI restaurants, bars, and nightclubs were
smoke- free. H
.
10
MINNESOTA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT RULES AND ENFORCEMF,NT .
REGARDING WORKPLACES, RFSTAUR\NTS, AND BARS
In 1975. the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) was enacted,F This landmark legislation
was passed to protect thc public's health by restricting smoking in rublic places and workplaccs,
[n 1975, secondhand smoke Vias thought uf ~lS more of an annoyance than a health risk. Toelay
therc are hundreds or studies .:me! reports documcnting the harmrul health erfects of secondhand
smoke.
Since 1975. some of the MCIAA rules have heen amended. The latest revision vvas in 2002. and
includes nev\ requirements 1'01' offices. bctories. warehouses. and similar workplaces. The new
rules np longer allow cmployees to smoke at workstations although smoking is allO\ved in some
areas (e.g" private enclosed onicc occupied by one person with door closed and strict ventilation
requirements). ico Increasingly. more on~ce bu i Id ings and other workplaces arc voluntari Iy going
smoke-rree, The MCIAA does not allow smoking at ~lll in public schools (K-12). day cares. or
health care bcilitics.
No signiticant changes have occurred \\ith the MC1AA regarding restaurants and bars. The
basic requirements are:
. Restaurants must des ignatc at least ~o percent of the total scati ng capacity as nonsmok i ng
. Bars must follow restaurant seating requirements unless the bar has a limited food license
and seating capacity for 50 people or fewer. [f so, the whole bar may be designated as .
smoking perm itted.
. Nonsmoking and smoking-permitted seating must be separated by one of the following:
A four-foot-wide space:
- A physical barrier 50 inches or more in height, or
- Outdoor (fresh) air ventilation of notlcss than 15 cubic feet per minute per person (this is
not the same as ncw ventilation requirements 1'01' offices, factories, warehouses. or similar
workplaces )."
In Bloomington. starr rrom the Environmental Health Division cnfi.1rce the MCIAA rules.
Environmental Hcalth stOlfI' check to see if local bars and restaurants are in compliance \\ ith the
MC1AA when they do their food safety inspections. which are done four times a year.
En forcement of the MCI AA in other workplaces (oftlces. warehouses, and simi lar workplaces) is
"complaint based." meaning that i r a complaint comes to the Minncsota Department of Health or
to the Bloomington Environmentalllealth Division. staff will go out and assess the situation and
help them come into compliance. Warnings arc given irthere is a violation with corrections
noted. If a workplace does not make correctiuns in a ti mely manner. an adm in istrative penalty
order (i.e.. fine) may be given. although this rarely happens in Minnesota andncver has
happened in Bloomington.
e
II
. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
In April 2004, intcrviews were conducted with several individuals to determine opportunities and
barriers in passing a local smoke-li'ee workplace ordinance. Bloomington Public Health staff
and Advisory Board of llealth members conducted the intcrviews. These interviews were
('onducted he/ore the lvlinncapolis and Sr. Pmd City Councils proposed smoke:{ree
11'orkplace/restaurant and bar ordinances. The following were interviewed:
Jill Birnbaum, Director of Advocacy, American Heart Association, Greater Midwest
Affiliate
Bonnie Carlson, President and CEO, Bloomington Convention & Visitors Bureau
Don Eslingcr, Pastor, Normandale I-Iylands United Methodist Church, member of
Bloomington Ministerial Association
Jeremy Ilanson, Public Policy Director, Minncsota Smoke-foree Coalition
Ncil Pctcrson, Executive Director, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
Kevin Sawatsky, General Manager, Ramada Inn Airport & Thunderbird Convention Center
Janel Waldock, Community Policy Projcct Manager, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota
Jeannc Wcigum, President, Association for Nonsmokers, Minnesota
Informational Interview Key Findings
. All persons interviewed are very interested in this issue and the outcomes of this study.
. . Bloomington is viewed as a progressive community that supports tobacco prevention
initiatives. Many believe that if Bloomington enacts a smoke-free workplace/restaurant and
bar ordinance, other metro communities will do likcwise.
. On ([ personal level, all of those interviewed undcrstand the relationship between secondhand
smoke and negative health effects, arc aware of the widespread adoption of smoking bans in
other cities/states, and appreciate smoke-free environments,
. Most of those interviewed believe that the state will not enact a smoking ban until several
communities have done so. "Jf local government doesn't do it, it won't happen,"
. Some interviewees may not publicly support a local ban; but when given a choice between a
broad workplace smoking ban, including restaurants and bars, and a narrower restaurant and
bar-only smoking ban, all interviewees favored a broader workplace smoking ban to avoid
singling out a particular category of business.
. The focus ofa local smoking ban must remain on "protecting the public's health."
. The success factors identified in gaining support for a local ban were (] ) positioning this
issue as one the vast majority ofthe public supports and (2) engaging citizen support in the
process.
.
12
. Ihe Illain concerns or barriers in passing a local smoke-free ordinance were identilied [IS (1) .
the perception hy hote Is. rest,lllr<l1ltS. and l:spee ially bar ow ners that they ,vould "lose
bu~iness"' to other cOlllmunities th,1t allow smoking and (2) the lack of loealleadership or the
"political ,viII" to pass an ordinance.
. There is some concern by the hospitality industry that they may lose convention business to
rvl i nneapolis and SL Paul if those cities allnw smoking in restaurants and bars.
. A ban ~)n smoking in the workplace should get strong support from local church leaders and
their Illembersh i p because the re I i gious eomm unity genera Ily discourages smoking.
. The organintions that have \\urked with (lther communities supporting smoking bans
identified dilTercnt ways the tobacco industry has organized opposition in the communities
proposing bans, Communities should be prepared for this.
. Several local voluntary health organiJati()ns and health care organizations me willing to
provide support and assistance tu comlllunities proposing smoke-free workplace ordinances.
.
.
] ,
~,
. LESSONS LEARNED - PANEL DISCUSSION MEETING
The Advisory Board ofllealth hosted a panel discussion on May 6,2004 at Bloomington Civic
Plaza with representatives (I'om Duluth. Olmsted County, and Edcn Prairie to hear about their
cxperiences and "lessons learned" in proposing smoke-free restaurant and bar ordinances.
Panelists: Gary Eckenberg (fonncr Duluth City Council Member and current Deputy
Administrator of St. Louis County), Pat McKone (Executive Director, Greater Minnesota
American Lung Association), Jean Michels (former Olmsted County Commissioner), .Ian
Mosman (Eden Prairie City Council Member). Diann Kirby, Moderator (Communications
Administrator. City of Bloomington)
Background Smoking Ban Ordinances in Duluth, Eden Prairie, and Olmsted County
Duluth - In 2000, Duluth passed a smoking ban in restaurants and bars that allowed some
exemptions (e.g, hardship, smoking at certain times). Since then thc ordinance has changed
twice. Currently, smoking is not allowed in restaurants. [r restaurants with I iquor licenses meet
celiain requirements including a separate room separately ventilated to the outside, and no one
under 18 is allowed to enter the roOI11, smoking is permitted. The ordinance does not pertain to
private clubs. This summer, a petition drive is being conducted with the intent of placing a more
comprehensive smoke-free workplace proposal on a publ ic ballot this fall.
Eden Prairie In 2002, a workplace smoking ban was proposed and defeated.
. Olmsted County - In 200 I, the county passed a smoking ban in all indoor areas and entrances in
restaurants. but allows smoking in bars and private clubs.
What arc the lessons learned about moving forward with a smoking ban?
Eden Prairie:
. Need to focus on the health issue, not the economic issue.
. Surveying the citizens would have been very helpful; the biggest opposition was from three
businesses that threatened to leave.
. Do it right away (don't draw out the process).
. Many private businesses arc going smoke-free because of lawsuit concerns.
. Many employers view employees of bars and restaurants as temporary workers.
. Supporters need to be "out there" in the community.
Duluth:
. Keep it simple; focus on secondhand smoke as a public health issue.
. Government's role is to protect the public if the private sector will not.
. Avoid strategies to delay actions (i.e., setting up more task forces to study issue).
. Organized grassroots efforts are very important; make sure the public health and medical
community are involved.
. Recommend no exemptions, exceptions, or compromises.
. All employees should have equal protection from secondhand smoke.
. . Think like the opposition; make sure there are rebuttals.
14
Olmskd Count)': .
. Need lots of momentum to pass iln ordinance.
. Smoking bans lake lols of work and partners are needed.
\Vhat are you,' recommendations for a community exploring smoking hans'?
. Educate lucal offie in Is about the issue.
. Be prepared for the tobacco industry to he an inlluetlCe in the community.
. Need to have at least two champiolls.
. Keep the educational materials brief. ullderstandable. and use graphics.
. \A/ork ,,\,ith public relations and communications statl.
. I fpossible. survey citizens about their attitudes regarding smoking bans.
\Vas a survey done'!
Duluth - Several surveys were conducted: they were helpful in showing strong public support lor
a smoking. ban.
[den Prairie - Two elected otTicials did an informal survey urthe public.
Olmsted County -The newspaper did a survey th~lt \vas helprul.
A,'e you measuring economic impact of the ordinance'! If so. what has been the economic
impact?
Duluth: The city is tracking sales ta:\ rnenues from restaurants and bars. A smoking ban .
ordinance passed in 2000. but was not implemented until 200 I.
. 2002 - :; percent increase in s:Jlcs
. 2003 - economically tbt no losses. no gains
. 2004 . l7 percent Increase in sales
Economic losses to businesses have not occurred as a result of the smoke-free ordinance. Nev.v
restaurants are opening. Duluth panelist stated that arguing the economics ofsll1oke-free
environments is a "no win" issue \vhen considering an ordinance. One negative economic story
outweighs all the oqjectiv.e data.
Olmsted County: The panelist did not have access to this infl,rmation (she is no longer a county
commissioner).
[den Prairie: (The ordinance did not pass,) There were a few large businesses that were strongly
opposed to an ordinance: [It least one of them is no longer in business.
What are the successes in your cOllullunity with tobacco issues?
Olmsted County:
. Restaurants are smnkc-fi-ee: also hope that bars and workplaces go smoke-free.
. {{estaurant workers union supported the ordiwlllce.
Duluth:
. "The owner of one restalll'ant v.vas very angry initially about the ordinance but called and
apologized later ]'(.11' his opposition."
.
I:'
-- ,,-
. . "It's a political winner": 82 percent of Minnesotans are nonsmokers and local polls show
overwhelming community support on this issue; in the upcoming referendum I ,000 people
requested lawn signs tu show support for a stricter smoking ban.
. Restaurant workers called and supported amendment.
. "The guy who brought the smoking ban" maintained his city council seat even when sume
were campaigning against him,
Eden Prairie:
. They used it as an oPPOliunity for educating people, especially youth.
. Tobacco products are no lungeI' far sale in municipal liquor stores.
. They passed a smoking ban in city-owned parks, vehicles, and facilities.
. There is an ongoing task farce that is working on a recognition program for restaurants that
are smoke-free.
.
.
16
BEST PRACTICES OF A CLEAN INDOOR AIR ORDINANCE .
During recent years. several states and man} cities have enacted city-wide smoking: bans in
workplaces and/or restaurants and bars. Ikln\\' is a partial list ol~"best practices" for the
development of clean indoor air ordinances cullected from experienced organizations such as the
American Cancer Society. American lIeart Association. American Lung Association. and others.
Some ofthese ubest practiccs" \Vcre a Iso i dcnt i fled and discussed duri ng our panel discussion
meet i ng he Id \\ ith representatives from 1vI innesuta communities \'..-ho have proposed and/or
imp lemented smok ing: bans.
1\.('('/1 {he ordil1l1n(.'c simp/!!: IIse C/l!lIF dejinilio/lsjiJ/' 1l'hol !)/oces lIl'C included in the smoking
hllll,
\Vell-delincd terms arc critical to successful interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of
an ordinance.
iiy 10 (/l'oid u//Oll'ing cxcmpliunsfin' hlll'd\/1I}7 l'OSCS llm! c('l'{((inlypes oj'hllsincsses,
During the first year of Duluth's ordinance. exemptions were allowed t<Jr "hardship" cases !(x
restaurants \vithout liquor licenses. There are Illan) reasons \vhy restaurants and bars do not
sllcceed. There arc frequent changes in the restaurant industry (e.g.. change of ownership.
relocation) so it is difficult to determine why certain businesses do well and others t~lil. In
Duluth. II ve businesses init iall) II led uhardsh i p" cases, Threc later surrendered their "hardsh i p"
cases because patrons complained about the smoking in these businesses. Duluth eliminated this
e~emption five months alkr the ordinance \vas passed. Exemptions can weaken an ordinance
[Ind create a lot of confusion. .
!)/UL'L'S Ihul aFe des('.{lIal('d us sllloke~fi'L'L' should remain sl1loke~/i'ee 01 all lil11!!s, /lO{ nn~\j;n'
('cUoin hOllrs or dol'S,
One of Dul LIth' s early ordinances allowed smoking later in the evening if there \vere no children
present in the restaurant. Feedback from empluyees and the public was that this policy was
confusing and difficult to implement.
.-11'oid {he "ucco/III/lOdal iun .. ulld n:lI{i/u{io!7 O/l/Hood7 p/'Ol/Io/cd by Ihe lobacco illdllSl7:1',
The tobacco companies have developed "accommodation" programs (i.e., non-smokers and
smokers should be ab Ie to co-exist in the same smoky p lacc), Sometimes "accommodation H is
achieved simply by posting signs on the doors of businesses making people aware that smoking
is allowed. More recently, the tobacco industry h3s been promoting: the use of newer ventilation
systems in bars and restaurants. The American SL)c1ety of I [eating. Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. Inc. (ASHRAC) is an independent. professional organization
responsible t~Jr establishing ventilatiUll guidelines. Conclusions reached by ASHRAC's Standing
Standard Project Committee 62 regarding ventilation in smoking permitted areas only address
comfort (i.e. odor control) and do not claim to eliminate the health risks of environmental
tobacco smoke (i.e.. secondhand smoke) since there are no ventilation systems that ean eliminate
secondhand smoke comp letel)'.'
(See Appendix 13: Fundamentals of Clean Induor Air Policy)
.
]]
-----------.--
. RECOMMENDATIONS
At the Advisory Board of Health meeting on May 25, 2004, the following recommendations
were made based on the premise that all employees and customers should be protected from
secondhand smoke exposure and he able to work or dine in a smoke-free environment.
The Advisory Board of Health recommends the following:
I. Ban smoking city-wide in the following areas:
. workplaces, inc luding restaurants and bars (indoor and outdoor)
. public places, including outdoor bars and eating areas
. entrances (within 25 feet) to workplaces and public places
2. Continue to allow hotels and motels to designate guest rooms as smoking and non-smoking
as provided under the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.
These study findings and recommendations will be presented to the Bloomington City Council
for consideration at the June 28, 2004, study meeting.
CONCLUSIONS
The Advisory Board of Health spent four months studying the issue of secondhand smoke and
. considering options for smoking bans in workplaces and/or restaurants and bars. Members of the
Advisory Board of Health and public health staff have had numerous discussions with
representatives fl'om other cities. organizations. businesses and citizens about the different issues
surrounding smoking hans.
Smoking restrictions are being widely debated in council chambers, bars, coffee shops, meetings,
and in homes across Minnesota. During the course of this study the cities of Minneapolis and St.
Paul began public deliberations on smoking bans, Earlier this year a bill was introduced in the
I-louse and Senate that would have greatly modified the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act,
requiring all workplaces. including bars and restaurants, to be smoke-free. The bill was heard in
the Senate but not brought forward in the House. Ten other states and many other cities in the
U.S. have eliminated smoking in all workplaces andlor restaurants and bars.
Viewpoints about smoking bans are often polarized. Opponents of smoking bans believe that
government should not be involved in decisions affecting private business. Many restaurant and
bar owners fear they will lose revenues if they are forced to ban smoking. "Smoker"s rights"
groups maintain that government should not restrict individuals' rights to smoke where they
please.
Proponents of smoking bans are committed to protecting the public's health. They cite the
scientific literature that demonstrates conclusively the harmful effects of secondhand smoke to
children and adults and that restaurant and bar smoking bans do not cause significant economic
loss to businesses. Supporters believe it is government's role and responsibility to enact rules
. and regulations to protect the health and safety of citizens if private business does not. They
18
point nul that the f\1innesota Ckan Indo~)j' /\ir Act passed in 1975 does not protect employees or .
customers in bars and restaurants 11"om secondhand smoke.
Members of the Advisory Board of Health have listened to the various perspectives. rhe
Advisory Roard of Health has reviewed the conclusions of numerous economic and medical
research studies. learned from the e\.perienees 0 f other commun ities who have proposed snw[.; ing
bans. and e\. plmcd a variety or policy options. A lter careful rev iew of all of tll i s in formation, the
Ady i sory 80ard 0 f Hea Itll has reached the cone lusion that decisi ve action is needed to protect the
hea 1th or employees and customers in all 1:3100m i ngton \vorkplaces. inc I uding restaurants and
bars.
.
.
1<)
. References
I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Junc 1994. Setting the Record Straight:
Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk. Available at
http://www.cpa.gov/s1llokcfrcc/pubs/strsfs.html. Accessed Junc 2004.
'1 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
"'-'.
Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. 2002. ANSI/ ASIIRAE Addendum 620 to
A NSI/ ASHRAE Standard 62-200 I.
3. Hennepin County Community Health Department and Bloomington Division of Public
Health. SHAPE 2002: Geographic Data Book, Survey of the Health of Adults, the Population,
and the Environment Minneapolis. Minnesota, July 2003.
4. Pechacek TF, Babb S. (2004). Commentary: How acute and reversible are the
cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke? British Medical Journal. 328:980 - 983.
5. Siegel M. ( 1993). Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace: A review of
employce exposure and health effects. Journal (?f'the American Medical Association,
nO( 4 ):490-493.
6. Eisner MD, Smith AK, Blanc PO (1998). Bartenders' Respiratory Health after
. Establishment of Smoke-Free Bars and Taverns. Journal (~f'the American Medical Association,
280(22): 1909-1914,
7. Scollo M, Lal A, Ilyland A. Glantz S, (2003). Review of the quality of studies on the
economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 12:13-20.
8. Glantz SA, Smith LRA. (1997), The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants
and bars on revenues: a follow-up, American .Journal (d'Puhlic Health, 87( 10): 1687-1693.
9, Glantz S. ( 1999). Smoke-free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant business.
Period. Journal of' Puhlic !fealth Management and Practice, 5( I ):vi-ix.
10. Glantz SA, Charlesworth A. (1999). Tourism and hotel revenues before and after passage
of smoke-free restaurant ordinances. Journal of the American Medical Association,
281(20):1911-1918.
II. Huang P, De AK, McCusker ME. (2004). Impact ofa smoking ban on restaurant and bar
revenues - EI Paso, Texas, 2002. Morhidi(v and Mortality Week~v Report, 53(7):150- I 52.
12. Goldstein AU, Sobel RA. ( 1998). Environmental Tobacco Smoke Regulations Have Not
Hurt Restaurant Sales in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal, 59(5):284-287.
13. The state of smoke-free New York City: A one-year review. March 2004. New York City
. Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, New York
20
City Departmcnt of Small Business Services, New York City Economic Development .
Corporat ion. http://tobacl'j)t'reek id~.,~r:!lprcssnnlce/N \'l' [{eport .pd r. Accessed .I LIne 200-L
l~. Secondhand Smoke: Knowledge. Attitudes. and I:khaviors of Minnesotans. November
2000. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Ilealth, Minnesota
Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. Minnesuta Smoke-Free Coalition. Available at
htlp ://\\W\\. health.stall: .mn .Lls/Ji vs/ehsidataJseeonJlwnd,pd r. Accessed June 2004.
15, Shoplano DR. Anderson CM. Burns OM. et a!. Disparities in smoke-free workplace
pnlie ies among food scrv ice workers. 2004. JOllrna! olOcclIputionu/ ((JUI f,'nviron/flr:17la!
A/cdicine. 46:347-356.
16, Quitting Smoking. [999-2003: Nicotine Addiction in Minnesota. January 2004, Bille
Cross Hlue Shield 01' i\/Iinnesota. Minnesota Department of llealth, Minnesota Partnership Cor
Action Against Tohacco. University of Minnesota.
http://wW\\ .heal th.state .mn .L1s,-di \ s/hpe,hpc\lu Ibllwkin!.!20U3 ,pdf Accessed June 200-L
17. American Heart Association.
llitp:/,\\W\\ .anlcrican hearl.,)r~ipn::-senter. ihtml ',' identi Ikr"'- 4 72f1 Accessed June S, 2004,
18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 1993. Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health
Ei'fccts of Passive Smok ing. Available at http://\\ \\'.\ ,ep<u!,ov/iaq/pu_bs/ets t's. htn~ L Accessed .I une
200c.J..
19. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air. Clearing .
the Air: asthma and indoor air exposures. 200(), National Academy Press, Washington. DC.
20. He J. Vupputuri S. Allen K. et a1. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease
- a meta-analysis of epidemio logic stud ies. NClI' England .foll/'l1a! afMedicine. [999. 340 :920-6.
21. National Cancer Institute. Health Effects or Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke:
The Report of the Ccdili.:'1l"Ilia environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control
Monograph no. 10. Bethesda, MD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National
Institutes of I [ealth, National Cancer Institute. NII-[ Pub. No. 99-4645. 1999,
II Jaakkola MS. Piipari R. Jaakkola N. Jr13kkola JJK, Environmental Tobacco Smoke and
Adult-Onset Asthma: A Population-Based Incidcnt Case-Control Study. American Journal (d
fJuhlic Heal/h. 2003: 93( l2):2055-2060.
,; Amcrican Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Environmental Health. Environmental
--,.
tobacco smoke: A hazard to children. 1997. Pediatrics. 99(4):639-642.
24. U.s. Department or Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking:
A report or the Surgeon GeneraL Atlanta. G A: (I. S. Ikpat1ment of Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevcntion. J\ational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
I Icalth Promotion. Office on Smoking and I lealth. 2004.
.
21
. http://ww\v.cdc.f2:ov/tobacco/sgr/sgr 2004/Factsheets/ I .htm Accessed June 2004
25. Bates MN, Fawcett .I, Dickson S, l3erezowski R, Garrett N. (2002). Exposure of
hospital ity workers to environmental tobacco smoke. Tobacco Control, 11: 125-129.
26. Fichtenberg eM, Glantz SA. Effect of Smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour:
systematic review. 2002. British Medical Journal, 325: 1-7.
27. Anderson KE, Kliris J, Murphy L, et al. (2003). Metabolites of a Tobacco-Specific Lung
Carcinogen in Nonsmoking Casino Patrons. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention,
12: 1544-1546.
28. American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. http://no-sllloke.org/mediaordlist.pdf.
Accessed June 2004.
29. American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. http://no-
smoke,org/SulllmarvllSPopList.pdf. Accessed June 2004.
30, Tobacco Free Mass: the Massachusetts Coalition for a Healthy Future. Available at
http://tobaccorreelllass.org/ets.php. Accessed June 2004.
3l. Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition.
e http://w\\'\v.smoki.: li'i.:ccoalition.org/fi lerepositorv/downloads/SHS support fact fi nal.doc.
Accessed .I une 2004.
32. Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition.
hup:/ /wvvw.smoketi-eecoal ition.orQ,/issues/secondhandsmoke/facts/i ndex.asp?sid=22& id- 365& p
= I. Accessed June 2004.
33, Xiong C. Most Minneapolis residents favor proposed smoking ban, survey says. May 27,
2004. Minneapolis Star Trihune. http://vvw'!\'.startribune.com/storics/462/47978lB.html
Accessed June 2004.
34. Kottke TE, Aasc LA, Brandel CL, et a!. (2001). Attitudes of Olmsted County, Minnesota,
Residents About Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants and Bars. Mayo Clinic Proceedings', 76: 134-
137.
35. Minnesota Department of Ilealth. Minesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCJAA):
Rnvironmental Health in Minnesota, March 2004. A vai lable at
www.lH;~al th .state.mn. L1s/ d ivs/eh/i ndoorairllllc iaa/rule .htm. Accessed June 2004.
36. Minnesota Department of Health. Smoking in Offices, Factories, Warehouses, and
Similar Places of Work. March 2004. Available at
http://www.health.state.mn.lIs/divs/ch/indoorai rime iaa/offices.pdt" Accessed June 2004.
.
22
37. [vI innesota Department of Health. Smoking in Restaurants and Bars: Requirements of the .
lvl illl1\:St)ta C lean I ncln()r A ir Act. March :2004. i\ vai !ahle at
\\ \\ \\ .11\.'alth,statc.Il111,us/c1ivs/ehiinch,orair/mcia:lirestbars,pdf. Accessed June 2004.
.
.
l'
_.l
.
By Zimmermann, Johnson Lee, Niziolek, Samuels, Schiff, Zerby
Amending Title 11 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to Health and
Sanitation by adding a new Chapter 234 relating to Indoor Smoking.
The City Council of The City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows:
Section 1. That the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a
new Chapter 234 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 234. INDOOR SMOKING
234.10. Definitions. As used in this ordinance:
Bowling alleys and pool and billiard halls means those establishments licensed pursuant
to Chapter 267, Articles IV and XII of this Code, whether or not they are also licensed as a
liquor establishment.
. Food establishment means those establishments licensed pursuant to Title 10 of this
Code.
Liquor establishment means those establishments licensed pursuant to Title 14 of this
Code.
Other person in charge has the meaning specified in the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act
Rules, Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0100, subpart 10, as amended from time to time,
Proprietor has the meaning specified by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules,
Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0100, subpart 13, as amended from time to time.
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.
234.20. Prohibitions.
(1) Smoking is prohibited in bowling alleys and pool and billiard halls and liquor and food
establishments.
(2) General exceptions, The prohibitions of this section do not apply to:
. a. Guest rooms of a hotel or motel;
b. Outdoor spaces;
_ __..n
c. Locations where smoking is expressly authorized by state or federal law or rule; or .
d. The use of tobacco as part of a recognized religious ritual or activity.
234.30. Responsibilities of proprietors. The proprietor or other person in charge of a
bowling alley, pool and billiard hall, or liquor or food establishment shall:
(1) 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;
(2) Ensure that ashtrays, lighters, and matchbooks are not provided in any area where
smoking is prohibited; and
(3) 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,
take the appropriate action to remove the person from the premises.
234.40. Additional private prohibitions. Nothing in this ordinance prevents the
proprietor or other person in charge of any place, including, without limitation, any
residence, motor vehicle or outdoor space, from prohibiting smoking in any such place.
234.50. Retaliation prohibited. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, e
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 afforded by this ordinance or other law.
234.60. Employees' rights preserved. An employee who consents to work in a setting
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.
234.70. Other applicable laws. This ordinance is intended to complement the
Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections144.411 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.
234.80. Violation and penalties.
(1) Proprietors. It is a violation of this ordinance for the proprietor or other person in
charge of any premises subject to this ordinance to fail to comply with the
requirements of 234.30, or to retaliate against an employee, applicant for employment
or customer, as prohibited by 234.50.
(2) Civif fines. Violations of this chapter may be enforced administratively pursuant to
Chapter 2 of this Code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
.
.
(3) Adverse Ucense action. Violation of any provision of this chapter by a licensee shall be
adequate grounds for the denial, refusal to renew, revocation or suspension of said
license.
(4) Enforcement. The provisions of this ordinance shall be enforced by the department of
operations and regulatory services, the police department and fire department.
(5) Injunctive relief. The city attorney may bring a civil action against the proprietor or
other person in charge of a public place or place of work to enjoin repeated or
continuing violations of this chapter.
234.90. Severability. If any portion of this chapter, or its application to any
circumstances, is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be invalidated, and shall
be given effect to the maximum extent possible.
235.100. Effective date. The provisions of this chapter shall become effective
March 31,2005.
.
.
. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-103
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING, ADVOCATING AND URGING THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ENACT A COUNTY-WIDE SMOKE
FREE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT AND
REST AURANTS
BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
WHEREAS The Eden Prairie City Council does hereby find that:
(1) Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to
indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke (also known as
environmental tobacco smoke) is a cause of disease in healthy
nonsmokers, including heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and lung
cancer. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that secondhand smoke
is responsible for the early deaths of 65,000 Americans annually.
. (2) The Public Health Service's National Toxicology Program has listed
secondhand smoke as a known carcinogen (U.S. DHHS, 2000, citing Cal.
EP A, 1997).
(3) Secondhand smoke is particularly hazardous to elderly people, individuals
with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory
function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of asthma,
respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, developmental
abnormalities, and cancer.
(4) The Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires that disabled persons
have access to public places and workplaces, deems impaired respiratory
function to be a disability.
(5) The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that the simple separation of
smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does
not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. The
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke
cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation.
. Air cleaners, which are only capable of filtering the particulate matter and
odors in smoke, do not eliminate the known toxins in secondhand smoke.
. .
. (6) A significant amount of secondhand smoke exposure occurs in the
workplace. Employees who work in smoke-filled businesses suffer a 25-
50% higher risk of heart attack and higher rates of death from
cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory
disease and measurable decrease in lung function.
(7) Smoke-filled workplaces result in higher worker absenteeism due to
respiratory disease, lower productivity, higher cleaning and maintenance
costs, increased health insurance rates, and increased liability claims for
diseases related to exposure to secondhand smoke.
(8) Smoking is a potential cause of fires.
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie residents and business community are concerned that the
enactment of a local ordinance prohibiting smoking in places of employment and restaurants will
have a negative effect on the community's businesses because businesses in adjacent
communities will not be subject to the same regulation; and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie City Council has heard from many residents and
businesses that a county-wide smoke free ordinance is more appropriate than a local ordinance so
as to not place at a disadvantage the businesses of this or any other individual community; and
. WHEREAS the City deems it prudent, reasonable and necessary to support, advocate and
urge the passage of a county-wide ordinance (1) to protect the public health and welfare by
prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of
nonsmokers to breathe smoke free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke free air
shall have priority over the desire to smoke.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA THAT:
The City Council hereby supports, advocates and urges the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners enact an ordinance establishing all places of employment and restaurants in
Hennepin County as smoke free.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 6th day of July 2004.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
21 Cf) .:.:::tJ:E LO
'U;I: '" 0 '" ~ Q}-oO> '"
-..:.:.Cb en O"E ._ Q,)::J~-_ ......
.5 E <D ,~ ~ Q} :q '; ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~
-a -;; 2f ~ ';;; ~ .r. "C 8. '-_.9,! ('J ~, ~
E= c;;: ~ '" ;>,Gl ,::-CL....o>B '"
. .Q .- <:: - -::J rn ai <D ('J 0 ~ ,- <ll =
o l'lI l!! v c:: 'ro .0 <:: rn:i: tJ ~ ~ Q).o '" _ .0
~U; E~-:: c. ~ 5.!-~ 8,E~r?Qi~ ~
o ~ 0 ~ g ~ w U Q; .8 4~ ~ co .~ ~ B ~ W
'II: 0 ~ tj ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ g: 'E ~ ~ ~ ~ CLL 0
'II: C'I +=' :J Cf) C'I I- l: "0 0 <t ~ g '" ,5: ~ ~
.!! ~--........ ~
c. c ,- C OJ """ 0> 0 C
o 3: ~ z..Q _~ ~..-:.. 0 .S 2 ~ ~ 0
-G,) >.. ,-00 -oE-..........::L, U-"'..::z:: ~t:r- ::JU')
~~~ c: g~ c..c ~ ~ oBwt)o 0 -(11 en ""')(6
(ij _ III 0 _ ('J ,!!! Q) E 0> - Q) ~ E <ll III C ~ C
c: E" III ~ 2 "':c CL <1l '" c CL:c"=' '" '" .0 ,Q iii +=' ('J
Q.1 i: 5i"E E rn c; ro 0 ~ (D ;:::.8", ::5 g ::E: ~ ~ n;~ c ~ u
lI..oE l\> 0 Q)~-~OJ('J "'0 ~ "" ~l\>
1>:::o.r. 0 E {l~ E ~uo ~"':.2 ~ >.~ o-go Qj , ~~Ci
~~.~ R ~ ~ .~.~ ~ ~I.~C~~~~~~ ~m~~~ ~ ~~g~
~o- ~ - = ~-o - =Q).ooB('JQ)Q)-o_ --ol\> ('J - =O>~Q)
.g 0 u. .c :>. 0 LL. ..c 0. ~ "'C _~ l:i .::.:: li 0 .~ ;;; c ~ -g a. !.L .c ~ LO .~
.... - .- 1!! ::::: [j .- 2 0 >'"0 ..c 0 0 00 Ql N 8 QJ ::s E -- .19 ..c. 0 -
en 0. .~ UJ Q) u .2 rJ) Q) ~ Q) tr.l E Q) -- C T-'- Q):.:t: en 0 .~ [f.J ......... a lD
W :J (.) W lI.. ('J (.) UJ a. <tI:S.8 ~ '" a. ? ;;::: ~ '" 0 ,!!! <.l U W [;j C'I .0
~ ~
0!1 c"2 -g.... en
.....cc: 0 0 rtI.E "'Occn
..!!! .9: '(;j Ul '" Ul '" 0> c:;;:: E
::::J: .... _ c"i: c C .S ct'i 0 l1)
en g a. 'iii 'ro 'ro g.:.:: Q). '" E ""
41a.E - - --000>>''''"0
C::rno ~ ~ ~t1IQ)E('lJ~~1ll
.!: U ~ ~ ~ ~ g- '" ~:E ~ :E
u u (.) ffi ,!:; g 'in ~ 0 ~
.s ~ -E."Ea...., ~ UJ g ~-5ij ~
ID w :::JQJ("')(/}Q) c.c n:I Q.(ij_-:lCVO
El=E oc'.c::Ol.r. ('lJ <1l' ;;: ~_=_.o~
fG t:..c: E ~ ~ -2 - ~ ~ 15 ,2 c ~~ ~ ~ ~ s
U:.2! ('J_'E~~,~1ll ~;;:'Q;1ii 2l 2.:tj<o.r.-o
Q) i:..c f/) Ul ::J en ~ a. g CD L... .0 U ....... ~.~ ~.c:: ti LO- ~
.5-,5 1ti' 1ti'8~,g~l'g ~2l-g-6 ~u-g~;;:_~g:g~
I- '" "0 -0 CD .0 > ,- 0 -0 "" III ~ <1l E Ul C III C'I .0 Q)
lU g g ,5 :5 ii {l '5 ~:ii .~ .2 8 ~ ,!; ~ 2l .!; .-:- ii ;;
. >- _ ,S; Cl
U ~ ~ c ~ .5
5: I ::::'M~ == 'h.:t:.O .CO .9
..... ....... (Co 'L- ro ..... .....
en c '1::' <l)C'):J t1l U) E crn (I)
<:( Q) CD :I:"'u :I:>.-gQ) '" Q)C:WE
c: E,~ - oE '0 - C <0 ~ CD ~ E oE ti:: :,::;
1::......tt:: {IJ rt:I:JtJ) ",-.E. t:: - L
E m~O crng- "E:o~U'i~Q)"E [m~:ac
Q) :i}:t=: 0> EQ) -g ~ -c:i Q)E (.) .0 'E ::':!:C Q) Q) 1:5 '0 CD
tJ 0 0 ,!:; - g <0 "t:l '" <0 0 'in E 0 ~'j; Q) E
o (1)1D~ aEoo..QgJB~:so5~ ..c.E[/)~~
'C g ~ B .~ E tu ~ '5: E t:; 2 ~ c. S ~ E Iu ~ E
woo ::J c: .~ ~ 0 c: - fl ~ Ul :tJ <:: 41 ,!!! ~ Q) c:
a.a._ WO~;;:WO=~S~CD :I:O~-Olll
~ "E '+- ~ "'oC [ij 11)
,S cti Q) ~ u ~ ~ - ro ~ ~ t: ~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~
~~~"""'ID ~ ~ m BnEm ~~~m~~ ~m~S oe~.~- ~mg~
~ ~ :ii ~ -5 0, -g .= rIJ ~ Q)_ ~ ~ ID ~ IE :: m -E ~ ~ -E ~ ~ ~ llJ m :5 ~ ~ c.~ ~ ui
o~~~~~.5~~ ~=~~~~ .~~~ti~~ ~~~U o~oB8 ~~~~m
E~~ .~~~~E ~E~'~!c ~~~~ID2 ~~Bg~ ~=~~C~ :~~ID~
c ;~~.~~~~'S~ ~~~~~8~~~!~~~ :~~?~~ ~~~o~~N.~8~~~
~ ~ ~Ul~':'::E"'Q)~o ('J.c::~0~~:;;::~~CDQ)2E -0 Ulot('J ::':!a~~<1l;;:~So~S~
~ ~ ~~ro~e~~~; ~~.~'~m*~~ro~~~~ ~~Ec2 2~~m~~~~~~c[
U 0 e~~oo-~~~o N~~~~~w~~o~E~ m~;8m c~~$ID~mE~~Ec
C ~ c'~;;:~-g"tJ<::~- g~~~E~~E"'S=~3 c~=.8:ii -t1I>.~:iiTI~"'b",,"o>~
~ m ~~~~~~~~~ L ~:~~~~g~:~!~~ . ~IDgmli .~~~[.~~~~~~~E
C ~ :ii~TI~mwUlc:-g", ~C:[;j>Ec:",~>E~('Jv"tJ ~2~g'E ~<O~Q)~E~~C:~oO
......:1 ,!:; ~ ~- :i}';ij E ~ Q) g ~ <ll Ol 0 '" ~ ,- ~ .::g Ul ~ U; v!\! """ e-u:,::; ~ oE:: ('J '" 2l Q) ,;;: 0 E ~
~ "tJ"O c:",~Q) E- <olc"'''''''-o"" ~IllCDQ)> c~ c,~ ~a.~ .:.::~",Q)C:Ul_
.... U) L... C ;>.. CD ;. .......::J ..... ._ Ql ;: ill c. =- 1:J::> _ L... 0 ....... :::-. E :::J rI) Q)- - .... 0 0 _ en ('D .....
O o~cE~~~uro~ ~~~~omm~c~0om~ c~~IDu 0=020 ~cc~~=
~w~ ~~~.~IDU rn~ooo=oo~2ro~moID m~Uxo coo~2~E~m~~uo
C ~~;~'~~.~8~~ ~~~~~~~~~S~~~.~ ~~~~z~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
m ~""uE~'L--~~O .~'+-mu~~~~mE'~ ~c .5~~c~c cL...W5~uo~'jO~~
CO u ~ Q)~-E.~~ ~ ~c t)o--o~~ ~2~ rn IJ.) C)u.i.~ .::t: o..c~'E ~ ~ ~~ wen . ",..0 E~ E
ID-~ .......E.--~ w~2~~..c~w~~cmwo o~uOw'- ....-~=IDc~2.~mm~
~ ~mm~~~mEIDrn ~ou~~~IDmm~~~wE E~oE~~ ~oocro~~~~~o~c
~, ~~~rorn~>o~~ w~E~P~~~~~5_~~ OOo~mmo U~ro~roD~ID~cmm
C
:i:
o ~ -cI C
E Bs: ~ g
~._- ~- --
en ~'E1ii E2 1il
- :~ ~ E (5 Iii ~ 'E
., Ell III ~~-E ~Q)
-O~~ ~oc: oE
~ms ~oB ~ot
C >.:J c: 0 Q) 'S: :iO Q) ClI
~ (1) U -= c .~ a.
c.. ~,go "g~w g~~
E J::Q)OQ) -Ql-:>'..c tl)Q)~
"S ~ a... C) VI e c ~ .- 2 ==
CU -::l-clrn E"~('J ~::l~
en c3~~"5 o~8~ ~~~
'I[})!D O[})~ C1:Iu)
(J) 0 0 11l0<1l 0:'"
OJ c: (Jl -g ~ ~ !::;1J
g20 ("J III
;::l.m"'< ~ s..
o .. .:l 3 " 0
o ens: g:g'~ C'l:J'
3{5l> "''0 (') @ 6
3 (J) C!> -, ~"tJ
ij;'< <~ (1) 0
~c tn. ij;' 0:::
00 0
:J _~ .:-' ~.S
-0 :I: 0
c C!> a
2: ~ ~
n' s:
0OJ~-; aa5~ . . . "''''-;
w--~ :J=:O-
3~cr{J) C10u:.fO 0" a g. ~ ~ $ ~ Q ~. ~ a.~{J)
-otuC('l m ro ....... 0 ~*D
~. ;: 5c ~ (I) W -0 c g 3 (1) iii 2 ;:r.g g; 'g ar =nri3
m fJ) t: ....,
COD.lroro ~ g g~ 3 -- "Q c; ~ ~ ::!. ::J ~ 0- n' c '0
ro ~ 0
? :::::J U) :::::l "C~g.~~_(t)~:J(lJ~ ::l '" III
o ~, ~ ;; m........C1_
m ..... -en 0 '< ~ g ~ ~ ~ g- 3' 3" III ::I (l)
~lIl~ o ::Y--c ..., (Dwo..
ij):1".....c. CCDD.)o.. (1) -, CD 0. 0 n rn 0.- 0
~ =' ~ S' 3 ):- n :r ~,:s;:'. 3 ~ ; g ;:'. ~~ i3.
:J 0 ~ D.l rrc.l1l", ~ Q. 5'
):-:;:::r" ~ 3 ~ ~ (f) 3 Dl en _. - UJ
ro'" ...~~o3 ~::r~
:::;" ro OJ hi III 5' -l ro ~1l5i g.rn):>3c
~ <' a5 ti ~ ~~~ =:T=-' gffi$l~~ (1) ~n
{/'.I ur m
o ~ CD a CD ..... ""<:: 0 ::r!p~ o~;::On1:l ii)- '0
~~3:?: "'::r::r CD:::;:JO ",ros,.(()O ggg.
'" 0'",-' 3 2. 3 ~ 5' ~ ~,~
T ....,""0 rr ::J_.c:::!:!
::: (0 (5 ;:::+" c..cn<'D(;; III ::,: _,
=,"=rr
'" '< Ul OIDnlW o~w @;a S:=:F 3=>""
n ro '" g $'::;: 3 A"'.-:J ID......O ro 10 III
I1l ro 3 ro.-,< :::J", ::::f'(fl
-OlllO .......c..roo ~~tn g.:r (D:3 :J () III
g~~ C -.;t:;' ro...3 ~ so u;ro3
~. =r ~ 5" - :J 0
::I :;r ::l 2'-g ~ ~ z ~ wen^"
U'J _.\.0 ~ ~"""" to :::l ...... S'
. (j)-, S' ~ ..... (J) _00 <.E Q.. 5h l.C
(f.j" ::J W W ...., -
o - :;
.,,8-
~[3ro~ 0"'0 m0 (ii' 0 ~ CD 0. "0 m -; 5'::1"ro"O):-
o c :J CD (J1<rn:::Jro~::::J.::r _. W ::J 0 ::J
~ ~ ~~ ~ 32: ""-:J ~ ~"8 Q -g ;. ~- ~ ~(nQ5g
()ro::ro 3 ('j a'~ ~ 3' ::l @ ::J. ~ g ~ f5 () CD -cr
Cb'=-W""""\A <ii'I 30 _roo",
:3 g o~ TI ~. ill <II ~ :3 ~ 5' 3 -g (6 ~.g [
ro ~ llJ o ~ CD ~ g"~~~~~Q.
2.~(.>.):e.7- ;;;l - :J ~l[lJ..-
0.3~3 "" OJ: g- or .- CD C rn o' oc;:1.:;r
(t) U) 0.....-. m - :::J 3 <CI 3 !!t
VJ.o -(D I sg U~ ~ 3:rCD-
3~2: ro _:J:;r
g~(t) ~ -< S- ro " $'~;(l)
s: <D 0. 0-
s: 0."0=
'" SO
cr<t>rocrJ ro01 C
5.~g.3 0., ::l
~o> '"
(Q - n 0 :J
CD 0 OJ :J ~,3 0
.......0.............. ::,:
0-' ~ 00
o Ul ::I;::!. ::I
ro::l~
0-~O 'O::s
c ;:::;;..: ~ ~
n::1" 6'
~'"
5 c.
::J
rorr""-"'m 0::;-J:l 0 0
Q. !l) (fj-"::J m o on <l) 0 0
c::J;::::;.:Q.n 3-0<0 3 3
&o~g: -0 (l) C -0 -0
-()~ or ill
o,.""'cr"""l{tlo w :::: ~
::3 cp ~ ;e. -, 0 :S' ::l
;:'.::1
. om (I) III '" fii Ui
mro@ 0.> 0 0
::I :> ::l
.=;. 0- -< '<"
m 0 .,.. QQ[f)"O"'$~ m 0 if> m 0 <~<Y'J
III ~ ro~3",-~ '" ~: --" III :,;:. ~~~~
or 0 ;;; 0 ar
0 3 '" :;?2:~<g 0 ~D'~o
Z " "" (0" ;:::;: :5" Q. == -.: rr :!1 y, 0- !1
<ii' 3' (i;' <ii' 0--.00
*~{Q~~~ ::l --" " ;:J ro ~::;l """'\
:r ro 0 :;r (l) Cl ::J" ([l
3 0 ;--rn-::::=3rt> 3 Cl 3 5''''0.>5'
CD 0 ~ ro 'Et ~ '9, ro a (J) ~g..::Jro
::J :J ::l (Oo..O-:=-:
u; :5: g 5~ ::: ~ ;;; Ui mmOlijl..
0 ~;::l. lIl:J 0 0 ;$,< m -
:> o~ ~ ::J :J ~ 0 ~....:..
'< '< '< ~a
::10. a
~ C>
--" '" ro ~ ,,\ @"~() "'m ='C
(0 ::l \1l :;::l ::;' '0<1>0 ""- x 3 "
0 ~g.~~ (1) ~3 ll>ll> ro 0-
""()
0 ro ~"2- '" - :E-
o ~3(IJ3 0-0'" Zz ([l
n $g~ 2- 035' ~c 3
~ ;:m=:r ~o;;; 3 S'
o' rr
",0U1 2.~ C!> (l)
::l 0-
'" ;::;>-0 ::r 10 <il
ro--"~ "':r ~
~(J1::r ...... :J
-:::;: OJ ::r :;r g" 5'
::J ~<1>
co ;;;'
Q) a
. Olmstecl Couxd-'1
SVV\o\LC-nrec eLS1rLu.rCLV'G+
Resolution No. 01-102
WHEREAS, non-smoking sections in buildings do not eliminate non-smokers'
exposure to second-hand smoke (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Air and Radiation IARC Scientific Publications 81 :25-41, 1987); and
WHEREAS, carcinogens found in Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) are
causally related to cancer. It is estimated that every year 3,000 non-smokers in
the U.S. die of lung cancer related to ETS (60 deaths in MN). To date, over 50
substances in second-hand smoke have been identified as carcinogens. (U,S,
Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and
WHEREAS, annually between 35,000 and 62,000 non-smokers die in the U.S.
(700 to 1,240 deaths in MN) from Ischemic heart disease related to ETS (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and
WHEREAS, each year 9,700 to 18,600 low birth weight babies born in the U,S.
(190 to 370 in MN) are causally related to ETS (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke,
1999); and
. WHEREAS, annually between 1,900 and 2,700 deaths from Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome (SIDS) occur in the U.S. (30 to 50 deaths in MN) related to ETS (U,S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and
WHEREAS, irritants in ETS cause 150,000 cases annually of bronchitis and
pneumonia (3,000 cases in MN). Irritants also cause 700,000 cases annually of
middle ear infections in children in the U,S (14,000 in MN) (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and
WHEREAS, a review of 2000 children in Olmsted County has shown an average
of 17.3% having asthma, which is 2.5 times the national average (study
conducted by Dr. Barbara Yawn, Olmsted Medical Center researcher). Asthma
that becomes worse due to ETS occurs in 400,000 children annually in the U.S.
(8,000 children in MN) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health
Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and
WHEREAS, ETS rapidly diffuses throughout a room. Using indoor air quality
standards, ventilation rates would have to be increased more than a thousand-
fold to reduce cancer risk associated with ETS, Such ventilation rate would
result in a virtual windstorm indoors (Repace, J. "Risk Management and Passive
Smoking at Work and at Home," S1. Louis University Public Law Review, 13(2):
763-785, 1994); and
.
WHEREAS, the U,S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People .
2010 has as one of its objectives to cut exposure to ETS by non-smokers from
65% in 1994 to 45% in 2010 (U.S, Department of Health and Human Services
Healthy People 2010, Washington D.C" U,S. Department of Health Human
Services 2000); and
WHEREAS, sitting in a smoke-free section of a restaurant for two hours is like
smoking 1 h cigarettes (Presentation by Katherine Hammond, PhD, University of
California School of Public Health); and
WHEREAS, nine out of ten non-smokers are exposed to ETS at least once every
2 to 3 days (Journal of the American Medical Association, January 1998); and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute S 145A.04 establishes the powers and duties of a
Board of Health to enforce ordinances related to public health for the territory
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute S 145A.05 authorizes a County Board to adopt
ordinances to regulate actual or potential threats to the public health and to
define public health nuisances and to provide for their prevention; and
WHEREAS, after due public notice a hearing was held on November 13, 2001,
by the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to Minnesota Statute
375.51.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Olmsted County Board of .
Commissioners as the Public Health Board for Olmsted County adopts the
"Olmsted County Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance", as on file in the County
Administrator's office, on this 13th day, of November, 2001
Dated: November 13, 2001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jean Michaels, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Richard G, Devlin, Clerk-Administrator
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-102
The County Board of the County of Olmsted, Minnesota, ordains:
SECTION A. Title:
This ordinance shall be known and referenced as the Olmsted County Smoke-free
Restaurant Ordinance.
SECTION B. Jurisdiction:
Subd. 1. As provided in MN Statutes145A.05, this ordinance applies throughout all
of Olmsted County, including the municipalities therein.
Subd. 2. As provided in MN Statute S145A.04, the Community Health Board is
authorized to enforce laws, regulations, and ordinances within its jurisdictional area.
Subd. 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent other local levels of government,
within Olmsted County, from adopting more restrictive measures to protect citizens
from second-hand smoke.
SECTION C. Definitions:
Subd. 1. Definitions in this ordinance pertain only to this ordinance.
. Subd. 2. Bar. "Bar" shall mean any establishment that a) has an on-sale 3.2 percent
malt liquor license issued pursuant to Minn, Statute S Section 340A.403; or an on-
sale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minn. Statute S Section 340A.404;
and b) whose sales of beer, malt liquor, and intoxicating liquor is projected for an
initial licensee to be - or is demonstrated for an existing licensee to be - more than 50
% (percent) of the total of net sales of food and beverages, after taxes that are
served in the bar. These are the sales reported to Federal and/or State Revenue
Authorities from the most recent liquor licensing year. However, sales for service to
customers in a separately licensed business shall not be included as part of the total
net sales for an establishment seeking this "bar" classification.
Subd. 3. Establishment. "Establishment" means the portion of a building, including
the infrastructure, that is typically reviewed, assessed, inspected, and included as
part of the plan review, licensing, and monitoring processes of food and/or beverage
facilities by the applicable public health licensing authorities. It also includes, in the
case of multi-purpose buildings and rooms and for the purposes of this ordinance,
those portions of the building that are being used for food and/or beverage services
during an event.
Subd. 4. Other Person in Charge. "Other Person In Charge" means the agent of
the proprietor authorized to perform administrative direction to, and general
supervision of, the activities within a public place at any given time.
.
.
Subd. 5. Private Club. "Private Club" shall mean an incorporated organization
organized under the laws of the state for civic, fraternal, social, or business
purposes; for intellectual improvement, for promotion of sports, or for a
congressionally chartered veterans' organization, which:
a. a. has more than 50 members; and
b, b. has owned or rented a building or space in a building for more than one
year that is suitable and adequate for the accommodation of its members;
and
c. c, is directed by a board of directors, executive committee, or other similar
body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose. No
member, officer, agent, or employee shall receive any profit from the
distribution or sale of beverages to the members of the club, or their guests,
beyond a reasonable salary or wage fixed and voted upon each year by the
governing body; and
d. d, does not restrict its membership on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or national origin.
Any private club's exemption from the smoke-free provisions of this ordinance does
not apply when such organization is established to avoid compliance with this
Ordinance.
Subd. 6. Proprietor. "Proprietor" shall mean the party, regardless of whether or not
the party is owner or lessee of the public place, who ultimately controls, governs, or
directs the activities within the public place. The term does not mean the owner of .
the property, unless the owner ultimately controls, governs, or directs the activities
within the public place. The term "proprietor" may apply to a corporation as well as
to an individual.
Subd. 7. Restaurant. "Restaurant" shall have the meaning specified in Minn. Stat.
Section 157.15, Subd,12. "Restaurant" includes those portions of a multi-purpose
building that is being used for food and/or beverage services during an event. The
term "restaurant" does not include a "bar," as defined in this ordinance.
Subd. 8. Smoking. "Smoking" shall mean inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying
any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, other plant substances or other lighted
smoking equipment in any manner or in any form.
SECTION D. Smokinq Prohibited in Restaurants:
Subd,1. Smoking Prohibited. Except as provided in Subd. 2, smoking is
prohibited in all indoor areas of any restaurant and its indoor entrance areas,
commonly referred to as vestibules, alcoves, and foyers.
Subd.2 Exemptions. The prohibitions of subd.1 do not apply to the following
places or situations:
a. a. Bars, including those that are immediately adjacent to a restaurant,
provided that the following separations are maintained:
1 ) 1 ) The bar is separated from the restaurant on all sides by continuous .
f1oor-to-ceiling walls, which are interrupted only by closeable doors, that
. are continuously closed, except when a person is actively entering or
exiting the bar; and
2) 2) The bar ventilation systems are totally separated from the restaurant,
with the bar maintaining a negative air pressure in relation to the adjacent
restaurant; and
3) 3) Whose revenues from the sale of food in this portion of the restaurant
are
consistent with the definition in this ordinance; and
4) 4) Consistent with Minnesota Statute & 340A.503, Subd. 4. (b), the bar
does not permit entrance or employment of minors at any time; and
5) 5) The bar has a Food and/or Beverage License, that is separate from
the restaurant, issued by the appropriate licensing agency.
b. b, Restaurants, that are closed to the public while being used for a private
function.
c, c, Private clubs, except when they are open to serve food or drink to the
public
that are not members of the club. Guests accompanied by members are
considered the same as members.
d. d. An event that includes licensed food and/or beverage service in any
municipal owned and managed building, when the municipal governing
. body has declared specific portions of the building to be exempt for the
event
Subd. 3. Proprietor's Right to Prohibit Smoking. Nothing in this ordinance
prevents the proprietor or other person in charge from prohibiting smoking in their
establishment.
Subd. 4. Compliance with Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Irrespective of any
exceptions granted under authority of this ordinance, compliance must be maintained
with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, as may be amended from time to time.
Subd. 5. Exceptions Based on False Information. Exceptions and/or variances
based on false information shall render any exception or variance null and void.
SECTION E. Responsibilities of Proprietors:
Subd. 1. Records required for exemption
a, Applicants for food and/or beverage establishments claiming exemption
allowed under Section D, Subd. 2 of this ordinance, Shall annually provide,
in conjunction with their public health administered Food and Beverage
License renewal, a copy of the annual report of food and liquor sales records
as provided to State Revenue Authorities from the most recent liquor
licensing year. The report shall be submitted with a form supplied by
Olmsted County Public Health and the information shall be provided under
oath and penalty of perjury. The report and accompanying form shall be the
basis for demonstrating whether or not the establishment continues to be
. eligible for the exemption from the smoke-free requirements of Section D.
- - ---
b. Prospective licensees of food and/or beverage establishments seeking to .
open such an establishment, with an exemption from the smoke-free
requirements of Section D in this ordinance, shall provide a notarized
affidavit and agreement in conjunction with their application for initial Food
and Beverage License administered by Public Health, The affidavit and
agreement shall show that their business plan projections indicate that they
are eligible for such exemption and that they will convert to a smoke-free
status if their records indicate, after six calendar months of operation, that
the business is not eligible for continued_exemption from the smoke-free
requirements of this Ordinance,
Subd. 2. Signage.
a, a, Where smoking is allowed in a bar, private club, or a facility in which
private functions are conducted, the proprietor, or other person in charge,
shall conspicuously post a sign at all entrances to that area or facility stating
one of the following:
1) 1) "This entire establishment is a designated smoking area" or
2) 2) "Warning -This area contains tobacco smoke, which causes
cancer, heart disease, lung disease, and can harm you, your
unborn baby, and children"
b, b. If a bar, private club, or a facility in which private functions are conducted
has both smoke-free areas and a designated smoking area, the proprietor or
other person in charge shall conspicuously post, in addition to those
messages required by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, signs at all initial .
entry points clearly stating "Warning -This area contains tobacco smoke."
c, c. The proprietor shall also clearly indicate those areas inside the
establishment where smoking is permitted and those that are smoke-free,
through the use of signs required in this Subd. 2.
d, The proprietor or other person in charge of a restaurant shall conspicuously
post a sign at all entrances to the restaurant stating: "This entire
establishment is smoke-free," The sign shall include the universal "no
smoking" symbol.
e, The placement and size of lettering for all signs and symbols required under
this Ordinance shall be consistent with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act,
Minn. Stat. Sections 144, 411 to 144.417, and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air
Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, Part 4620.0100 to 4620.1450.
Subd. 3. The proprietor or other person in charge shall ensure that ashtrays,
lighters, and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smoking is prohibited.
Subd. 4. The proprietor, or other person in charge, shall 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, shall ask the
person to leave. If the offending party refuses to leave, the operator shall handle the
situation consistent with lawful methods for handling other persons acting in a
disorderly manner or as a trespasser. .
--.------ ---
.
Subd. 5. Compliance After Adoption:
a. a. The proprietor or other person in charge shall be provided up to 30 (thirty)
days after this ordinance is adopted to meet ordinance requirements.
b. b. The Public Health Director is authorized to extend the time for
completion, after considering a proprietor's written request for extension - that
includes a detailed explanation of need - that the Public Health Director finds
to be reasona ble.
c, c. Such extension, made at the Director's discretion, shall be limited to no
more than 90 (ninety) days. Extensions beyond that authorized in this
subdivision shall be according to the authorized appeals process.
SECTION F. No Retaliation:
No person shall discharge, refuse to hire, refuse to serve or in any manner retaliate
against any employee, applicant for employment, or customer because such
employee, applicant, or customer makes a report or files a complaint alleging a
violation of this ordinance.
SECTION G. Violations:
Consistent with Minn. Stat. Sections 375.53 and 609.02, violations of this ordinance
shall be a petty misdemeanor.
SECTION H. Exceptions, Appeals, and Resolution of Violations:
Administration of this ordinance, including guidance for, challenges to, and penalties
. shall be according to the authorities provided in Minnesota Statute Chapter 145A,
other applicable Minnesota law, and the Olmsted County Environmental Services
Administrative Ordinance.
SECTION I. Severabilitvand SavinQs Clause:
If any section or portion of this ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not
serve as an invalidation, or affect the validity or enforceability of any other section or
provision of this ordinance.
SECTION J. Effective Date:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect January 1, 2002 pursuant to
Minnesota law,
Dated this 13th day of November, 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jean Michaels, Chairperson
A TIEST:
Richard G. Devlin, Clerk-Administrator
.
1) lA \ lA+h
. Article VII. Smoking in Public Places.
Sec. 28-62. Findings of fact and statement of purpose.
(a) The Duluth City Council finds the following facts to exist:
(1) Tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and breathing second
hand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are children,
elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease and individuals with impaired respiratory function,
including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Many of these individuals cannot go into
public places with second hand smoke due to their respiratory or allergenic handicap; and
(2) Health hazards induced by breathing second hand smoke include, but are not
limited to, lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection and decreased respiratory function; and
(3) The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may
reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke for which
there is no known safe level of exposure. COrd. No, 9448, 6-12-2000, ~ 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, ~ 1.)
Sec. 28-63. Definitions.
For the purpose of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given them
in this Section.
(a) Bar. Bar means an establishment that has an onsale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.403, as amended from time to time, or an onsale intoxicating
liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.404, as amended from time to time, which
does not serve food or which has a limited food menu selection as defined by Minnesota Statutes See
157.16, subd. 3(d)(1), as amended from time to time;
(b) Bar/restaurant. Bar/restaurant means an estab1ishmentthathas an onsale 3.2 percent malt
. liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.403, as amended from time to time, or an
onsale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.404, as amended from
time to time, and that holds a small, medium or large establishment food license as defined by Minnesota
Statutes See, 157.16, subd. 3(d)(2)-(4), as amended from time to time;
(c) Office. Office means any building, structure or area used by the general public or serving
as a place of work atwhich the principal activities consist of professional, clerical or administrative services.
An office includes professional offices, offices in financial institutions, business offices, telemarketing offices
and government offices;
(d) Other person in charge. Other person in charge has the meaning specified in the
Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules Part462Q,01 00, Subpart 10, as amended from time
to time;
(e) Proprietor. Proprietor has the meaning specified by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act
Rules, Minnesota Rules Part 4620.0100, Subpart 13, as amended from time to time;
(f) Public conveyance. Public conveyance means any air, land or water vehicle used for the
transportation of persons for compensation, including but not limited to airplanes, trains, buses, boats and
taxis;
(g) Public place. Public place means any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public,
including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public
conveyances, bars, hospitals, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms and common areas of hotels and motels,
but excluding bowling alleys and pool halls until April 1, 2003, and excluding private, enclosed offices
occupied exclusively by smokers even though such offices may be visited by nonsmokers;
(h) Restaurant. Restaurant means any building, structure or area used as, maintained as,
advertised as or held out to the public for food service as defined in Minnesota Rules Part 4625.2401,
Subpart 15, which requires licensure under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157;
(i) Retail store. Retail store means that portion of a commercial occupancy used for the
transaction of business or the rendering of a service directly to the public, including shops, retail food stores,
laundries or laundromats and department stores;
. U) Room. Room means any indoor area bordered on all sides by a floor to ceiling wall. The
sides must be continuous and solid except for closeable doors for entry and exit;
-- ---
. (k) Smoking, Smoking includes possessing or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any
other lighted smoking equipment (Ord, No. 9448, 6-12-2000, ~ 1; Ord, No. 9490, 5-29-2001, ~ 1.)
Sec. 28-64. Smoking prohibited in public places; exception.
No person shall smoke in any public place except:
(a) Restaurants that have a currently existing designated smoking area in a separate room,
separately ventilated to the outside and constituting not more than 30 percent of the seating floor space and
persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter or remain, provided that this exception shall cease
to be in effect after April 1, 2003;
(b) Bars;
(c) The bar area of a bar/restaurant, if:
(1) The bar area is separately enclosed on all sides by continuous floor-to-ceiling walls,
interrupted only by closeable doors; and
(2) The bar area is separately ventilated, with negative air pressure in relation to areas
of the bar/restaurant where smoking is not permitted; and
(3) Minors are not permitted in the bar area at any time;
(d) A civic organization, service club, fraternal or patriotic organization or similar private
membership organization, when admission to the organization is limited to members and members' guests,
provided that this exception shall not apply to any organization established to avoid compliance with this
ordinance [Article];
(e) The use of tobacco as part of a recognized religious ritual or activity. (Ord. No, 9448,
6-12-2000, ~ 1; Ord, No, 9475, 12-21-2000, ~ 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, ~ 1; Ord. No. 9638,12-15-2003,
~ 1.)
Sec. 28-65, Responsibilities of proprietors.
. The proprietor or other person in charge of a restaurant subject to Chapter 28, Article VII, 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 are not provided in areas where smoking
is prohibited;
(c) Ask any person who smokes in areas where smoking is prohibited to refrain from smoking
and, ifthe person does not refrain from smoking after being asked to do so, ask the person to leave. (Ord,
No. 9448, 6-12-2000, ~ 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, ~ 1,)
Sec. 28-66, Previous exemptions.
All previous exemptions are withdrawn effective April 1 ,2003. (Ord. No. 9448,6-12-2000, S 1; Ord,
No, 9490, 5-29-2001, S 1.)
Sec. 28-67. Employees not required to enter bar area.
At public places that include both a restaurant and a bar, the owner shall not require nonsmoking
employees to enter the bar area as part of the employee's duties without the employee's consent (Ord.
No, 9448,6-12-2000, S 1,)
Sec. 28-68. Retaliation prohibited.
No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, penalize, discriminate against 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 afforded by this ordinance [Article]
or other law. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, S 1; Ord. No, 9490, 5-29-2001, S 1,)
. Sec. 28-69. Other applicable laws.
This ordinance [Article] is Intended to complement the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minnesota .
Statute Sec, 144.411 to 144.417, as amended from time to time. Nothing in this ordinance [Article]
authorizes smoking in any location where smoking is restricted by other applicable laws. (Ord, No, 9448,
6-12-2000, S 1; Ord, No, 9490, 5-29-2001, S 1,)
Sec. 28.70. Violation and penalties.
(a) Smoking where prohibited, It is a violation of this Article for any person to smoke in an area
where smoking is prohibited by this Article;
(b) Proprietors. It is a violation of this Article for the proprietor or other person in charge of any
premises subject to this Article to fail to comply with the requirements of Chapter 28, Article VII, or to
retaliate against an employee. applicant for employment or customer, as prohibited by Section 28-68;
(c) Private right of action, I n addition to the penalties provided in Section 28-70(c), any person
injured by a repeated or continuing violation of the Article may bring a civil action against the proprietor or
other person in charge of a public place to enjoin further violations, (Ord, No. 9448, 6-12-2000, S 1; Ord,
No, 9490, 5-29-2001, S 1: Ord, No, 9611, 7-28-2003, S 28,)
Sec. 28-71. Severabil ity.
If any portion of this ordinance [Article], or its application to any circumstances, is held invalid, the
remaining provisions shall be considered severable, and shall be given effect to the maximum extent
possible, (Ord, No, 9448, 6-12-2000, S 1; Ord. No, 9475. 12-21-2000, S 2; Ord, No, 9490, 5-29-2001, S 1.)
.
.
-- -.-- .--------
MODYVuM
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-13
. AN ORDINANCE ENACTING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6 RELATING TO SMOKING IN
PUBLIC INDOOR WORKPLACES
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Moorhead as foHows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Moorhead City Code is hereby created and enacted to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 6
SECTION:
6-1-1 Smoking in Public Indoor Workplaces Prohibited
6-1-2 Definition
6-1-3 Penalties For Violation
6-1-1 SMOKING IN PUBLIC INDOOR WORKPLACE PROHIBITED:
A- No person shall smoke, possess or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco products
in a public indoor workplace.
B. The owner or other person in charge of a public indoor workplace subject to the provisions of this
section must (i) post signs indicating "no smoking" or containing the international no smoking
symbol; (ii)ensure that ash trays, lighters and matchbooks are not provided in areas where
. smoking is prohibited; and (iii) ask any person violating this section to refrain from smoking,
possessing or carrying a lighted cigarette cigar, pipe or other tobacco products on the premises,
and if the person does nDt so refrain after being asked to do so, ask the person to leave the
premises immediatefy,
DEFINITION: "Indoor Public Workplace" means any enclosed, indoDr facility, business or establishment used by
the general public, or used as a place of wDrk, including, but not limited tD, restaurants, retail
stDres, offices and other commercia! establishments, publfc conveyances, bars, hospitals,
auditoriums, arenas, meeting roDms and commDn areas of hotels and motels. .
6-1-3 PENAL TIES FOR VIOLATION: Violation Df the prDvisions Df this section is an infraction and the penalty
imposed for a first offense of this sectlDn shall be a fine of $100.00, for a second offense a fine of
$200.00 dollars, and for a third or subsequent offense a fine of $500.00.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on September 1, 2004.
PASSED by the City Council of the City Df Moorhead the 21st day Df June 2004.
APPROVED:
MARK VOXLAND, Mayor
ATTEST:
KA YE BUCHHOLZ, City Clerk
. First Consideration: May 3, 2004
SecDnd Consideration: May 17,2004
Third Consideration: June 21, 2004
Date of Publication:
. St. Paul smoking ban: Where there's smoke, there's ire
Josephine Marcotty
Star Tribune
Publ1shed May 9, 2004
Grown business owners may cry. Insults may fly. Neighbors may picket neighbors.
If the experience of other communities is any guide, St. Paul Council Member Dave
Thune's proposed smoking ban in all the city's bars and restaurants is about to spark a
polarizing and contentious community fight.
On their face, the questions are straightforward. Do nonsmokers have the right to
breathe clean air in bars and restaurants, one of the last public spaces in Minnesota
where smoking is allowed? Or do smokers have the right to engage in a legal, though
unhealthy, habit?
Both sides are likely to argue everything from basic common sense (second-hand
smoke is a proven health risk) to fundamental American values (keep big government
out of business and let the marketplace decide).
Residents of St. Paul, get ready. "You guys are going to have fun with this one," said
Chris Wisocki, owner of the Pickwick restaurant in Duluth, one of the four cities in
. Minnesota to enact a smoking ban.
Smoking-ban debates in other cities have put supporters and opponents at odds about
health risks, big government, economic fallout and the marketplace.
Sometimes it can get emotional. When the community fight over a proposed smoking
ban in Eden Prairie reached its peak last year, people were so hostile that the former
mayor stopped letting her 12-year-old daughter answer the phone. The measure died
after major employers threatened to leave town.
In Duluth, the debate has raged for years, even after a smoking ban in restaurants and
some bars was overwhelmingly passed in a 2001 citywide referendum.
"I recall one businessman was in tears, saying he was going to go out of business if it
passed," said Pat McKone, senior director for tobacco control for the American Lung
Association in Minnesota.
She vividly remembers picketing the Pickwick, Duluth's grand old historic restaurant with
a bar that was popular as a post-dinner cigar spot.
"Great food," her sign said. "Dirty air."
. And it's still not over. City voters in Duluth may see another referendum this fall that
would extend the smoking ban to all bars that don't serve food.
Tough choices .
Community smoking bans are contentious because they force people to make
fundamental choices that go beyond whether they are willing to breathe secondhand
smoke, experts say.
"It gets into individual rights vs. public health -- that whole dynamic of me vs. the
community," said Jan Malcolm, former state health commissioner and board
chairwoman of the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, a nonprofit
tobacco-control group formed with money from the 1998 tobacco industry settlement.
"Those tend to be the toughest things in a culture and a political system like ours."
On Thursday, the day after Thune announced his smoking ban initiative, the e-mails his
office received were overwhelmingly positive: 52 were in favor, six were not.
In public opinion surveys, mostly commissioned by anti-tobacco groups, people have
expressed similar sentiments. In 2002, the Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition, a nonprofit
supported by many health care institutions, found that 79 percent of the more than 800
Minnesotans surveyed supported laws to ban smoking in workplaces, public buildings
and restaurants.
However, a smaller share -- 46 percent -- supported smoking bans in bars. .
An American Cancer Society survey of Eden Prairie residents found that the vast
majority favored a smoke-free ordinance for workplaces, including bars and restaurants.
'The American way'
Even so, say those opposed to bans, as long as smoking is legal the government
should not interfere.
One fourth of Minnesota restaurants are smoke-free voluntarily, said Tom Day, vice
president of government affairs for the restaurant trade group Hospitality Minnesota.
Governments should let customers vote with their feet, he said. Few bars have banned
smoking voluntarily, however.
Day predicted that in 10 years, the majority of establishments will forbid smoking
because customers will insist on it. "And that's way it should be," he said. "That's the
American way."
That will take too long, say smoking-ban proponents, The evidence about the health
risks of secondhand smoke is accelerating. Once viewed as increasing the risk for
cancer among nonsmokers with high exposures, now it is believed to be an imminent
danger for people with heart disease and other chronic conditions, experts say. .
. As little as 30 minutes of exposure can have a serious and even lethal effect on
someone with heart disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
said last month in the British Medical Journal. For the first time, the CDC said that
doctors should tell their heart-disease patients to stay out of smoky places. There is a
growing body of evidence that secondhand smoke rapidly increases the tendency of
blood to clot, restricting blood flow to the heart. About 35,000 people with heart disease
die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimate that the CDC is likely
to revise upward, officials said last month.
The risk for cancer also increases with exposure, experts said.
"It's like saying there is asbestos in the ceiling tiling and it's falling all over you and your
food, but don't worry about it -- everyone has a right to be in a restaurant where
asbestos is falling all over your food," said Dr. Richard Hurt, a tobacco addiction
specialist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester.
That's unfair, said Day, of Hospitality Minnesota. Asbestos in ceiling tile is illegal.
Serving eggs with salmonella in them is illegal, too. Smoking is not.
"That's a big difference," he said.
S1. Paul would be the fifth community in the state to enact a smoking ban. At least eight
. states -- and several countries -- have enacted them as well.
Reports on the economic effects are mixed -- depending on which organization puts
them out. New York City, which passed a no-smoking ordinance a year ago, reported in
March that tax receipts in bars and restaurants are up 8.7 percent since the ban went
into effect. Employment in bars and restaurants has increased, and air quality has
improved dramatically. Nonsmoking restaurant workers have significantly fewer tobacco
byproducts in their blood, the report said.
In short, it's been an overwhelming success, the report said.
But Day said that an industry study found the opposite -- sales receipts declined.
"They are both right," he said. "Some [restaurants] are going to benefit. Some will see
no effect, and some will close."
But others say those sweeping economic reports hide a painful reality -- it's often the
little guy who gets hurt by smoking bans.
"It destroys the mom and pop," said Duluth City Council Member Neill Atkins.
In Duluth, the economic effect was much bigger on the west side of town, which
. includes his district, than it was on the side near Lake Superior, where tourism is strong.
,-
Atkins said that many neighborhood bars and restaurants lost 25 to 30 percent of their .
businesses as smoking customers started going to nearby towns where they could have
a cigarette with their beer. A few closed, he said.
Josephine Marcotty is at marcotty@startribune.com.
@ Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
.
.