Work Session
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
CITY OF PARKVILLE, MISSOURI
February 22, 2005
Mayor Kathryn A.
Dusenbery called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Ward
1 Alderman Jack Friedman -Present
Ward
1 Alderman Charlie Poole -Present
Ward
2 Alderman David McCoy -Not Present w/prior notice
Ward
2 Alderman David Rittman -Present
Ward
3 Alderman Marvin Ferguson -Present
Ward
3 Alderman Linda Arnold -Present
Ward
4 Alderman Marc Sportsman -Present
Ward 4 Alderman Brian Atkinson -Present
ALSO
PRESENT: City Administrator Joe Turner
City
Attorney Jack Campbell
City
Clerk Barbara Lance
Assistant
City Clerk Claudia Willhite
Joe
Jennings, Rancho Grande Cantina
Sam
Silvio, Manager at Piropos
Harry
Sievers, Community Land and Recreation Board
Terry
Brown, VFW
Tom
Hutsler, Main Street Association
Winnie
Wang, Yoshiko
Todd
Broussard, Café Des Amis
Mike
Ginther, Bluffs Homes Association
MEDIA
PRESENT: Mark Vasto, Parkville Luminary
Kim
Bui, Kansas City Star
Mayor Dusenbery
asked City Clerk Barbara Lance to review the information regarding Kansas City
and Springfield ordinances. Mrs. Lance
said the packets included the Kansas City ordinance, (with notes); the
Springfield ordinance, (with notes); an ordinance she submitted to the board in
December that combined the KC and Springfield ordinances, and a new ordinance
banning smoking altogether. A document
showing current smoking rules in Parkville restaurants and halls was also
included. She stated that it’s been
approximately six months since the issue was brought to the table and hopefully
we are at a point where the board can advise what direction they want to go on
the issue. She noted that the Kansas
City ordinance has many inconsistencies and the 85% rule does cause confusion
for some.
Alderman Poole said ideally he would like to see
our ordinance written to result in the city being smoke-free, with few
exceptions. He noted that Stone Canyon
has decided it’s time to move forward and they have chosen to go smoke-free on
their own.
Alderman Rittman said he felt that differences in
definitions applied to this issue make it difficult to measure reality. He noted how negative many TV stations have
been on smoking bans and that this is a non-issue for his constituents. He said no one in his ward has approached
him regarding this issue and he is not comfortable approving a ban with the
“reaching 85%” clause added. He added
that Tom Hutsler came forward with the Springfield ordinance that he prefers to
the Kansas City ordinance.
Alderman Poole said he appreciated having the
ordinance to review and compare but he felt the Springfield ordinance
accomplished little because it relied so much on smoking and non-smoking
sections, which many establishments already attempt. He said he feels it’s important to consider the rights of
employees that have to work in smoking environments and what’s best for the
citizens of Parkville. He added that
several people in his ward have approached him to discuss the issue and thank
him for supporting this smoke-free effort.
Mayor Dusenbery asked why Kansas City put the May
of 2005 deadline/trigger in its proposal when it is so impractical. She also asked why the Maryville ordinance
was not included in the packet that night, because she thought is was a better
one and at least some bars were excluded in the Maryville ordinance.
Mrs. Lance noted that “grandfathering” was
recommended by Community Development Director Sean Ackerson as one approach to
consider in the discussion of how to proceed without harming the city’s
economic development.
Alderman Friedman said he understands both sides of
the argument but he recognizes how important this issue is to the health of our
community. He pointed out that fire
inspections and smoke alarms were not embraced when first mandated and now
their value in saving lives, injuries and dollars is undeniable.
Alderman Sportsman said he didn’t feel that was an
appropriately related analogy because unlike that example, the smoking ban will
cause economic consequences for many business owners.
Discussion ensued regarding the health and rights
of employees who work in smoking establishments versus the rights of the
smokers and business owners who don’t want to go non-smoking until everyone
does. This was followed by a suggestion
that it may be time to at least attempt to draft an ordinance to place
Parkville in Kansas City’s 85% count.
Alderman Ferguson asked why the city should go with
any ordinance if we’re not going to pass it.
Mayor Dusenbery asked Attorney Jack Campbell to
recount a comment he had made to her regarding a Lincoln, Nebraska, lawsuit and
how if Parkville is one of the first names to follow suit in Kansas City’s
effort, it may cost the city in legal fees if we are named in a challenge
lawsuit. Mr. Campbell apologized and
said if he had said that he did not recall the details of that discussion.
Note:
Alderman Atkinson had to leave the work session for a family commitment
at 7:30 p.m.
Alderman Poole noted that at least we would be on a
level playing field if we accept the Kansas City ordinance.
Mayor Dusenbery asked if MARC (the Mid-America
Regional Council) included cities and counties all the way up to Liberty? The reply was yes.
Alderman Rittman said enacting a smoking ban would
create an uncertainty regarding business investment in Parkville. He said several representatives from other
communities have said they passed the ordinance tied to Kansas City’s because
they know the 85% will never happen, but he feels to do that creates a cloud of
uncertainty that is difficult for businesses to operate under.
Alderman Poole pointed out that Overland Park is
actively pursuing this. He added that
second-hand smoke kills and those people who don’t want to go to eat or work in
an establishment where they will have to breathe tobacco smoke have a right to
do so.
Alderman Rittman replied that this is the core
difference – whose rights prevail.
Mayor Dusenbery said it seems more positive to
follow the Kansas City ordinance because of the 85% rule; that way nothing
happens until the 85% kicks in.
Alderman Rittman
said that in the interest of the community, whether or not to proceed should be
decided on what is best for Parkville.
The mayor stated she feels it really should be
addressed on a state level and then if Missouri enacts a statewide ban, Kansas
ideally will follow.
Alderman Poole noted that until some cities get on
board with this, however, that will never happen; the State is not likely to
act on this until they see cities moving forward on the issue.
Alderman Friedman noted that the same investment
considerations would apply for local businesses no matter what the board
decides.
Alderman Sportsman pointed out that we could always
go back and add verbiage later through an amendment or revision to whatever
ordinance we use. He asked if we
shouldn’t wait until Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties are on board before we
join the multi-city action proposed by Kansas City.
Alderman Poole said that Mr. Sportsman makes a good
point regarding the later addition of any addendum deemed needed but in the
meantime, shouldn’t we move forward and be proactive.
Mrs. Lance said she would like to have Jack
Campbell review the ordinances we are considering.
The mayor said she wanted Maryville’s ordinance
included in those considered. It was
later decided that Mr. Campbell would review only the one ordinance chosen for
consideration by the board.
Alderman Sportsman cautioned that picking pearls
from several ordinances would not produce an effective end result and he
suggested a grandfather clause for existing businesses. He also recommended looking at the
percentage of food versus liquor sales and in addition to a preponderance of
non-food sales we need to look at the number of people the business seats. This is an important consideration, he said,
because it’s difficult, expensive and impractical to chop up a small space.
Alderman Rittman said he would like to see support
for setting the standards benchmark.
Alderman Poole said that’s not going to make any
real difference.
Attorney Jack Campbell recommended the first step
should be to take an ordinance into consideration and vote up or down on it;
then if necessary, you can take your second step from there.
The mayor pointed out that there are so many issues
tied to this, such as who provides enforcement, what are the penalties, and
restricting smoking 25-30 feet from a building.
Alderman Sportsman said it would go a long way to
leveling the playing field if surrounding communities and counties are taking
the same approach. He said that would
be a discussion he is interested in.
Alderman Poole concurred that 85% would at least
create a level playing field.
Tom Hutsler said he was there on behalf of the
Parkville Main Street Association. He
said this is a national issue that is directly connected to freedom of choice,
and supply and demand should rule.
Kansas City excluded casinos and fire stations because their priorities
lie there and if Parkville passes this, we should exclude our priorities as
well.
Alderman Poole said we can only take so many
ordinances and piecemeal. He asked for
feedback from the board as to whether we want to tie in with the regional vote.
Alderman Sportsman suggested restrictions and
standards be carefully addressed to come up with our own ordinance, using
others as a foundation.
Mrs. Lance pointed out that if smoke-free rooms in
restaurants are part of the approved solution, rules and definitions must be
included in our ordinance to define the requirements for a smoke-free room.
Alderman Poole said this is the first real
opportunity to have this much-needed input from the board.
Alderman Rittman said he sees the Kansas City
ordinance as flawed and supports grandfathering.
Mayor Dusenbery stressed she feels this will be a
development deterrent.
Alderman Arnold said that she would like to find a
way to move forward with this without harming businesses but the City of
Parkville does have an obligation to protect and as noted earlier, businesses
once thought installing sprinklers was burdensome, but it’s accepted now.
Mrs. Lance asked for time to work with Jack
Campbell on this. She added that
addressing hotel room requirements regarding smoking adds another layer of
detail to the issue and do we want to include hotel rooms in the
ordinance. Several aldermen responded
with a “Yes.”
Alderman Poole asked for the will of the board on
what level of attorney involvement they prefer.
Alderman Rittman recommended Mr. Campbell should be
included for review of policy for legal purposes rather than to format
language. No one disagreed with this
and the mayor asked Alderman Poole to discuss the issue further, individually,
with a variety of business leaders, board members and Barbara Lance, and come
back with a clearly defined ordinance to consider.
Mike Ginther said that he previously lived in
Maryville for approximately 30 years and still goes there once a month. In a recent visit, he asked a resident of
Maryville how the community felt now about the smoking ban that had been
imposed and how it was affecting business there. The man replied that he was as surprised as many others to learn
that businesses there saw an average 12% increase in revenues since the ban was
approved so he didn’t have any complaints with it.
Mark Vasto added that he had heard from John
Geiger, a Maryville resident, that the ordinance is not strictly imposed and
smoking in businesses still takes place.
(A review of the Maryville ordinance shows that seven bars were
grandfathered when the ordinance was adopted.)
No further comments or questions came forward.
ALDERMAN SPORTSMAN MOVED THAT THE MEETING ADJOURN;
ALDERMAN FERGUSON SECONDED, ALL AYE; MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35p.m.
Submitted by:
_______________________________________________
Assistant City Clerk Claudia Willhite - 02/23/05