Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-21 - Agendas - Final Final Agenda For City Council Meeting October 21 , 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on October 21 , 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Citizen Survey Report — Molly Longstreth A. CONSENT: 1 . Approval Of The Minutes: Approval of the September 2, 2003 meeting minutes. 2. Narendra Krushiker Change Order # 1 Hampton Inn: A resolution approving Change Order # 1 to the cost-share agreement with Narendra Krushikcr in the amount of $8,458. 10 to install approximately 650 feet of 8-inch water main north from Sixth Street. 3. Crossland Heavy Contactors, Inc. Accelerated Water Line Replacement Projects: A resolution approving Change Order # 1 to the contract with Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc. in the amount of seventy thousand three hundred seventeen dollars and seventy cents ($70,317.70) to add the Locust Avenue Waterline Replacement to the accelerated waterline replacement project. 4. ADM 03-24.00 Master Street Plan Amendment, Technology Blvd.: A resolution amending the Master Street Plan to remove the portion of Technology Boulevard shown crossing the proposed springwoods Commercial-Planned Zoning District. 5. ADM 03-25.00 Master Street Plan Amendment, Truckers Drive: A resolution amending the Master Street Plan to remove the portion of Truckers Drive shown crossing the proposed springwoods Commercial-Planned Zoning District. 6. AEP/Swepco Reimbursement of Burial of Utilities: A resolution approving reimbursement in the amount of $ 101 ,806.00 to AEP/Swepco for burial of utilities along a portion of West Avenue near the New Fayetteville Public library. 7. Crossland Construction Company Contract Adjustments New Fayetteville Public Library: A resolution approving Change Order # 10 to the contract with Crossland Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $206,701 .00 to install low voltage equipment at the New Fayetteville Public Library. B. OLD BUSINESS: 1 . Amend Chapter 51 .136 Monthly Water Rates: An ordinance amending Chapter 51 , Water and Sewers, of the Code of Fayetteville, to change nomenclature; and adjust water and sewer rates consistent with the recommendations of the Black & Veatch Rate Study. This Ordinance was left on the second reading at the October 7, 1003 City Council meeting. 2. 2003 Millage Levy: An ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the year 2003 fixing the rate thereof at 0.4 mils for the Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund, 0.4 mils for the Policemen's Pension and Relief Fund, 1 .0 mil for the Fayetteville City library; and 1 .0 mil for General Purposes and Operations of the City; and certifying the same to the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas This Ordinance was left on the first at the October 7, 2003 City Council meeting. C. NEW BUSINESS: 1 . Houses Development Company, LLC.: An appeal of Large Scale Development proposal LSD02.29. 10. 2. Use Of Skateboards And Skates Upon Sidewalks: An ordinance to repeal § 74.08 of the Fayetteville Code and enact a replacement § 74.08 to clarify and expand the prohibition of using skateboards and skates upon sidewalks next to commercial, religious, governmental and industrial buildings and most City streets. 3. Skyler Place Subdivision Cost Share: An ordinance waiving the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approving a cost-share agreement with M.P. Construction Inc. in the amount of $ 18, 900.00 to construct approximately 370 feet of 8" water main associated with the Skyler Place Subdivision. 4. C-PZD 03-8.00 Planned Zoning District (springwoods — Collins Haynes): An ordinance establishing a Commercial Planned Zoning District titled springwoods (C- PZD 03-8.00) located South of Highway 112 and West of I-540, containing 289.28 acres, more or less; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fayetteville; and according to the Associated Commercial Development Project as approved by the Planning Commission. 5. Covenant Presbyterian Church Cost Share Waiver: An ordinance waiving the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approving a cost-share agreement with Covenant Presbyterian Church in the amount of $77'570.00 to construct a concrete swale and drainage pipe from Wedington Drive to 461 ' Street; and approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $ 12,080.00 for same. 0 0 6. TCA Cable Partners Franchise/Cox Communications: A resolution authorizing TCA Cable Partners, providing services as Cox Communications, to continue to operate the Cable Communications System. D. INFORMATIONAL: 1 . Council Tour: October 20, 2003 Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • / �Cl� uct.etY �� A4 /©AL Subject: Gal Motion By: Seconded: Motion To: Lucas Jordan Reynolds Thiel Cook Marr Rhoads ✓ Davis Mayor Coody ✓ Subject : CO Motion By: �ad� Seconded : Motion To: A RWi pv 2 Lucas Jordan Reynolds ✓ Thiel to� Cook 59 , 03 Marr Rhoads Davis ✓ J Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • • Subject: HM� ahoQ US1• 3l, 'C Motion By: � Seconded: d Qw Motion To: tc N Lucas Jordan ✓ n , ^ Reynolds � DNOI Thiel Cook ✓ Marr ✓ r Rhoads J tJW ' 1 Davis Mayor Coody Subject: C� O Motion By: Seconded: Motion To: uo Cf B . Lucas d (f Jordan �Qqt i�T Reynolds /� , ,,• � QJ Thiel �I AA Cook Marr ic , Rhoads Davis Mayor 40 [" t2� 1 �, -, Mayor Coody �# Vim"'' Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • • Subject: /4IF Motion By: MC!/Vl� LL Seconded: L.n�dS Motion To: Lucas Jordan t/ NP� Revnolds N 45L,4fv p� Thiel Cook Marr Rhoads r ek , Davis Abd - a3 Mayor Coody Subject: (,( r. A �j0 aul Q Motion By: Sika. oZl� Seconded: S1t EfM Q cook Motion To: �— Lucas ✓ ✓ AIVI Jordan ✓ ,/ /y Ql� Reynolds ✓ ✓ N Thiel ✓ r dl/u� Cook ✓ ✓ 3zS _ Ar Marr hoads ✓ f Davis �✓ ,r 47� � _ Q Mayor Coody 1 � Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • • Subject : C6 Motion By: DCWrSpn ar— Seconded: JCS Motion To: C� Lucas ,/ � ✓ CJordan NAP) Reynolds ✓ ✓ Thiel .� « ✓ Cook J Marr ✓ �� �� 7' Rhoads .� ✓ Davis ✓ ,� Z Mayor Coody ✓ Subject: _ 0 Motion By: DewI's � } it Seconded: " -tom Motion To: Lucas C ' " • Jordan Reynolds ✓ Thiel Cook Al Al 7/ l Marr n Rhoads Davis !/ � ✓ Mayor Coody kd�y�,3 Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • • Subject: C/O�' A Motion By: yfW.ca� � tkLG.•� Seconded : Motion To: A 3/tdAd n �j Lucas ✓ v' " • Jordan �� ,/ ✓ Njw Reynolds t/ ✓ Thiel ✓ ,/ ✓ Cook ✓ ✓ J Marr Rhoads ✓ � ✓ Davis Mayor Coody Subject : r�� Motion By: Seconded : L a � A,U i /LO Motion To: / f�14 W �Q AtemaA Lucas Al C' Y! Jordan Af r/ Reynolds ✓ ✓ Thiel N ✓ ✓ Cook Al ✓ ��d�lttlh. Marr �/ ✓ raid Rhoads 1/ ✓ Davis /✓ !✓ Mayor Coody Meeting of October 21 , 2003 • • Subject: 7�('ig (?/ tMY'/ A.,L. .7�Lt2et C� 1Sa Motion By: Seconded: Motion To: t O //-- Lucas Jordan Reynolds •• Thiel Cook � 61. J3 Marr ✓ Rhoads ✓ Davis J Mayor Coody Subject: Motion By: Seconded: Motion To: Lucas .Jordan Reynolds Thiel Cook Marr Rhoads Davis . s Mayor Coody Final Agenda For City Council Meeting October 21 , 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on October 21 , 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Citizen Survey Report — Molly Longstreth A. CONSENT: 1 . Approval Of The Minutes: Approval of the September 2, 2003 meeting minutes. 2. Narendra Krushiker Change Order # 1 Hampton Inn: A resolution approving Change Order # 1 to the cost-share agreement with Narendra Krushiker in the amount of $8,458. 10 to install approximately 650 feet of 8-inch water main north from Sixth Street. 3. Crossland Heavy Contactors, Inc. Accelerated Water Line Replacement Projects: A resolution approving Change Order # 1 to the contract with Crossland ✓� 2 Heavy Contractors, Inc. in the amount of seventy thousand three hundred seventeen dJ dollars and seventy cents ($70,317.70) to add the Locust Avenue Waterline Replacement to the accelerated waterline replacement project. 4. ADM 03-24.00 Master Street Plan Amendment, Technology Blvd.: A resolution amending the Master Street Plan to remove the portion of Technology Boulevard shown crossing the proposed springwoods Commercial-Planned Zoning District. 5. ADM 03-25.00 Master Street Plan Amendment, Truckers Drive: A resolution I � ,03 amending the Master Street Plan to remove the portion of Truckers Drive shown 1 crossing the proposed springwoods Commercial-Planned Zoning District. 6. AEP/Swepco Reimbursement of Burial of Utilities: A resolution approving � 5p reimbursement in the amount of $ 101 ,806.00 to AEP/Swepco for burial of utilities 0 , 63 along a portion of West Avenue near the New Fayetteville Public library. 7. Crossland Construction Company Contract Adjustments New Fayetteville Public Library: A resolution approving Change Order # 10 to the contract with 5 y'03 Crossland Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $206,701 .00 to install low voltage equipment at the New Fayetteville Public Library. B. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Amend Chapter 51.136 Monthly Water Rates: An ordinance amending Chapter / 51 , Water and Sewers, of the Code of Fayetteville, to change nomenclature; and ,w7;� bled adjust water and sewer rates consistent with the recommendations of the Black & * A10 V, i Veatch Rate Study. This Ordinance was left on the second reading at the October 7, X00 3 2003 City Council meeting. � �C2. 2003 Millage Levy: An ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property { within the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the year 2003 fixing the rate thereof at ' 0.4 mils for the Firemen's Pension and Relief Fund, 0.4 mils for the Policemen's nf0 � � Zf Pension and Relief Fund, 1 .0 mil for the Fayetteville City library; and 1 .0 mil for General Purposes and Operations of the City; and certifying the same to the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas This. Ordinance was left on the first at the October 7, 2003 City Council meeting. C. NEW BUSINESS: ,SJ1. Houses Development Company, LLC.: An appeal of Large Scale Development 000 d3 proposal LSD02.29. 10. t� O 2. Use Of Skateboards And Skates Upon Sidewalks: An ordinance to repeal § 74.08 of the Fayetteville Code and enact a replacement § 74.08 to clarify and expand the prohibition of using skateboards and skates upon sidewalks next to commercial, �( {,low religious, governmental and industrial buildings and most City streets. 3. Skyler Place Subdivision Cost Share: An ordinance waiving the requirements of (2CAb52� formal competitive bidding and approving a cost-share . agreement with M.P. it L) 2— Construction Inc. in the amount of $18, 900.00 to construct approximately 370 feet of T 8" water main associated with the Skylet Place Subdivision. 4. C-PZD 03-8.00 Planned Zoning District (springwoods — Collins Haynes): An ordinance establishing a Commercial Planned Zoning District titled springwoods (C- l Z3 PZD 03-8.00) located South of Highway 112 and West of I-540, containing 289.28 G` acres, more or less; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Fayetteville; and according to the Associated Commercial Development Project as approved by the Planning Commission. A 5. Covenant Presbyterian Church Cost Share Waiver: An ordinance waiving the D�I�Pi requirements of formal competitive bidding and approving a cost-share agreement N 2� with Covenant Presbyterian Church in the amount of $771570.00 to construct a concrete swale and drainage pipe from Wedington Drive to 46th Street; and approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $12,080.00 for same. top% n .! 6. TCA Cable Partners Franchise/Cox Communications: A resolution authorizing S� ^ TCA Cable Partners, providing services as Cox Communications, to continue to operate the Cable Communications System. �/ I©RMAT ONAL: ©� 1 . Council Tour: October 20, 2003 • • D 2 G�3 City Council Mating Scptcmtx,r 2, 2003 Page I of 32 Minutes Of A Meeting Of The I'�� r Citv Council September 2, 2003 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on September 2, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The D7ceting was called to order by Mayor Coody. PRESENT: Alderman Reynolds, Thiel, Cook, Marr, Rhoads, Davis, Lucas, Jordan, Mayor Coody, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Sondra Smith, Staff, Press, and Audience. A Presentation on the Trails Master Plan. Steve Hatfield gave a presentation on the Trails Master Plan. Mayor Coody: Thank you Steve, one of the things we are very pleased about is the progress that we are beginning to make in the trails network, we started off with zero trails here not too long ago and now we're creeping up on getting a network put together. The one that we are starting to work on now, the latest one is the West Mud Creek Trail which is going to be an incredible beautiful trail along Mud Creek that goes out to the business park. Steve took me on a tour there the other day and there are four and five foot diameter trees hack in there that we can sec and its going to be beautiful . We will be using all of the savings that we had from that job to put toward other trails. 1 am really pleased with your progress Steve and I am really glad you are on the job and 1 am really glad that we are making this kind of progress. Thanks for your presentation. Alderman Thiel: 1 would just like to say you have done an excellent job with this plan, I think it is a really good tool for the City and for the citizens, I think visually it ' s a very attractive tool. 1 think the GIS maps are excellent, I know it was a lot of work and I think we were getting a little inpatient, but 1 think it was worth the wait. A Presentation on the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks, Inc. Master Plan. Blair Johanson gave a presentation on the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks, Inc. Master Plan. Mayor Coody: Thank you very much, it was a good presentation. We have :t real push for economic development and I believe all of us understand that this could be a real shot in the arm for Fayetteville, not only the quality of life but for advancing the beginnings of the tourism market here in town, so we would like to wish you guys total success. CONSENT: Approval Of The Minutes: Approval of the July 15, 2003, August 5, 2003, and August 12, 2003 meeting minutes. Destruction of Records: A resolution authorizing the office of the City Clerk to destroy certain records pursuant to § 134-204 of the Arkansas Code. Resolution 128-03 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Clerk • • City C(lumil Mftiing Scptcatbti 2. 2003 Page 2 of 32 Botanical Garden of the Ozarks, Inc. Master Plan: A resolution approving the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks Master Plan. Resolution 119-03 As Recorded lit The Office Of The City Clerk. Botanical Garden Land Lease: A resolution approving a land lease agreement with the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks for the purpose of operating a Botanical Garden at lake Fayetteville Park Resolution 130-03 As Recorded /it The Office Of The City Clerk. Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan: A resolution adopting the Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan as an official planning document. Resolution 131-03 As Recorded /n The Office Of The City Clerk. McClelland Engineers Contract Amendment N 3 Wilson Springs Business Park: A resolution approving contract amendment No. 3 with McClelland Consulting Yngineers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 to complete survey work required under the real estate contract with Legacy Project, LLC. Resolution 131-03 As Recorded /it The Office Of The City Clerk. Bank of America Procurement Card : A resolution to accept a contract with Bank of America Corporate Purchasing Card Agreement. Resolution 133-03 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Clerk Alderman Marr said on the August 12, 2003 minutes at the end of the minutes it says shall the resolution pass it never records the actual vote, 1 just want to get that added to these minutes. Alderman Marr moved to approve the consent as read. Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Cost Share Bid Waiver M.P Construction: An ordinance waiving the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approving a cost-share agreement with M . 1'. Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $63,600.75 for the construction of a double 2' x 8' box culvert under Linda Jo Place. Mr. Williams read the ordinance. Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Marr seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Williams read the ordinance. Alderman Reynolds moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Williams read the ordinance. • • City Council Mccling Sapinntk7 2, 2(X)3 Pagc 3 of 32 Alderman Jordan: It's a bad flooding area, I' m glad to see something like this being done in that area. Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 4511 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Clerk. Marjorie Lee Brooks Condemnation: A resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by Marjorie Lee Brooks, ET ALIA to secure the necessary casements and rights-of-way for Gregg Avenue improvements. Mayor Coady: I spoke to their attorney this afternoon and the paperwork was sent to Little Rock this aftemcxm. Should we table this indefinitely? Kit Williams: You' re saying that in fact they have accepted the Highway Depanments offer. Mayor Coody: 1 have not seen the paperwork but when 1 spoke to Marjorie Brooks's attorney, they said they have sent the paperwork off to Little Rock and that was at 4 :30 and the State closes about 4: 30, so 1 am assuming everything is all right. Kit Williams: Yes, I think probably a motion to indefinitely table this would be all right, I think the only reason this was being rushed along is because the State Ilighway Department was pressuring us to get all this done so there would have to be a special meeting if something falls through. Alderman Jordan moved to table this resolution indefinitely. Alderman Davis seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Ruth 'Thornton Condemnation: A resolution authorizing the City Attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by Ruth C. Thornton to secure the necessary casements and rights-of=way for Gregg Avenue improvements. Mayor Coady: This one has not been secured and they don't believe that it will be so we probably will have to move along on this condemnation. The reason that the State is wanting us to agree to this tonight is because if we miss tonight 's approval of this then they will not be able to let the bids for construction and if we miss this bidding round we may have to wait another quarter, before we can start work on Gregg Avenue extension, which is why they want us to approve this tonight . Alderman Davis moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Reynolds seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Resolution 134-03 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Clerk Mayor Coady: What has been put before us tonight is this is the third item the State wanted us to approve; we didn't know they wanted this fast tracked as well. This is a pretty simple one, the City of Fayetteville owns land along Gregg Avenue that should have been put into right-of-way for the Highway Department awhile back and apparently it was not and they need to have a resolution declaring this property that we already own dedicated as highway right-of-way. Alderman Davis moved to suspend the rules and add the Marjorie Lee Steele Brooks, Gregg Avenue Right of Way to the agenda. Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. • • City Cmncii Mining ' Scpltnnber 2. 2003 Page J of 32 Mayor Coody: Any questions on what 1 just described about this right-of-way acquisition, since we already own It . Marjorie Lee Steele Brooks Gregg Avenue Right of Way: A resolution to declare City owned property as right of way for Gregg Avenue. Alderman Jordan moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Davis seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Resolution 135-03 As Recorded In The Office Of The City Clerk. OLD BUSINESS: Smoking in Certain Public Places: An ordinance to amend §95 .05 Regulation Of Smoking In Certain Public Places of the code of Fayetteville and to enact a replacement §95.05 Regulation Of Smoking In Most Public Places And Places Of Employment in order to remove exemptions for bars, pool halls, small restaurants, beauty salons, barber shops and designated smoking areas in enclosed public access areas in restaurants, theaters, roller rinks, bowling alleys, and retail stores, etc. This ordinance was left on the second reading at the August 5, 1003 City Council Meeting. This ordinance was tabled at the August 5, 2003 City Council meeting until the September 2, 2003 City Council meeting. Alderman Marr. Mayor before we open it to the public to comment on the entire ordinance, a suggestion 1 would like to throw out is if we have more proposed amendments that we handle them as we did at the last reading where we try to get those out so we can have public comment regarding the amendments and then move forward on the format of the ordinance. Mayor Coody: I think that ' s perfectly acceptable. Alderman Thiel: I have a question and then 1 have two proposed amendments. The question is 1 had a constituent contact me about this, how the ordinance would affect the following situation: An individual or group rents a meeting room in a hotel that doesn't have a bar and they hire someone to provide a cash bar for the event, is this room exempt from the ordinance since it comes under the definition of a bar, how is this going to work? He just wanted an answer to that. Kit Williams: Part of it depends on how the ordinance finally ends up, let's assume its as it is presented to you right now as amended on August 5, the hotels have designated smoking and non-smoking rooms but those would be guest rooms, if this was a guest room that was a designated smoking room 1 don't think there would be any problem there you can do basically what you want to 1 think in your own guest room, however it' this were a large exhibition room, then I don't think there arc any provisions within this ordinance that would exempt that room that i can sec. The only exemptions are bars, which are basically stand alone facilities and therefore any other place within the hotel except for the guest rooms that are smoking I don' t think would be exempt under this ordinance. Alderman Thiel: A temporary bar would not qualify as a bar then under this ordinance? Kit Williams: I don't think it would. Alderman Thiel: I just wanted that answer. The first amendment I would like to propose is to remove the Code Compliance Officers from the enforcement of this ordinance. That is under E, Enforcement in the • • City CnumiI Mwing Scptember 2, 2003 Page s of 32 short version, which I ' m using; we haven't moved to adopt one or the other, but that is the one that was recommended from the ordinance review committee. 1 understand Kit ' s reason for placing it in the ordinance because the smoking ordinance is currently within the health and sanitation section of the code book, however I think the Police Department should be the sole enforcement agency of this ordinance. 1 think it would be less confusing to the public and 1 think the Code Enforcement Division does not have enough staff nor do they have staff on call at night when most complaints would be made. That would be my first amendment; the second amendment would be to give businesses an opportunity to offer a smoking area for their employees. This amendment would be placed at the end of the definition of place of employment, at the very end of that section. It would read as follows: An enclosed smoking room with a ventilation system that ensures its air is not commingled with the now smoking areas of the building may be provided by a business for its smoking employees use and shall not be considered a place of employment for purposes of this section. Alderman Davis brought up some good points at the ordinance review meeting that small businesses will really be affected by this, this would be one way that they could possibly not have to eliminate some of their employees that smoke or don't smoke, I 'm not sure if that would happen but this would also provide the factories that do provide smoking right now to allow a smoking section for their employees. Do we want to do this one at a time, I would make a motion on these or how do you want me to do this? Alderman Davis: I have a question, you are talking about the short version right now, don't we need to take the items we discussed at ordinance review and bring them over one at a time and decide if we want to have the short version? Kit Williams: You might want to go that way first or you might just want to throw the issues on the table as Alderman Thicl has. What ever you all decide to do. Alderman Thiel: 1 guess my question about the short version is we have two short version drafts, one refers to a vote of the people, one does not, so 1 guess I would prefer making a motion to pass my amendments apart from that and then we would discuss whether or not we want to refer this to a vote of the people, which is one of the short versions, is that not correct Kit. Kit Williams: 1 did prepare two versions of the short version, one being a referral to a vote of the people and one being just an ordinary ordinance. Alderman Rhoads: 'They are both the same except for? Alderman Thiel: I would move to pass the amendment on removing Code Compliance Officers from the enforcement of this ordinance. Alderman Lucas: This was in the shortened version, it wasn't in the original version, it was the Mayor that was the designee, and he would designate who would enforce it in the original one, which we have voted on. Alderman Thiel: So I would have until we get to that. Mayor Coody: 1 don't have any intention in putting Code Compliance Officers in that role. Alderman Davis: You would be good doing that Dan. Alderman Lucas: So we might want to just leave it like it was in the original one. Alderman Thiel: So I would need to make that amendment whenever we get to the point of voting on whether we are going to take this to a referendum? • • City Council Meeting Septcmha 2. 2(X)3 Page G of 32 Alderman Rhoads: I think you would vote on it whenever we vote on the short or the long version. If we are going to vote on the short then you would want to put your amendment in there. Alderman Thick But we are going to be voting, it' I understand this correctly, when we vote on the short versions we are going to be voting on whether to refer it to a vote or not . Kit Williams: Someone can make a motion on which short version they want to have, if you want to do it incrementally as Alderman Rhoads was talking about, the first short version that would be presented would he just the way it is right now without a referral to the voters and at that point while that was still pending you could move to amend the short version to remove the Code Compliance Officers from the enforcement provisions. The Code Compliance Officers will not be able to enforce this unless you the City Council gives them that right. The Mayor cannot designate them to enforce this, he can designate the police officers, but he can' t designate them to do that . The way 1 read the Attorney General 's opinion and the State law this trust be done by the City Council, that is why I included it in there so the Mayor would have that as one of his options, but if you don't want the Mayor to have that option, just remove it. Alderman Marr: I would like to move that we adopt the short version of the ordinance as drafted by ordinance review, the one that takes it to three whereas clauses and changes the ordinance in such a manner that it includes, the inclusion of places covered by the ordinance with the exception of two exemptions, bars and retail tobacco stores, as drafted without the referendum compontent. So in the format as an ordinance only at this point. Alderman Davis seconded. Alderman Lucas: 1 have a question, are you including an enclosed private office that is not regularly entered? Alderman Marr: 1 am including this last draft that we have. Alderman Lucas: Under place of employment? Alderman Marr: Yes. Alderman Lucas: So that 's being included in there? Alderman Marr: Yes. That was in the original ordinance as well . Mayor Coody: Is this the first short. Alderman Marr: This is the very first regular ordinance short version. Alderman Rhoads: Without referendum. Alderman Thiel: I would second that amendment. Alderman Rhoads: It has already been seconded. Mayor Coody: We have a motion and a second to approve the first short ordinance. We' ve had a lot of public continent on this, generally we take public comment on all these, but we would be here if we discuss every jot and tiddle as they say, we will be here until probably next Thursday, what I would like to do is if somebody just has an overwhelming desire to speak to this particular question before us on the first short • • City Council Mnling Scptcnntc 2. 2003 Page 7 of 32 ordinance 1 would appreciate hearing from you, if you have spoken before, I will ask if you could refrain from speaking to let other people speak who haven' t spoken on this issue. Alderman Marr. Not to drag this meeting out but so that people are clear because of the change that we've made and the fact that this ordinance is much more shortly written now 1 would like to ask that we have our City Attorney read this ordinance so that everyone's clear on what the short version regular ordinance is. Mayor Coady: Would you mind Kit? Kit Williams: No, I just want to make sure I have the right one here. I understand the motion to be to adopt basically what I entitled the regular ordinance or the standard ordinance no vote by citizens. Is that the motion on the floor? Alderman Marr: Yes Mr. Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Coady: Docs that satisfy the reading of this ordinance? I would like to ask everyone to be very brief in your comments, what I would like to do if you do go over about three to four minutes I will ask you to please with the time sign to finish, so we can try to let everyone speak who would like to. If you have spoken before 1 am going to ask you to please let other people speak instead of speaking again unless you have completely changed sides in this argument. Thank you. Cyrus Young: 1 would like to get my mind straight on what you all just did. Don Marr made a motion and Kit just read something, now is that a motion to amend the ordinance that is on your table right now? You will have to vote on that amendment and then you will have to vote to suspend the rules and read it a third time? Kit Williams: I don't think they would actually have to, but my recommendation to them was that if they do move to have this changed as significantly as we have done here, 1 would like to go ahead since I have already read it for you to go ahead and suspend the rules so we can go to the second and third readings of this since it has changed so dramatically assuming that this amendment would pass. Cyrus Young: So your actual vote will be the third vote you take. Mayor Coady: Yes, I think so. Sharon Davidson: Asked the Council to vote on this tonight . Gene Kovach: Spoke against the ordinance. Matt Lerch : Spoke about the United Nations World Health Organizations Tobacco Free Initiative. He submitted the rules under the United Nations. Mike Young: Spoke in favor of tfie ordinance. Pat Butler: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Pat Donnelly: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Kirby Sanders: Spoke against the ordinance. • • City Council Mming Saptcmbcr 2. 2003 Page g 432 Stoney Rawlins, President of the Student Government at the University of Arkansas: Read a resolution that was passed against the ordinance. Alderman Marr. Your role at the student government . Stoney Rawlins: I am the President of the Student Government. I didn't sponsor this legislation. Alderman Marr: Do you have a similar resolution in reference to the University's smoking policy? Stoney Rawlins: No sir, I am just doing this on behalf of an associated student. Alderman Marr: So this is really to the City not the University. Stoney Rawlins: Yes sir. Alderman Marr: Did the student government take it position on the University Smoking Policy? Stoney Rawlins: No sir they didn't. Alderman Marr. Thank you. Dillon Ferrell: Spoke against the ordinance. William McMullen: Spoke on the ordinance. Gary Wheeler: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. George Weiss: Right now if the business has both a bar and tables and they serve food and they serve liquor, this is counted as a restaurant, is that true? If that same business at 10:00 in the evening decides to serve no more food, serves only liquor, is that a bar at that point in time. Can the same business depending on the time of day be both a restaurant where cigarette smoking, if you pass this would be banned and then later in the evening cigarette smoking would be allowed if it 's a bar. Kit Williams: There has been one amendment proposed that would allow that, without that amendment, 1 think my opinion would be no it would remain what it is which is a restaurant with a bar area even if the restaurant quit serving food. However the City Council may amend the smoking ordinance and provide a provision where after a certain hour if the restaurant is closed that it could then become a bar, it's their opinion. Gloria llousley: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. David Whitlow: Spoke against the ordinance. lie spoke about the escaladed fine structure for the businesses. Alderman Marr: That has been changed. There is no longer a progressive fining from $ 100 to $200 to $500; it is a 5100 flat fine with no progressive fine. That was a change made at ordinance review. Mayor Coody: The gentleman earlier asked a question about police enforcement and the Police Chief has spoken to this issue a couple of times, 1 don't know that he is here tonight , but he has said that he doesn't see this to be a problem if it passes and as far as the enforcement goes didn't think that if this passes he doesn't • • City Council Mmling Stpinnbcr 2. 2003 Pagc 9 of 32 see that if an owner of a restaurant is trying to do what they can and a customer won 't do what he has been asked, then it is his job just to call the police and the police aren't going to ticket a restaurant owner for at least trying. Dr. Jean Gibson: Spoke against the ordinance. Kim Lowery: Spokc against the ordinance. A Doctor: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Mary Proctor: Spoke against the ordinance. I would ask that you define multiple fines as far as work places, public places, referring to businesses: multi fines would be suspension or taking away a license. flow many is multiple, is it three, is it four, is it five, is it at somebody' s discretion. Kit Williams: I think it would be a patient Ilia( the enforcement people would look at and if there was a pattern of multiple violations of this ordinance and 1 think they would look at what types of violations there were, there can be very minor violations, someone doesn't have a sign up right or there can be a violation where they are encouraging employees and customers to violate the ordinance. That is not absolutely defined multiple means more than one and 1 think that the people that would be examining this would look at all the factors involved, not just the number of violations that a owner or manager might have of this ordinance to determine whether or not a license issued by the City would be revoked or suspended. Mary Proctor: So it is up to that person*s judgment? Kit Williams: Just like in virtually every court or administrative hearing there is discretion involved both with the prosecutor and with the administrative judge where the municipal judge in determining the appropriate action, whether it be punishment or not, if you try to spell things out too closely then you tie the hands of your officials and don 't let them use their own common sense, so 1 think it makes much more sense to say multiple violations as opposed to saying if there's three or if there' s four, because at that point in time there might be very minor violations, or there could be very significant ones and I think they should be handled differently. 1 think each case needs to be looked on for itself. Terry Payton: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Brian Wilkie: Spoke against the ordinance. Judy Wall: Spoke against the ordinance. Suzanne MacRae: Is an establishment that is basically a music establishment that doesn't serve food, is that a bar? Kit Williams: If their primary purpose is to serve alcohol, if they are a bar and their primary purpose is to serve beverages and the service of food, if any is incidental then that 's a bar. Suzanne MacRae: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Stephan Pollard: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Joe Fennel: Spoke against the ordinance. Andrea Fournet: Weren't you supposed to be discussing the amendments? • • Cily Council Mooing Scixcmbcr 2. 2003 Page 10 of 32 Mayor Coody: Basically it ' s the short version of the ordinance that we are discussing right now. Andrea Fournet: The way it is written now, bars are out, you can smoke in a bar but you can' t smoke in a restaurant correct? Alderman Thiel: All public businesses. Andrea Fournet: Except for a bar. Alderman Thiel: Except for a bar. Kit Williams: A bar is defined as an establishment whose service of food if any is incidental to their service of alcohol or beverages. Andrea Fournet: It 's illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 18 correct? Mayor Coody: 1 believe so, yes. Andrea Fournet : Is it illegal to smoke in a restaurant and a bar under the age of 18? Kit Williams: I don't think that is correct although 1 can't tell you for sure. Andrea Fournet: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Vicky Hilliard: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Julie Sill: Spoke against the ordinance. Jeff Collins: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Cathy Grisham: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Charles Ball: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Phillip Price: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Richard Maynard: Spoke against the ordinance. Rick Schweik: Spoke against the ordinance. Jim Smith: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Matthew Ilask: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Sandy Prince: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Janet McMullen: Does this ordinance mean that the presidcnt of our corporation could not smoke in his office nor could the sheet metal fabricator smoke in the shop? • • City Council Mmling Scptcmbtt 2. 2003 Pagc I I of 32 Kit Williams: It is possible, everything would have to be looked at individually, and there is an exemption under the place of employment definition that states an enclosed private office that is not regularly entered or occupied by a non-smoking employee is not a place of employment for purposes of this section. If it is not a place of employment, it is not regulated, unless it is a public place, which is like restaurants and bars. If you hada private closed separated office that a non-smoking employee did not frequent, did not regularly enter or occupy then that would not be regulated. Janet McMullen: So if 1 had two fabricators in the shop and one smokes and one doesn't, does that mean the other one has to go outside to smoke. Kit Williams: That would be a regulated workplace, that's correct. Janet McMullen: Spoke against the ordinance. Cambre Horne-Brooks: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Kathy 'rrotter: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Mark Wright: Spoke against the ordinance. .lean Ann Wilson: Spoke in favor of the ordinance. David Horne: Spoke on the ordinance. Alderman Davis: Mayor I have a question and Kit maybe you can help us with this. A bar and a restaurant, let's say for instance someone now decides to have a bar which is smoking and they have it enclosed according to the definition, but we have the restaurant next door, once again it is going to be enclosed, but you have a kitchen that is multi-faucet for both facilities, so if someone wants nachos in the bar, they can get nachos, if they want a full course meal in the restaurant they can. flow does that common kitchen area work out in this definition or docs it? Kit Williams: 1 don't know if it does because the definition says an establishment meaning for a bar that primary serves liquor and the restaurant is an establishment meaning a single one with a bar area being part of that restaurant so that it seems that if it common kitchen was shared they wouldn't be two separate establishments there would be an establishment which is either a bar or a restaurant . They would have to be totally separate, legally as well as physically before you could qualify as a stand alone bar. Alderman Davis: Let 's say both of them have exterior entrances into each section; do you still stand by the same comments you just made? Kit Williams: 1 don't think they could have a joint kitchen, 1 think a joint kitchen means not two establishments it means one establishment, I would think. It is very difficult to talk about these things in the abstract, when you don't know all the facts and factors involved, but at first blush it would seem to be if you have a common kitchen then you are not two different establishments. Alderman Davis: 1 know some instances where that could occur here in Fayetteville and that is why 1 asked the question. I think Common Grounds may have that issue along with Jose's has that situation right now where they probably could go with a bar on one side and a restaurant on the other, but they could possibly have the problem with a common kitchen and if we decide to put it in where they could have a common kitchen, what would be the verbiage we would need to put in the ordinance to allow that . • • City Council Mming Stpiember 2, 20X13 Pagc 12 of 32 Kit Williams: I am not exactly sure, 1 guess we could just try to Draft something that would say that a bar would not be part of a restaurant just because it shares it common kitchen, 1 don't know exactly how you would do that, this is the first time this has been brought up, this particular issue, but it would be some language similar to that. Alderman Davis: 1 kind of brought it up at the ordinance review and when we discussed it, we kind of went over it real quickly. 1 would like for us to look at some way to Draft the proper language to where certain establishments that are already set up would be able to do that , would have the ability to operate that way should there be a second to the motion of this nature and should the Council up here tonight decide to accept something like that . Kit Williams: I know Alderman Thiel did present something of a similar sort of motion, because she would have allowed a bar area of a restaurant if it was separately enclosed with a separate entrance and separate ventilation, to be a bar and not a restaurant, she didn't, I don't think address the common kitchen situation, but at that point I don't think there was very much support from the Ordinance Review Committee. I did not see it and so that's why 1 didn't draft any further language, although 1 drafted language for her on that, which was considered by the City Council. Alderman Davis: I ' m not sure of the language, but 1 would like for us to look at some way that the restaurants that do have a common kitchen between two solid walls, then essentially what you have is a common kitchen. You would have ingress and egress from the kitchen to the bar area and ingress and egress also to the restaurant which could be at different ends of the kitchen more than likely and with the ventilation in the kitchen. Anyone that ever works in a restaurant business will tell you that the problem with the kitchen is trying to keep it cool or hot, all the air goes out the ventilation system, so usually your utility bills are a lot higher because of all the stuff that goes out the chimney. Alderman Thiel : 1 would just like to point out the memo the City Attorney gave us in reference to that. Establishments can reorganize their business and basically get two separate alcohol permits, in other words the restaurant side could serve alcohol, but primarily food and still be required to be no smoking under this ordinance and their bar then they would have to limit the amount of food they serve or they could possibly even do a take out from the restaurant side, I'm not sure. 1 think that certain businesses could probably circumvent this ordinance by doing so, I think my idea was rather than require them to go through that which they very likely will, we would be offering some type of amendment that would give them the ability of doing that without having to reorganize their business and go through that expense. 1 think the City Attorney is correct, you can certainly make that motion, that amendment but it seemed like at the ordinance review there wasn't that much support for it . 1 will leave it in your court now because 1 didn't have much luck with it. Alderman Davis: I ' m not sure of the verbiage Kit, but I would like to have whatever you think would be legal along that line put into an ordinance to where a restaurant and a bar could use a common kitchen to have ingress and egress into the divided establishments. Mayor Coody: Any other coninients on this potential amendment? Alderman Lucas: Will we vote on this separately? Mayor Coody: Yes. Kit Williams: Would your amendment also include some of the language that Alderman Thiel had used that the bar would need to be separately enclosed with separate ventilation to ensure its air would not be commingled with the restaurants air? • • City Council Meeting September 2, 2(x)3 Page 13 of 32 Alderman Davis: That 's fine with me, the way 1 am discussing it we definitely are going to have two separate entities, the only common area is the kitchen where the employees have to go back and forth through, usually those are doors that have a tendency to open and close as you push your way through in most cases. Brenda do you care to add anything to that? Alderman Thiel : The definition of a bar in the concept that was presented at ordinance review read under the definition of a bar, a separate stand alone establishment within it 's own building oran establishment in an enclosed arca within a separate part of the building with a ventilation system that insures that it 's air is not commingled with no-smoking areas of the building and with an entrance separate from the entrance to the restaurant whether termed a private club or public establishment that is devoted primary to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages for on premise consumption and where the service of food, if any is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. It gives a provision in there that would allow a separate entrance to the bar area. So you want me to make this motion, I have made some other amendment proposals. Alderman Davis: The way 1 want to make sure that we do have the language in there that talks about the common kitchen. This particular one doesn't actually name a common kitchen. Alderman Thiel: I guess 1 don't understand why that has to be named. Alderman Davis: The only reason I'm saying that is so there is no question as far as interpretation next year or five years from now if it ' s black and white, it's black and white, if it's gray, it 's going to be gray and that 's going to depend upon what different individuals think. Alderman Rhoads: If you don't do what Bob is asking right now, I think it will not work for a common kitchen. I think a common kitchen will be enough to defeat the ability of smoking in one and not in the other, so 1 think you need this clarification. Mayor Coody: Any other comments on this item? What is the wish of the Council? Alderman Davis: Well I brought it up as a proposal and I haven't heard a second. Alderman Reynolds: Well you get a second. 1 want to support a common kitchen; I hate to see businesses have to go through the expense of putting in a second kitchen. Alderman Davis moved to have a restaurant and a bar that can share a common kitchen as long as the restaurant and the bar have separate entrances. Alderman Reynolds seconded. Alderman Marr: 1 am not going to support the proposed amendment . 1 am not going to support it because we have comprised and every time we comprise we move the goal post again. We've gone from protecting the health and public safety of everyone to protecting the health and public safety of everyone but bars and now we are going to protect it for some of the restaurants and 1 am not going to support that. Alderman Reynolds: I don't think that we are protecting restaurants, Mr. Marr, 1 think what we are doing is keeping the business owners from going through the expense, all the restaurants that have bars from putting in a separate kitchen. They can use a common kitchen to take care of their business, if it is a small serving hole into the bar and a small window going into the restaurant, it would be a neutral kitchen, but it would be a small opening, they would be in there and if the cooks are both not smoking, then I don't see a problem with it . • • Cily Council Mating September 2, 2003 Pagc 14 of 32 Alderman Davis: You do have to have ingress and egress from the exterior the way that I have brought this up to be able to be a bar separate, with a restaurant separate you also have to have a separate entrance, ingress and egress. Kit Williams: So the way 1 understand your potential amendment and correct me if 1 am wrong is that it would incorporate the language that Brenda read but you would also want to add to that a sentence that a bar and restaurant may share a common kitchen without changing the status of either one. Alderman Davis: Correct . Kit Williams: That would just be another sentence added onto that definition that you had proposed Aldemian Thicl . Mayor Coody: Let me ask this Kit, instead of voting on each of these amendments as they happen to come up and then not knowing what the conglomerate aggregate would be at the end, maybe we should discuss each potential amendment and then go back and vote on each one individually. Kit Williams: However you all want to do it, the votes do need to be done certainly individually, but if you want to discuss other amendments. Mayor Coody: 1 think I would like to discuss other amendments before we start voting on each individual one. ► will keep a list and we will compare notes at the end. Alderman Marr. So basically we have two items before us right now, one is changing the definition of a restaurant, because that is what we are doing, we're changing how we handle a bar within a restaurant. 1 want to make sure that I'm clear, is that right, or adding in the item we talked about at the Ordinance Review Meeting which was the definition, at the time we didn't have support, maybe that ' s changed since then and we are adding a common kitchen as an additional component of that definition, is that right? Kit Williams: That is my understanding, but that is now melted into a single amendment. We are also considering Brenda's first amendment which is to remove the Code Compliance Enforcement Officers, the first sentence under that section which allowed Code Compliance Officers to enforce this and secondly her other amendment which was to provide an enclosed smoking room for employees at the businesses option. Those were the first two amendments that ► heard. Alderman Thiel: 1 have not actually made a motion on either one of those or received a second. Alderman Rhoads: 1 think what we are going to do is talk about the proposed amendments and then perhaps go and see if we can get a motion and a second and then vote. Alderman Thiel: We have already done a motion and a second on the definition of a bar. Alderman Rhoads: I am just trying to figure out procedurally, ► am with the Mayor; 1 want to hear all of the things that are going to be proposed as amendments before ► vote on any of them. That's my preference. Alderman Thiel: I think that as parliamentary procedure we should have a motion and a second on these or otherwise they wouldn't be discussed. Kit Williams: That is probably true, have you made a motion on yours or you don't want to. Alderman Thiel: I am making a motion right now. • • City Council Mecting Septemtter 2, 2003 Page 15 of 32 Alderman Thiel moved to remove Code Compliance Officers from the enforcement of this ordinance. Alderman Reynolds seconded. Alderman 'rhiel moved to offer a smoking area for employees. Alderman Reynolds seconded. Alderman Reynolds: We are talking about factories like Superior Wheel, Marshalltown, American Air Filter, etc. Alderman Davis: Mayor 1 guess 1 will bring up one more, as 1 mentioned the other day in the ordinance review meeting I have had quite a few people call and we heard another lady this evening talking about the small businesses. Being in a business where I work a lot of different companies and so forth, 1 have heard that people are concerned about companies that have five or fewer employees and a lot of situations what happens is the owner and their wife may work there and both of them may be smokers, and they actually own the business, but they may have a receptionist or someone else that is a non-smoker and their concern is that by passing this ordinance in a small business situation it takes away their ability to do what they do in their business on a normal basis, if they so desire to smoke. They have told me if it comes down to that choice they will end up having to possibly let people go so that they can go ahead since they are the owners of the business and they are the ones that supply the payrolls to those individuals, they may end up having to let some individuals go so they can keep their private rights. 1 guess 1 would like to put an amendment here provided 1 get a second that businesses that have five or fewer people would be excluded from this ordinance. Alderman Davis moved that businesses that have five or fewer people be excluded from this ordinance. Alderman Rhoads seconded. Mayor Coady: Let me ask this, there seems to be redundancy here, Bob correct me if 1 am wrong, but it seems like exempting businesses with five or fewer employees, if the smoking room for those smoking employees that would like to smoke in a business would that not cover that same scenario? Alderman Davis: Mayor in most cases a small business mode docs not have a separate room where you can go smoke. Usually you may have a mail room and two or three offices where you put your individuals along with a reception area and that 's it, 1 mean you are not looking at someone that is going to be housing 3,000 or 4,000 square feet, you're looking at little offices that are going to consist of maybe 1 , 100 to 1 ,200 square feet in fact some of them are strictly open. The owner of the business may have his own little office; 1 think we are looking at two different situations there. 1 think if you are looking at an employee smoking lounge, you are looking at Marshalltown and places of that nature where you have the factories that are being given the opportunity to have a smoking room for their employees, whereas in a small business usually you don't have that much space. Alderman Thiel: It seems to me that an enclosed private office that is not regularly entered or occupied by a non-smoking employee is not a place of employment for purposes of this section, it seems like that would cover what you are talking about because if they wanted to have their own office as a smoking office they just wouldn't let their non-smoking employees come in there, that would be pretty simple, they would meet them outside the office, 1 feel like that is kind of covered here. Alderman Davis: But that is not real, that is not the way it works in the business world, you are going to get up from your desk, you are going to ask someone to bring you a file, you are going to go back to your desk, sit down, pick up the phone and make a call or two and then that individual is going to walk into your office with the file that you requested, so that individual is going to come back and forth in and out of your office, that is the real world. 1 don't think you are going to see the business owner continue to get up from their • • City Council Meeting Stptern" 2, 2003 Page 16 of 32 desk and go outside and close their door and say. I need that file and 1 am going to wait here until you bring it to me. 1 don' t think that is going to happen, 1 think they are going to go back into their office, make some additional phone calls and that person is going to walk in and say here is your file. Maybe they are going to knock on the door and say Mr. or Mrs. Owner your file is here on the floor whenever you are ready to come and get it. I would be surprised if that happens. Mayor Coody: I would too. 1 think there would be enough flexibility in a small office to where they could probably handle whatever came up, and 1 can' t imagine that we would need to legislate this. Alderman Davis: But this kind of leaves it questionable. Alderman Marr. 1 am just curious there has been tons of discussion all the way up to this meeting about whether it ' s it vote or not and 1 heard nobody bring that forward as an option, is that something that we are going to talk about as an amendment since we are putting them all on the table? Alderman 'Thiel: This would be the time to do that, because we are getting ready to vote on this ordinance so if there is going to be an amendment to take this to a vote this is the time to do it. Mayor Coody: Are there any other amendments? So far we have the Smoking Lounge in Businesses, Remove Code Compliance Officers, Sharing a Common Kitchen and Exempting Businesses with Five or Fewer Employees. Alderman Rhoads: There is nothing to prohibit us from adding other amendments aside from a referendum. Alderman Marr: No there's not, but what rule are we going to play by, are we going to play by getting them all out and talking about them or are we not going to do that. Mayor Coody: We have done four out of however many there arc, let 's go ahead and get them all on the table and find out where we stand because we might find that one potential amendment might be a conflict or redundant with another potential amendment so 1 would just as soon get them all out on the table. Mayor Coody: Kyle do you have any amendments that you want to add? Kyle Cook: No, 1 personally think we should vote on what we have here, we can beat this thing and beat this thing with changes. Mayor Coody: We aren't through beating it yet though. Mayor Coody: Brenda did you have any more amendments you wanted to add? Alderman Thiel: No. Mayor Coody: Swifty? Alderman Reynolds: No, 1 don't have any more amendments, but 1 have one comment . Don 1 would rather not water it down here, but what I am trying to do is protect the people that are in business here today that 's already operating. In the future I would be willing for anybody that's coming to town to build their building to meet our ordinance in the future. If we put any thing in there like the kitchens we do it for existing restaurants now and that way it is not watered down in the future. Any new restaurants coming to town would have to open under the new ordinance and we give the existing restaurants until 2006 to meet their ordinance. If we pass it as it is and we don't give our restaurants a break, they have to have everything • • City Cuuncil Mccling SgAtinbtT 2, 2003 Pagc 17 of 32 changed in four months, that is not possible, that is the reason I say we need to give them a little help with the kitchens. Mayor Coody: Don did you have any more amendments. Did you want to wait? Alderman Rhoads: 1 have sonic Mayor. 1 think that if 1 own a restaurant that does substantial bar business from 10:00 P.M . to 2:00 A.M ., but because I' m a restaurant 1 can't have smoking, then 1 am at a disadvantage and so 1 would want to have an amendment that would allow smoking after a certain time or after the kitchen closes and 1 guess I would rather have my amendment to be after the kitchen closes and allow that owner of that establishment or the manager to post sonic sort of sign saying that they will allow smoking after he or she closes the kitchen. I would propose in the alternative another probably more sweeping amendment and that would be that we would leave the whereas's in take everything else out and put in something along these lines, that owners of any sort of business or place of employment would post a sign indicating that they either allow smoking in all or some of it's facility or they don' t. Mayor Coody: That's different than convert to smoking. Alderman Rhoads: No, I said that ' s in the alternative, in other words what that would do Mayor is that whether you're a factory, small business, restaurant, or bar all you have to do is to post a sign indicating that you allow sone smoking or smoking in some part of the facility or all of the facility or you don't and that way people could walk up to your business and see that sign and say you know what I don't think 1 want to go in there because I don' t want to be around smoke or I don't mind I will go in there. Alderman Davis: Now Robert if I understand what you're saying your first amendment is more or less a red light green light situation is that correct? Alderman Rhoads: "That's right . Alderman Davis: What is your verbiage that you would like to have? Alderman Rhoads: My verbiage was the owner or the manager would post a sign indicating that after the kitchen closes and 1 think it should be specific as to what time the kitchen would close that there is allowed smoking in smoking sections or wherever he wants to have smoking and whether that 's 9:00 or 8:00 or 10:00 as long as he posts a sign that gives people fair warning. Alderman Davis: You need a second on your red light, green light and I will give you a second on that so we can discuss it. Alderman Rhoads moved to have the owner or manager post a sign indicating that after the kitchen closes smoking would be allowed. They would need to indicate what time the smoking would be allowed. Alderman Davis seconded. Mayor Coody: Well we could do that or we could just do a motion and a second. Alderman Thiel: You are saying do away completely with the ordinance we already have? Alderman Rhoads: Yes. That was my second one. Alderman Thiel: We have a pretty good ordinance as is. Alderman Davis: Well he has to get a second for that one for discussion. • • City Council Mccung Strnmbn 2, 2003 Page 18 of 32 Alderman Thiel: You' ve had a second? Alderman Davis: No. he has a second on the red light, green light to where the business owner decides to put up a sign when the kitchen closes. Mayor Coody: I would like to get all the amendments out and then we will go down the list one after the other and do the motions and seconds and just do them all one at it time. Mayor Coody: Bob did you have anything else? Alderman Davis: Not at this time. Alderman Rhoads: 1 have a motion and a second on the first one. I also put a motion up on the alternative for elimating the ordinance and posting signs. 1 wonder if I could get a second on that one. Alderman Rhoads moved to post signs that the establishment is smoking, non-smoking or some combination and replace our existing ordinance with that. Alderman Reynolds seconded. D7a-or Coody: Shirley did you have anything else? Alderman Lucas: No. Mayor Coody: Lioneld? Alderman .Jordan: No 1 don't believe so. Mayor Coody: Does anyone have any other amendments that they want to bring forward right now? Alderman Rhoads: Well, I am not sure what the procedure should be because it seems whatever we decide, let ' s say we take some of these amendments or we take that final one that was just motioned and seconded at the end of all of that 1 think you could still entertain a motion, 1 guess 1 want to get a ruling on this, you can entertain a motion that this all be taken before the people. Alderman Marr: What ' s left? Mayor Coody: Let's find out where we are first. Alderman Rhoads: I am asking a parliamentary question here. Mayor Coody: Ilere is the way I picture this, that we go through here, we won't know what the final outlook of this thing is until we find out what amendments arc going to be added or subtracted. I think at that point if some one wanted to make a motion to do something with the entire ordinance whether it's to vote it up or down or send it to a vote of the people it would be appropriate at that time, once we get these hammered out where we know what the whole ball of wax looks like, does that make since. Alderman Marr: Could you go through who has the motion and who has the second on each one of these please? Sondra Smith: 1 . Code Compliance from Enforcement: Thiel and Reynolds.