Laserfiche WebLink
businesses who made suggestions about changes to the ordinance. She said that to the extent <br />the council needed to level the playing field, she favored pursuing an administrative rule approach <br />as described by staff. She did not want to amend the ordinance at this point because it would <br />change the rules, inject uncertainty, and take more time. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what would happen if a business could not demonstrate that it achieved a <br />milestone by a certain date. Mr. Johnson said that the business would be required to comply with <br />the ordinance, and would be subject to its penalties. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 thought it unfortunate that there may be some using the building permit process as a <br />cover for extending smoking in their establishments for six more months. He said he would like a <br />level playing field but pointed out other nearby jurisdictions had not passed similar ordinances, so <br />the playing field was inherently not level. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Bohman about the complexity of the construction projects involved. Ms. <br />Bohman said that most were fairly straightforward and could be completed in the six-months <br />period. Mr. Pap8 suggested the City establish a date before which construction must commence. <br />Mr. Johnson said the administrative rule would include timelines on some of the steps outlined in <br />the staff notes, such as picking up the building permit, hiring a contractor to perform the work, etc. <br />Ms. Bohman reiterated the complication created by the building permit process, which had its <br />own legal parameters. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 thought the administrative rule approach a satisfactory one. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman favored the administrative rule approach. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> pursue administrative remedies to noncompliance with the six-month <br /> exemption to the smoking ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner determined from staff that while the building permit might not expire, the exemption <br />will expire on December 31, forcing compliance whether there was a good faith effort or not. Mr. <br />Meisner said he was not interested in amending the ordinance given the end date for the <br />exemption. He was supportive of the administrative approach and was willing to leave the details <br />to the manager's discretion. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr supported the motion. He agreed with remarks about the fact the council had created an <br />unfair playing field, and concurred with Mr. Pap8 about the inherently unlevel playing field because <br />of the fact bars that were a few hundred feet apart could be bound by different laws because of <br />jurisdictional boundaries. The council created an unfair business environment for competitors in a <br />market. Mr. Farr said he favored a statewide or countywide approach to prohibiting smoking, but <br />did not support such local laws because of the unfair business advantage. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly questioned whether the word "noncompliance" in the motion should be changed to <br />"abuse." Mr. Johnson indicated that was what staff would be looking for. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />