City beat from the March 26 City Council meeting: For minutes and schedule, visit springfieldmo.gov/citycouncil
An initiative-led measure designed to repeal Springfield’s smoking ban one year after businesses were required to honor the voter-approved prohibition on smoking in enclosed public spaces will appear on the ballot June 5.
Five of nine voting council members – Mayor Jim O’Neal, Cindy Rushefsky, Jerry Compton, Bob Stephens and John Rush – voted against the repeal initiative March 26, sending the measure to voters. A majority vote was required to pass the initiative, so now, voters will be charged with deciding to keep or discard the smoking ban.
Organizers of the repeal initiative, led by Live Free Springfield, have said Schultz & Dooley’s Too on South National Avenue and other businesses have closed as a result of the smoking ban. Opponents of the repeal, such as Anne Kim, co-owner of Ophelia’s and Finnegan’s Wake, have said their revenues are on the rise, and the ban levels the playing field for bars and restaurants.
“In the interest of fairness, it seems if we sent the issue to voters the first time, it should be placed in their hands again,” Rush said.
Rushefsky said it seemed “patently illogical” that the roughly 2,000 people who called for the repeal, plus the votes of only five council members, should cancel out the will of 11,000 voters who approved the ban last April.
Before the June vote, Stephens recommended council members work together to offer exemptions within a smoking ban. Possible exemptions include allowing smoking at tobacco shops and electronic cigarettes in bars, and council members would have to be in unanimous agreement on such changes.
City Attorney Dan Wichmer said council only has two options with any ordinance brought by initiative petition: pass the measure or send it to voters. Citing city charter, Wichmer has said measures coming from initiative petitions can be changed at any time if approved by council, but if voters approve a measure, it must stand untouched for at least six months and then can only be modified or repealed by a unanimous council vote.
Wichmer argued during the bill’s public hearing March 12 that because citizens called for the repeal through the initiative petition process, the charter only required the ordinance get a majority vote to be enacted. An attorney representing smoking ban supporters One Air Alliance disagreed, saying the city would open itself to a legal challenge if smoking ban supporters didn’t have an opportunity to defend their ordinance at the polls. Rushefsky said by sending the measure to voters, the legal question could be avoided altogether.
Councilmen Scott Bailes, Tom Bieker, Doug Burlison and Jeff Seifried voted to approve the repeal and avoid the expenses of an election, which could cost up to $100,000.
“I think we have a responsibility to come to a compromise, and the quickest path to that is to pass (the repeal ordinance),” Seifried said.
O’Neal said while he’d personally like to pass the ordinance and then make adjustments to the ban, he felt sending the measure to voters and working with fellow council members on possible exceptions in the interim was the right thing to do.
“I’d rather put us through the hoop of a unanimous vote,” O’Neal said of modifying the current smoking ordinance.
The issue has been divisive for businesses since last April when 53 percent of voters approved the smoking ban. Last week, officials with CoxHealth, Mercy Springfield Communities, Jordan Valley Community Health Center and Ozarks Community Hospital
issued a joint statement in support of the citywide smoking ban. At the March 12 public hearing, support for the repeal ordinance came from a handful of businesses, including Just For Him, Smoke 51 Outlet and Knightyme Bar & Billiards Inc.
If voters repeal the current ordinance, the smoking ban would revert to a law on the books since 2003 that allowed smoking in restaurants that have fewer than 50 seats, or report alcohol sales exceeding $200,000 or 50 percent of gross receipts. Also, restaurants with enclosed smoking rooms with separate ventilation systems, and all bars and private clubs would be able to permit smoking.
1200 WalnutCouncil heard two West Central neighborhood residents and one property investor advocate for a new apartment development called 1200 Walnut. To support redevelopment of the project area – along the south side of the 1100 and 1200 blocks of West Walnut Street and the north side of 1201 W. Elm St. – an ordinance was introduced to declare the land blighted.
The blighted designation would allow developer Gary Fenton to receive a 10-year tax abatement on property tax increases on the 2.33 acre property that contains five dilapidated structures, four of which are vacant. Conditions of the structures include rotted wood, cracked foundations, outdated electrical wiring, and mold and algae, according to city Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith.
The Land Clearance and Redevelopment Authority, which is a city-run entity that reviews issues related to blight, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended council approve the ordinance. According to the redevelopment plan, the 36-unit apartment complex would comprise two four-story structures.
Area property investor Jack Pugh said he supported the developer’s plans, and two neighbors told council they looked forward to seeing the new apartment complex.
1200 Walnut LLC, which is owned by Fenton, purchased the property in June 2008. Fenton said a lack of available financing held back his plans to redevelop the site.
Council is expected to vote on the ordinance during its April 9 meeting.
