Archives > McKinney Courier-Gazette > News
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
RSS
Share
Council approves smoking ordinance
By Brandi Hart, McKinney Courier-Gazette
Any business or restaurant that opens in 2008 in McKinney won’t have a smoking section as the McKinney City Council narrowly approved an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants and businesses that have employees at its Tuesday council meeting.
Mayor Bill Whitfield and council members Pete Huff, Gilda Garza and Brian Loughmiller voted for the stricter smoking ordinance, citing that smoking in public places is a health hazard. Mayor Pro Tem Thad Helsley and council members Bill Cox and Bill Vitz voted against the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance prohibits smoking in restaurants, parks, and private clubs, such as country clubs or fraternal clubs. Smoking is allowed in parking lots of parks, public sidewalks, homes that are not used as childcare facilities, tobacco shops, cars, and designated hotel and motel rooms. No more than 10 percent of hotel and motel rooms can be designated smoking rooms. All smoking rooms must be on the same floor, adjacent to the other smoking rooms and must require separate ventilation systems to prevent comingling of air in non-smoking rooms.
Helsley voted against it because the council has to draw the line somewhere on dictating everything to the community, he said.
Vitz said it seemed his fellow council members were voting for the ordinance because they thought people were annoyed with second-hand smoke in restaurants and in businesses.
“I cannot support this ordinance. I haven’t seen anything that shows second-hand smoke is a health issue. The (McKinney) Chamber of Commerce had a poll taken for the smoking ordinance and approximately half of the chamber members are not McKinney residents,” Vitz said.
He was in favor of letting free enterprise take its course, Vitz said.
“It seems we’re voting for this because people are annoyed. Some restaurants are allowing dogs to go in but people are not. Every one of us should have enough gumption to go in there and say I will not support your business because you allow smoking,” Vitz said.
Loughmiller said he did not see implementing a stricter smoking ban as infringing on peoples’ property rights as the city already does that.
“I don’t see it as a property rights issue. We dictate property rights every day by telling people how high their fence can be to how much brick they can have on a building. Just because you pass legislation doesn’t mean you are being overly intrusive,” Loughmiller said.
Huff said his daughter is a doctor of oncology and he has heard first-hand the health dangers smoking causes.
“We’re really out of step with other cities, such as Fort Worth and Dallas, on the smoking ordinance,” Huff said.
Garza said she was going to vote in favor of the ordinance because second-hand smoke is a health issue.
“It may be an annoyance issue, but it’s also a respect issue. I support this ordinance,” Garza said.
Any business, restaurant or park that receives its certificate of occupancy from the city from now until Dec. 31 will have until Sept. 4, 2008, to comply with the ordinance. Any business, restaurant or park that opens, or receives its certificate of occupancy on Jan. 1, 2008, or after will have to comply with the ordinance when it opens in 2008.
John Kessel, executive director of the city’s Development Services Division, crafted the smoking ordinance and said it will help preserve the quality of life that makes McKinney so unique.
“Council charged us with developing an ordinance that protects the public’s health by eliminating smoking in public areas in McKinney,” Kessel said.
Any person or business violating the ordinance will face a fine of up to $500. Anyone who has questions about the implementation of the ordinance can call the city’s code enforcement department at 972-547-7400.
A public hearing was not held about the smoking ordinance, however, the council previously held a public hearing in a workshop meeting about the ordinance. No one spoke in the citizen comment period about the smoking ordinance.
That wasn’t the case for the specific use permit request the council unanimously approved to allow the Londoner to be a private club so it can once again charge for alcoholic beverages as numerous people spoke in the public hearing in favor of the council approving the permit. The Londoner lost its mixed beverage license with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in June. For the restaurant to regain it’s a license to charge for alcoholic beverages, it needs the council and Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the specific use permit request so it can move forward with its private club license application with the TABC. The P&Z unanimously approved the permit request on Aug. 27.
City staff did not recommend approval of the permit because of public safety issues the Londoner poses, according to Planning Director Melissa Henderson. The public safety issues were outlined in calls for service about the Londoner to the police department. Since 2003, the PD has received 81 calls for service about the Londoner, which is the restaurant in downtown the PD has received the most calls about, according to a staff report.
One call was from a lady who claimed she was sexually assaulted on or near the square after she had been drinking alcoholic beverages at the Londoner, according to chief of police Doug Kowalski. He did not know where the assault actually took place.
About 60 people attended the council meeting who were in favor of the council approving the private club permit for the Londoner. Numerous people spoke in the public hearing held about the permit request, including Barry Tate, manager of the Londoner.
“If the city feels there is an alcohol problem in downtown, it’s due to people offering drink specials. The Londoner does not offer drink specials. The chief of police spoke against about a pub crawl on St. Patrick’s Day. The Londoner did not participate in the pub crawl,” Tate said.
McKinney resident Angela Beaver spoke in favor of the council granting the permit. She is single and feels safe at the Londoner, she said. Beaver also presented a petition that includes 750 signatures from people and downtown business owners who are in favor of the Londoner having its private club permit.
Shannon Cole, of McKinney, who operates the Happy Trails Carriage Service on the weekends in downtown, recommends that her customers eat at the Londoner and asked the council to grant the permit request, she said.
The council also held a public hearing about the proposed 58.8 cents per $100 property valuation tax rate for the 2007-08 fiscal year. No one spoke in the public hearing. The council will soon be presented a proposed budget that includes a lower tax rate of 58.3 cents per $100 property valuation. The 58.3 cent tax rate per $100 valuation would reduce the 2007-08 general fund revenue by $472,794 and reduce the average homeowner’s tax bill by $10.83 annually, or 86 cents per month based on a home that is valued at $207,000.
The council also discussed possible staff positions that do not include fire or police personnel that could be cut from the proposed budget if the council approves a lower tax rate. The list includes two park maintenance technicians; two police dispatchers; one development review planner; one internal finance auditor; one staff specialist for the courts; and one part-time records technician in the city secretary’s office. The positions presented to the council were merely suggestions and the council directed City Manager Larry Robinson and staff during its budget workshop meeting to look at how the budget could be trimmed to accommodate the lower tax rate.
A majority of council members are in favor of the lower tax rate and they will approve the official tax rate for the 2007-08 fiscal year at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 18 in the council chambers at city hall, 222 N. Tennessee St.
The following are comments from the readers.
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
anger in mckinney wrote on Sep 5, 2007 2:38 PM:
" you know it is really sad that every part of our lifes are being run by goverment in one way or another. i am a smoker and i drink. and sometimes after a long hard word week i just want to go to a bar and have a drink at the bar and smoke a bit. so tell me , when will the city go into each home and write tickets to every smoking. if i want to go to a park and watch my kids play while i smoke than i will. i wont stop smoking outside in public areas. "
JJ wrote on Sep 5, 2007 6:01 PM:
" I am not a smoker, in contrast to the other commenter, however, I disagree with the smoking ban. I am an adult and I can decide on my own if I want to patronize an establishment that allows smoking or not. The only winner in this decision so far is the City of Allen. They won the tax dollars of Plano citizens when they banned smoking and now they will win the hard-fought tax dollars of McKinney citizens as well. You know, with the difficulty McKinney has had getting economic development to come in to try and relieve some of the tax burden of the citizens, you'd thing we'd be more careful about letting our tax dollars slip away! To quote an actress in a popular movie about a snobby sales lady losing hundreds in commissions; "Big mistake! Big! Huge!" The tax dollar flood gates will open and the City of McKinney City Council will have to take the full blame! "
public conscience wrote on Sep 6, 2007 12:12 AM:
" Well, it seems that smokers have become the only group that it is socially acceptable (and safe) to discriminate against now. "
Get with it "anger in Mckinney" wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:39 AM:
" I work hard too and I also drink. I don't like the fact that I can't enjoy my beer because of your smoke! I also can't sit on the same park bench as you to enjoy my kids playing at the park because the smell of your cigarett is so very bad. This does not even address the health issues, which Mr. Vitz does not chooses to, or does not understand! BTW do your kids a favor, stop smoking so you will be there for them. My Dad died from cancer when I was 15 and I really needed him around. I would have loved for him to meet his grand children and watch them play in that park. "
Too Old for Nanny-Government... wrote on Sep 6, 2007 11:44 AM:
" If tomorrow a full ban on smoking was proposed, I would be the first to back it. I don't like the smell, it burns my eyes, and it is obviously a dangerous habit. That being said, the fact remains that smoking is a nationally LEGAL activity. That is to say that you currently have the right to smoke cigarettes, and businesses have the right to dictate their own smoking policy under marketplace conditions. You do not have the right to "enjoy a drink" in a smoke-free environment, but you can choose to patronize a smoke-free bar, club or restaurant. Its time that we became big boys and girls, and realized that nanny-government is not the answer... Let your dollars speak to the private businesses! "
Get the facts wrote on Sep 6, 2007 3:50 PM:
" yes, when you pollute my lungs with your smoke you are a second class or at least a low class citizen. The economic arguments are a crock, here are the facts:
Fayetteville, AR: Fayetteville's economy continued to thrive after the city's 100% smokefree workplace and restaurant law went into effect on March 11, 2004. Employment increased, and 69% of Fayetteville restaurants reported higher sales after the smokefree law went into effect. Same-store sales of Fayetteville restaurants, open for at least a year, increased by roughly 6 percent, the best growth rate since 2001.
Lexington, KY: Business in Lexington-Fayette County's bars and restaurants has remained stable since the city's comprehensive smokefree law, which made restaurants, bars, pool halls, and bingo parlors 100% smokefree, went into effect on April 27, 2004. A University of Kentucky conducted study found that, since the smokefree law went into effect, restaurant employment increased, while the number of bar employees remained the same; and the number of licensed restaurants and bars opening and closing has remained stable, as well.8
El Paso, TX: In 2004, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the results of a study that found no decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas after the city's smokefree law was implemented on January 2, 2002.
Dallas, TX: In October 2004, the Dallas Restaurant Association commissioned a study by Clower and Weinstein, which claims that Dallas' 100% smokefree restaurant ordinance had a negative economic impact. A critique of the research methods used by Clower and Weinsten found "significant flaws regarding the study design and conclusions." In fact, an evaluation of Dallas sales tax receipts found that there were no statistically significant changes in hospitality revenue trends since the ordinance's implementation. The evaluation also found there to be an increased number of restaurant and bars in Dallas. This trend continues on after the smokefree law went into effect. The Clower and Weinstein study was used to dissuade the Houston City Council from adopting a 100% smokefree ordinance. Advocates need to be aware of the study and the critique, in order to counter it should it appear in their area.
Albuquerque, NM: Ninety-six percent of surveyed businesses reported that Albuquerque's 100% smokefree restaurant law has had no effect on business, with 97% of their customers responding positively to smokefree dining. According to the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research, restaurants saw a 6.54% increase in gross receipts for the 2004 fiscal year.
New York City: Business is booming in New York City's bars and restaurants with tax receipts up 12% since the introduction and enactment of the city's Smoke-Free Indoor Air law in March 2003. Figures from the city's Department of Finance show $12 million paid in taxes from bars and restaurants from April through September of 2003, compared to $10.8 million in 2002. Department of Finance Commissioner, Martha E. Stark said one early economic trend was encouraging since the policy was introduced last March: "New York's bars and restaurants paid the city 12% more in business taxes in the months since the ban began than they did in the corresponding six-month period in 2002." In addition, a 2003 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study designed to measure the ordinance's effect on employment rates in smokefree establishments, found a gain of 10,000 jobs since the implementation of the smokefree air act.
Minot, ND: After analyzing six years of data collected by the Office of the North Dakota Tax Commission, a study conducted by the Minot State University College of Business and the North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities, found "no adverse change in restaurant sales because of [Minot's] restaurant no-smoking ordinance," which went into effect on January 1, 2002. Data was collected from the first quarter of 1997 through the fourth quarter of 2002, and figures were analyzed using linear regression analysis - a statistical technique that adjusts for normal fluctuations in sales due to economic trends and seasonal patterns.
Fort Wayne, IN: Hudson Institute Fellow, William Styring, investigated the impact of a 1998 smokefree law on restaurant revenues in Fort Wayne. Sales tax data was collected between 1987 (twelve years before the ordinance was enacted) and 2000 (two years after the ordinance was enacted). No statistically significant variation in revenues was found.
Boulder, CO: According to GASP (Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution) of Colorado, sales tax revenues continued to grow in Boulder after the passage of the smokefree restaurant ordinance in 1995. Revenues from January through October of 1997 were up 3.14%, 1998 revenues were up 4.83%, and 1999 revenues were up 4.31%. The Boulder city finance department referred to the 1999 restaurant sales as a positive "strength."
Corvallis, OR: A July 1998 smokefree law in Corvallis bars did not harm business, concluded a study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute in Eugene. Sales data was collected from September 1997 through September 1999 and compared to data collected in nearby communities where similar smokefree laws were not in place. Researchers concluded that smokers did not abandon Corvallis bars and restaurants, and that revenues from the nonsmoking majority replaced any loss of business from smokers. Furthermore, Corvallis showed no decline in malt beverage sales relative to surrounding communities.
Flagstaff, AZ: A study conducted by researchers at Northern Arizona University found that Flagstaff's smokefree restaurant ordinance had no adverse effect on restaurant sales, as measured by tax data from January 1, 1990 (3.5 years before the enactment of the smokefree ordinance) to December 31, 1994 (1.5 years after enactment). Using four different methods of analysis, the study compared Flagstaff restaurant and retail sales with sales in two similar Arizona cities, three counties, and the entire state of Arizona.
Beverly Hills and Bellflower, CA: The California cities of Beverly Hills and Bellflower repealed their smokefree restaurant ordinances following opposition organized by the tobacco industry. Studies have since shown that, contrary to tobacco industry claims, there was no detectable drop in restaurant sales during the time the ordinances were in effect, nor was there an increase in restaurant sales following reversal of the 100% smokefree ordinances "
You must register with a valid email to post comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here:
Become a Registered User
- Return to: News «
- Home «
- Top of Page ^
