Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1381) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AUGUST 20, 2001 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. Public Arts Endowment Advisory Committee Status Report 2. Discussion regarding a DRAFT "No Smoking" Ordinance 3. Discussion regarding the West Lambert Lane Park Improvements ($150,000) 4. Discussion regarding an Economic Development Incentive Policy Revision 5. Discussion regarding the Health Insurance Consortium Project ADJOURNMENT The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700. POSTED: 8/15/01 4:30 p.m. lh TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Public Arts Endowment Advisory Committee — Status Report The purpose of this communication is to provide a status report regarding the activities of the Public Arts Endowment Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: In September 1997 the Oro Valley Town Council established the 1% for Public Art Program by adoption of Ordinance No. (0)97-27. This ordinance required that one percent of the building construction cost for every new commercial construction project be set aside to create public art. This requirement also applies to existing developments that propose expansion and/or a change in use. On June 7, 2000 the Council approved Ordinance No. (0)00-19 which among other things, modified the Town Code to allow contributions to a public arts endowment fund. This ordinance provides that for commercial projects where the total building construction cost is $500,000 or less, the owner may elect to contribute the 1% ($5,000) to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or any specifically approved art projects in the Arts Endowment Fund or to an approved joint art project planned for the development that contains the contributor's building. For commercial projects where the building construction cost is $10,000,000 or more, the owner may elect to contribute that portion of the 1% over $100,000 to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or to any specifically approved art project in the Arts Endowment Fund. Ordinance No. (0)00-20 formally created the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund. Pursuant to the ordinance, the purpose of the endowment fund is to create perpetual sources of revenue to fund meaningful public arts in Oro Valley. Contributions to the fund are anticipated to be generated from developer contributions as identified in Ordinance No. (0)00-19 and any other contributions from individuals, groups or organizations. The ordinance also established some guidelines for fund administration as well as the Public Arts Endowment Advisory Committee (PAEAC) to review and make recommendations in regard to art projects proposed to be funded from the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund. PAEAC MEMBERSHIP The committee has held five meetings between March 29 and June 26, 2001 and has the following appointed membership: Mr. Dick Eggerding, Chairman Mr. Buzz Dolsberry, Vice-Chairman Sister Lauren Moss, Member ` TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 3 Ms. Wendy Timm, Member David Andrews, Staff Representative ANALYSIS During its first meeting, the PAEAC membership reviewed the ordinances and information regarding its mission and scope of work. After significant discussion, the committee decided to research the various organizational structures available for the utilization of funding and development of programming. The committee agreed to pursue this research along with considerations to additional public and private donations for arts/cultural development and programming within the Oro Valley community. This research was also performed with consideration to the identification of a permanent funding source for the Greater Oro Valley Arts Council (GOVAC). The committee received presentations and discussions from several local professionals in the endowment/foundation arena including the following: Ms. Donna Levy, Vice President, Accucom Mr. Bob Heslinga, Executive Director, Catholic Diocese Foundation Mr. Matthew D. Lehrer, Esquire, Legacies Inc. Ms. Donna Grant, Retired Executive Director, Southern Arizona Community Foundation These individuals explained the various innuendos that are associated with fund raising for various public purposes and the pros and cons associated with the various organizational structure options. The following information is a brief overview of information that has been obtained. Endowment Fund • Established within a Community Foundation (i.e. Southern Arizona Community Foundation) • The Community Foundation manages/administers the Endowment Fund and provides oversight for investments • Town may elect to direct the usage of the funds • The Endowment Fund would have no standing as a legal entity and therefore would have no board of directors and very little, if any, administrative expenses Supporting Organization • Autonomous organization separate from the Town • Established as a Supporting Organization to a Community Foundation TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 3 OF 3 • Has legal standing as a public charity organization; Supporting Organization would appoint minoritynumber of membership to the board; Community Foundation would appoint majority number of membership to the board based on the Supporting Organization's recommendations • The Community Foundation manages/administers/invests funding for the Supporting Organization for a nominal fee • Supporting Organization may elect to direct the usage of funds • Donors may feel that the Supporting Organization option provides more visibility and a separate identity from the Community Foundation than the Endowment Fund option provides • Donors are more likely to contribute to a nonprofit entity than to a governmental entity 501(c)3 Non-Profit Corporation • Community Foundations are typically incorporated as 501(c)3 organizations • Has legal standing as a non-profit corporation with election of board members pursuant to its by-laws • Autonomous organization separate from the Town and any other Community Foundation • May incur significant administrative expenses unless it is able to partner with another Community Foundation • Donors are more likely to contribute to a nonprofit entity than to a governmental entity Conclusion The PAEAC would like to discuss its activities to date with the Town Council in a study session. The primary objective would be to receive direction from the Council in regard to the Town's desire to establish a community foundation or supporting organization. The fundamental reason for pursuing these broader options would be to establish a permanent funding source for GOVAC and to develop an organization that would allow local residents and businesses the vehicle to make tax-exempt donations to a variety of charitable purposes serving the Oro Valley community. The committee would need support from the Town for some anticipated legal expenses related to researching the finer legal points of these issues including potential modifications to the Oro Valley Town Code. Da dr-ws, 1'nan e Director - Chuck Sweet, Town M.n ger G:/Council/Public Arts—Status Report 8-01.doc STUDY SESSION 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 1 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/20/2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: SMOKING BAN IN THE PUBLIC AREAS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SUMMARY: Other political subdivisions and/or governmental entities within Arizona have adopted smoking regulations. The Cities of Flagstaff, Tucson and Gilbert have already adopted "No-Smoking" regulations and Pima Countyis in the process of adopting similar regulation. Within Arizona, Flagstaff has been identified as the first charter city and Gilbert as the first non-charter town to adopt smoking regulation. Oro Valley has the power to regulate smoking within its boundaries through ARS §§ 9-240 (21) & 9- 240 (22). Moreover, "safeguarding the general health, safety, and welfare of the community has long been considered a proper goal for municipal government." State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 53, 6 P.3d 752, 757 (Ariz. Div. 1, 2000). Thisro osed No-Smoking regulation is a compilation of the Tucson and Gilbert ordinances and Pima p p proposed County's smoking regulations, but is more like the Gilbert Ordinance than the others. The proposed ordinance addresses in a more global way the broader public health, safety, and welfare issues associated with secondhand smoke (See Attached Reports). Unlike the City of Tucson and Pima County, the proposed ordinancep rohibits smoking in virtually all public places. "Public Place" includes any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" within its protection. Pima County, Flagstaff, Gilbert and Tucson instituted hardship exclusions in the event a business does in fact experience a decline in revenue based on the smoking ban. It is my understanding, Pima County is contemplating a "Hardship Phase-In" period for those entities that cannot afford to comply with the ordinance in the time allotted. Under Pima County's "Phase In Period," those who cannot afford immediate implementation areg iven 1 year to come into compliance or become smoke-free. The attached studies outline the minimal effect of this form of No-Smoking regulation on business operations and revenue. If the Council desires a phase in, this can be dealt with by delaying the effective date of the ordinance or adopting a provision similar to that in Pima County. Attached for your review are studies concerning the regulation of smoking and its effect on business revenue. F:\Council\Study\082001 SS Re No Smoking Matter.doc STUDY SESSION TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/20/2001 RECOMMENDATION: For consultation, discussion and direction. ATTACHMENTS: Studies regarding No-Smoking ordinances and the effects on retail sales. Ordinance No. (0) 01- Resolution No. (R) O1- l lb / P an L. Dudley Town Attorney &I)11—)34- Ag H. Brent Sinclair Acting Town Manager \\OV LEG\SYS\CouncilVSWdy\082001 SS Re No Smoking MaLLc.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT MENT REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED "SECTION 10-1-19, CONTROL,"SMOKING POLLUTION C " OF THE TOWN OF ORO, VALLEY TOWN CODE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO ' document regulating smoking in public places and in places VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain g g 10-1-19, SmokingPollution Control," of the Oro Valley Town of employment, entitled "Section Code," three copies of which is on file 1 in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a copy is ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. public record, and said co PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this day of , 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney 10-1-19 Public Record Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/sib 6.19.2001 ORDINANCE NO. (0) 01 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL; ADDING ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE SECTION 10-1-19 BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES THEREOF; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER. WHEREAS, on September 27, 1989,the Town Council did approve Ordinance Number (0) 89-21, which adopted that certain document entitled, "Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 10, Offenses," as the tenth chapter of the official Town Code; and WHEREAS,the U.S. Surgeon General has recognized that cigarette smoking is a cause of cancer and other serious diseases and he claims that nationwide use of available antismoking programs could cut in half the rates of teen and adult smoking within 10 years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARS § 36-184, the Pima County Board of Health has determined that literature and scientific evidence supports the conclusion that exposure to and inhaling of environmental tobacco smoke, also known as secondhand smoke or passive smoking, presents significant and measurable health risks; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARS § 9-240, the Town has authority to provide for the health of their residents; and WHEREAS, a study done by Dr. John P. Sciacca and Dr. Michael I. Ratliff of Northern Arizona University concluded that there are little or no effects on the local economy resulting from the passage of a no smoking ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town has deemed it necessary to add Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control, top reserve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents by regulating smoking in enclosed public places and in places of employment; and WHEREAS, penalties provided for violating any provision of this Section which are regulates smoking, and the Oro Valley Police Department (?) has the exclusive authority to enforce the provisions contained herein to promote public convenience or general prosperity as well as public health and safety; and 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 WHEREAS, adding Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control, is in the best interest of the residents of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and the Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows: SECTION 1. That "Section 10-1-19, Smoking Pollution Control," of the Oro Valley three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town Town Code, p of Oro Valley, which document was made a public record by Resolution No. (R) - Oro Valley, i s herebyreferred to, adopted, and made part hereof as if of the Town of O o Ordinance, the provisions thereof to become effective on the day fully set out in this of , 2001. r uant to ARS 9-803, anypenalty clause contained in a code or public SECTION 2. Pus § record, adoptedby reference, shall be set forth in full in the adopting ordinance as follows: It shall be person unlawful for any who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise premises the use of any subject to regulation under this Section to fail to comply with provisions.anyof its It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in area where smokingis prohibited by the provisions of this Section. Any any person provision who violates any of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by: A fine not exceedingone hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. 1) 2) A fine not exceedingtwo hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this Section within one (1) year. 3) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation of this Section within one (1) year. 3. Pursuant to ARS 41-1346, the Town shall maintain efficient record. SECTION § for local public records and it has been determined that this Ordinance is a management p public record with three copies of said Ordinance to remain on file in the office of the Town Clerk. SECTION 4. All Oro ValleyOrdinances, Resolutions, or Motions and parts of Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. If anysection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for anyreason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court ofcompetentjurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jnalsib 8.6.2001 PASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor and Town Council, the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this day of , 2001. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTEST: Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 Section 10-1-19 Smoking Pollution Control 10-1-19 Smoking Pollution Control A. Findings and Purpose L The Town Council does hereby find that numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and 2. Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand smoke include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, decreased respiratory function, bronchoconstriction, and bronchospasm. Accordingly, the Council finds and declares that the purposes of this ordinance are to (1) protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment, and to (2) guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke. B. Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Section shall be construed as defined in this Section: 1. "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. Although a restaurant may contain a bar, the term "bar" shall not include the restaurant dining area. 2. "Business" means any sole proprietorship, partnership,joint venture, corporation, or other business entity formed for profit-making purposes, including retail establishments where goods or services are sold as well as professional corporations and other entities where legal, medical, dental, engineering, architectural, or other professional services are delivered. 3. "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in the consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit,-and any person who volunteers his or her services for a non-profit entity. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 4. "Employer" means any person, partnership, corporation, including a municipal corporation, or non-profit entity who employs the services of one of more individual persons. 5. "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor and ceiling which is enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passageways) which extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, "office landscaping," or similar structures. 6. "Place of Employment" means any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including but not limited to work areas, employee lounges and restrooms, conference and classrooms, employee cafeterias, and hallways. A private residence is not a "place of employment" unless it is used as a child care or health care facility. 7. "Public Place" means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public permitted, including but not limited to banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place." 8. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, sandwich stand, private [or] public school cafeteria, and any other eating establishment which gives or offers for sale food to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens in which food is preparedon the premises for servingelsewhere, including catering facilities, except that the term "restaurant" shall not include a cocktail lounge or tavern if said cocktail lounge or tavern is a "bar" as defined in 10-1-19 (B)(1). 9. "Retail Tobacco Store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental. 10. "Service Line" means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons are waiting for or receiving service of any kind, whether or not such service involves the exchange of money. "Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, weed or other plant in any manner or in any form. 11. "Sports Arena" means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys, and other similar places where members of the general public assemble either to engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness sports events. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 C. Application to Town-Owned Facilities All enclosed facilities owned by the Town shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. D. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Smokingbe prohibited shall in all enclosed public places within the Town, including but not limited to the following places, and with the following exceptions: 1. Any means of public transit under the authority of the Town, and ticket, boarding and waiting areas of public transit depots. 2. Service lines. 3. Retail Stores. 4. All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in all businesses and non-profit entities patronized by the public. 5. Restaurants. 6. (Reserved)Bars (?) 7. Public areas of aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums when open to the public. 8. Any facility which is primarily used for exhibiting any motion picture, stage, drama, lecture, musical recital, or other similar performance, except when smoking is part of a stage production. 9. Sports arenas and convention halls. 10. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings, under the control of any board, council, commission, committee, including joint committees, or agencies of the Town during such time as a public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the Town. 11. Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in apartment buildings, condominiums, retirement facilities, nursing homes, and other multiple-unit residential facilities. 12. Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in multiple-unit commercial facilities. 13. Polling places. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 14. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment or facility may declare that entire establishment or facility as a nonsmoking establishment. E. Permitted Smoking All of the areas mentioned within Section 10-1-19(D) above shall be smoke-free. However, the aforementioned areas may allow smoking under the following conditions: 1. Smoking is permitted in an area designated as a smoking area which meets all the requirements of this Section, a designated smoking area must be: a. Physically separated from the non-smoking area; b. Independently ventilated so that air is not vented into or does not drift into any areas required to be smoke-free; c. No greater in size than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total square footage of the seating area of the public area; d. Physically located so that entry into the area is accomplished without forcing the public to walk through the designated smoking area or be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke; e. Clearly marked as a designated smoking area by the posting of legible warning sign(s) at all entrances to the designated smoking area which read(s) "NOTICE: SMOKING AREA. Smoking is known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung diseases in smokers as well as non- smokers." The sign(s) shall be black letters on a white background and at least 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches in size. 2. A designated smoking area may include areas immediately adjacent to and outside of the area, if: a. The area is at least fifteen (15) feet from the smoke- free area and public entrances and exits; and, b. Smoke from the outdoor-designated smoking area cannot enter the smoke- free area. 3. A designated smoking area may not include: a. An entry lobby; b. Waiting areas; c. Restrooms and the pathway between the restrooms and dining area; or, d. Areas where minors customarily congregate. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 F. (Reserved) G. Regulation of Smoking in Places of Employment It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide a smoke-free workplace for all employees, but employers are not required to incur any expense to make structural or otherh sical modifications. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Section, each p Y employer having an enclosed place of employment located within the city shall adopt, implement, make known, and maintain a written smoking policy which shall contain the following requirements: 1. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of employment without exception. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices, elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs, restrooms, vehicles, and all other enclosed facilities. 2. The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within three (3) weeks of its adoption. 3. All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon request to any existing or prospective employee. 4. (Reserved) Bars (?) H. Unregulated Smoking Areas Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Section: 1. Private residences, except when used as child care or health care facilities. 2. Retail tobacco stores, hotel and motel conference or meeting rooms, and public and private assembly rooms while these places are being used for private functions. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment described in this Section may declare that entire establishment as a nonsmoking establishment. I. Posting of Signs "No Smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly, sufficiently, and conspicuously posted in every building or other place where smoking is regulated by this article, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jnalsib 8.6.2001 having control of such building or other place. Every restaurant shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign clearly stating that smoking is prohibited. J. Enforcement Enforcement of this Section shall be implemented by the Town Manager(?) /the Oro Valley Police Department (?). Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this Section may initiate enforcement with the Town Manager. The Fire Department or the Town Manager shall require, while an establishment is undergoing otherwise mandated inspections, a "self-certification" from the owner, manager, operator, or other person having control of such establishment that all requirements of this Section have been complied with. Any owner, manager, operator, or employee of any establishment regulated by this Section may inform persons violating this Section of the appropriate provisions thereof Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, a private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this Section. K. Violations and Penalties It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to regulation under this Section to fail to comply with any of its provision. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this Section. Any person who violates any provision of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by: 1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. 2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this Section within one (1) year. 3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation of this Section within one (1) year. L. Non-retaliation Nop erson or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any right to a smoke-free environment afforded by this Section. M. Public Education The Town Manager (?) / Oro Valley Police Department (?) shall engage in a continuing program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of the Smoking Polluction Control Ordinance to citizens affected by it, and to guide owners, operators, and managers in their compliance with it. Such program may include publication of a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions of this ordinance. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 N. Other Applicable Laws This Section shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws. O. Severability (delete? — duplicate to OVTC Section 1-7-1) If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this article which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Section are declared to be severable. P. Effective Date (delete? — include in body of ordinance only?) This Section shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption and shall be reviewed within one year of its effective date. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 10-1-19 (F) Hardship Phase-In 1. The owner of any area outlined in Section 10-1-19(D) above, may apply for a Hardship Phase-In to allow a period beyond the date prescribed to make the necessary modifications to create a designated smoking area, if completing those modifications within the prescribed time would create an undue financial hardship. 2. For the purposes of this section only, an "undue financial hardship" means that the applicant does not have the current financial base or ability to borrow and repay the necessary funds to comply immediately with this Section. In such an instance, the owner must bear the burden of proving to the Town that compliance will create such a hardship. 3. Any Hardship Phase-In period shall not exceed one year from the effective date of this Section. 4. A Hardship Phase-In application to create a designated smoking area in compliance with this Section shall be submitted to the Town Manager (?) and shall contain the following: a. An official estimate from a contractor or contractors licensed in the State of Arizona of all costs of modifications required to comply viith this Section. b. Financial statements prepared by a licensed and certified public accountant outlining the previous twelve month period prior to the Phase-In application date outlining the undue financial hardship. c. A timetable for compliance with all sections of this Section within the one year period outlined under Section 10-1-19(F)(3) above. d. A sworn statement by applicant that, if a Phase-In is granted, that applicant shall in good faith comply with the timetable setout under Section 10-1-19 (F)(4)(iv) will be complied with and all modifications shall take place within the one year period. 5. An owner must apply for a Hardship Phase-In application to create a designated smoking area within ninety (90) days of becoming effective. 'In the event that such an application is not received within the ninety (90) days prescribed, the restaurant shall be smoke free until it complies fully with the provisions of this Section. 6. All new businesses constructed, opened, or remodeled after becoming effective shall comply with the provisions of this Section immediately, and shall not be eligible for a Hardship Phase-In. 10-1-19 Amendment Office of the Oro Valley Town Attorney/jna/sib 8.6.2001 •• ... .•.�•.r. . .. . •.v •••-.• �/•• V •V ••• W • ••L • V V • • • V-. T H E C l E N C S OF HEALTH P R O M C T r O - Health Policy Prohibitingin REffects on Restaurant John P. Sciacca, Michael I. Ratliff .. .__ _._J�.:.— ¢:.....�—r„„•�_....Z".r.�. . ..Y ..— ..• 1. .' ... .. —...1 �..:.♦r��h.L•11 ).`..;�..' .\ •...•ta�'♦ J.••►-• ..•' �f�"i.\'�A♦•♦..T.+ ' Abstract INTRODUCTION Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of prohibiting smoking in The health risks associated with restaurants on total restaurant sales in Flagstaff Arizona, exposure to environmental tobacco Design.Flagstaff restaurant and retail sales data were collected for periods approxi• smoke (F.TS) are well documented).: rrtatety 3.5 years prior to enactment of a no-smoking-in-restaurants ordinance and 1.5 Laws that prohibit smoking in restau- years after enactment of the ordinance. Data were compared with six comparison areas uti- rants and salter businesses reduce lizing four methods of analyses. the exposure of nonsmokers to ETS. Setting. The city of Flagstaff Arizona, was the community in this study that prohibited They also provide an additional in- smoking in restaurants. .-. centivc and a supportive environ- Sub frets. Flagstaff restaurant and retail sake were compared to sales in two similar merit for smokers to quit. Despite Arizona cities, three counties, and the entire state of An-zona. these benefits. efforts to enact Intervention. ri city ordinance that prohibited smoking in all Flagstaff, Arizona, res- smoke-free ordinances have often towards. -- been met with opposition. For exam- Measures. Taxable restaurant sales were collected from Flagstaff and all comparison ar plc, concerns continue to be ex- eac. Retail sales data were also collected to determine if changes occurred in the ratio of pressed that prohibiting smoking in restaurant to retail sales. restaurants may have a negative eco- Results. All analyses resulted in the same conclusions:prohibiting s»tokliig in restau- nomic effect on restaurant sales. rants did not affect restaurant sales. Such objections have contributed to Conclusions. Study findings indicate that prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff, Arizona, the defeat of proposed smoke-free restaurants has had no effect on restaurant sales, (4m-J Health Promo( 1998;12131:176--- ordinances. For example, In 1993. 184) the city of Scdona,Arizona,was con- Key Wards:Smoking, Legislation, Secondhand Smoke, Restaurants sidering a ban on smoking in its res- . taurants and bars. One of the presen- tations to the Sedona city council in- chided a videotape of California busi- ness owners testifying to a loss of revenue as a result of a smoking ban in their cities.y A Sedona restaurant owner was quoted as saying to the • city council. ''A smoking ban would be a major setback to my busirtcs • i would have less tax revenue and I would be forced to lay off employees. This is not a goucl thing fur Sc- dona." After listening to concerns John P. Sciacca, MPH, PhD, CHES, Professor of Health Education and Promotion, and about the proposed smoking ordi- Michael I. Ratliff PhD, Professor of Mathematics, are at Northern Arizona University,Flag mince. the city council voted to delay staff, Arizona. a vote on the smoking ban and fur- ther study the issue"'To date, the Stiid reprint rl'glinics w Dr.John Sciacca. Department of HPFN,College of Health Prole Iona.Box city of Scdona has not prohibited 15095. Nortlhorn Arizona L ni vercity,Fhlgunff,AZ$till l I. smoking m restaurants of bars. This mrlfilt.+c'ript""3 sirtnswirr.*for publication June LI. 1 P06:.art'+iionJ w., 'requester!t)rtvlxr 21, 1996:the rna,Ju- !tr)�i!u'eii!it'lt�rle'rl b"ftirl+llenrfv+i hue 17. 1997. Even when orCllrmnecs have heed t� - enacted, they have sometimes bccn .-101 f Her)lth Yroinoi 1994:1:01:1 is176-1,x{. c.pyoghr C 1995 11.1moira,�,/our�nul of Health Pmrmotiu++. Inc. overturned clue to claims that such 1hs941171MIS5.l10 t a legislation has Caused an adverse ef- 1 76 American Journal of Health Promotion Irl i'' I I L.I I L_ 1 1 1 1 1•:L, ill' -..rev --+v s,.r v v.. ...v - . . ,. - . • - - - • Sample Table Sales data were collected for t t. Arizona cities of Flagstaff,Yuma, and Population of Flagstaff and Six Arizona Comparison Areas Prescott; the counties of Yavapai. Co- .... conino. and Yuma; and the state of Population Arizona. The two comparison cities 1990 1993 Growth ('titma and Prescott) were selected Population Population 1990.-1993(%) based on their similarity to Flagstaff City of Flagstaff 45,857 49.620 8.2% with regard to the following criteria: City of Yuma 54,923 57,730 5.1% (1) the city collects total restaurant City of Prescott 26.592 28,405 6.8% and retail sales data on a monthly ha- Coconino County 05.591 104,700 8.4% sis; (2) the city is in a similar lnonmet- Yuma County 106,895 116.450 8.9% ropolitan area of comparable size to Yavapai County 107.714 118.400 9.9% Flagstaff (i.e., 1990 population of he- State of Arizona 3.665,228 3,958.875 8.0 cween 25.000 and 55,000); (3) the Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security.1903;Phoenix,Arizona. city is situated in a comparably sized County and is the largest city in its county; (4) tourism is one of the ma- called the ci • hall to say they or' industries in the city and its car- infect on local businesses. For example, � j 1 98 7, the city of Beverly'Hills, Cal- wouldn't be stopping in Flagstaff any- responding county; and (5) the cities ifornia. banned smoking in restau- more.k Furthermore, a number of experienced a relatively similar popu- , rants. The ban was repealed, howev- Flagstaff restaurant representatives lotion Increase from 1990 to 1993. er. after a widely publicized (yet tan- claimed they were losing hundreds of RetaiI and restaurant sales data substantiated) "report" claimed that dollars each day because of the "no were also collected for the three restaurants had experienced a 30% smoking m restaurants ordinance." counties (Yavapai,Yuma, and Coconi- drop in business after the ordinance For example, tiny manager of a Flag- no) in which the three study cities went into effect." staff restaurant asserted that, since are located, as well as the entire state in June 1993, Flagstaff became the the ordinance went into effect. "My of Arizona to provide additional cast city in Arizona to prohibit smok- business is down $100 to $300 a comparisons with Flagstaff (the only, mg in restaurants. Opposition to the morning."4-'The manager of another city that prohibited smoking in res- proposed ban on smoking in Flag- Flagstaff restaurant asserted that a taurants). The county of Coconino staff restaurants continued after en- large number of his patrons were (in which the city of Flagstaff is locat- actment of the ordinance. During Europeans who like to smoke and ed). the county of Yavapai (in which the first several months after the or- that the smoking ban could hurt the the city of Prescott is located), and dinancc became law, a number of entire Flagstaff community.The man- the county of Yuma (in which the stories suggesting that the ban had a ager stated, '''!'his could be a great cit}'of Yuma is located) each have negative effect on the local economy loss for Flagstaff. 'J'our groups won't tourism as a major industry,were of appeared in Arizona newspapers. For return, guests will never come to comparable population, and experi- example, a story in the Arizona Klub- Flagstaff again."e Concerns about the eased a similar rate of population in- lie quotes a visitor as saying, "When economic effects of the ordinance crease.Table l presents population I eat and drink coffee, I want my cig- continued to be expressed after en- information concerning Flagstaff and arettcs . . . We've been staying at acttnent of the ordinance.The pill- all comparison areas. Note that all campgrounds during summers for pose of this study was, therefore, to seven areas experienced a similar the past 7 years in Flagstaff_ But I'm assess the impact of prohibiting population increase (i.c., a 3-year to- not going to stay or spend any• more brooking in restauran Ls on total res- cal population increase of between money in that town."A Flagstaff r'esi- taurarnt sales in Flagstaff,Arizona. 5% and )0%). dent is quoted in the same article as saying. "I used to eat breakfast every METHODS Measures morning downtown. Now, 1 just tell Totals of monthly taxable restau- my friends fr'oni out of town who Design rant sales were collected from the Ar- smoke to just keep driving to (the Sales data were collected for the izona State Department of Revenue city ori Williams Uecause they're tet- 5-year period beginning January 1, and from the city•sales Lax offices in ter accepted aver there." 1990, through December 31, 1994, Flagstaff, Yuma,and Prescott.Retail Letters appeared in Flagstaffs ma- approximately 3.5 years prior to en- sales data (nonrestaurant retail sales) jar newspaper from an irate "truck- actrnnent of the ;io-smoking-inn-restau- were also collected from flagstaff er," stating that he and other truck- rants ordinance to approximately 1.5 and all comparison areas to deter- ers would bypass Flagstaff for meals, years after the ordinance had been mine the ratio of restaurant sales to end from visitors who stated they in effect for Flagstaff (the intervert- total retail sales and to help control were convincing others who smoke tion city) and six no-intervention for the possible confounding factors not to visit Flagstaff.?Two truckers comparison areas. of tourism and population changes. January/February 1998,Vol.12,No.3 177 I , • sr iaant tia of restaurant sales in Flagstaff to Restaurant t and retail sales data col- Method 1,- dor»�iarrso» of Rcat ,� iected were the official figures when Sales &fare and After Enactment of the restaurant sales in each comparison the data were compiled in early No-smoking Ordinance, Part 1. A corn- Area (Coconino County, Prescott, Va- c 1JcJ5P. n arisotn of restaurant sales for the 12 vapai County, Yuma, Yuma County. months preceding enactment of the and the state of Arizona) was cons- Intervention • no-smoking ordinance and the 12 puted.A comparison was then mark A city ordinance was enacted in months following enactment was of this ratio for the 12 months pre- June 1993 that prohibited smoking' made for flagstaff and each of the ceding enactment of the no-smoking in all flagstaff restaurants. ''Restau- six no-intervention comparison areas. ordinance and the 12 months after rant" was defined as Restaurant sales were plotted for enactment.The associated ratio was : each area for each month under plotted for Flagstaff and each corn- any place devoted prirmarily to food ser- consideration. For the 12 months pri- parison area, for each month under vice where liquor service is incidental, or to and after enactment of the or- consideration_The slopes of the least such as a coffer shop, cafeteria,sand- dinartce, the slopes of the least squares regression lines were comptu- wich stand with enclosed seating,soda squares regression lines for the data ed for the 12 months prior to and fountain or ice cream shop, private or were computed and piotted.These the 12 months after enactment of public school cafeteria, and any other two regression lines were used as in- the ordinance.The slopes of the eating establishment, organization,club, house, dicators of the sales trends prior to trend ratio lines were tested for boarding house,or guest which t cl or offers food for sale to thepub. and after enactment of the ordi- equality using these two regression givesnancc to test the slopes of the trend lints as indicators of the ratio of 1k, �tcc;srs,patrons,or employees, except P that the Lemli `restaurant'shall not in- lines for equality. sates trends prior to and after enact- elude a cocktail lounge if said cocktail Part 2. This analysis was similar to mcnt of thc ordinance. lounge is a 'bar' as defined herein. 'Bar' Part 1, except that the monthly res. Part 2. This analysis was similar to shall mean an area devoted primarily to taurant sales figures used were Part 1, except that the monthly ratio alcoholic beverage service to which food monthly averages covering the total figures used were monthly averages service is only incidental.Although a reg- 60-month period.January 1900 covering the total 60-month study pe- taurant may contain a bar,the term 'bar' through December 1994., For exam- rind. For example, the monthly lig- shall not include the restaurant dining pie, the monthly figure for January, ure for January, pre-ordinance, was ar`a' pre-ordinance, was the average of the the average of the ratios for January Effective December 2, 1994 (with- restaurant sales for January 1990, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 (four Jan- in the last month of the study peri- 1991, 1992, and 1993 (four Januarys uarys prior to enactment of the orcli- od), the definition of"restaurant" prior to enactment of the ordi- nance). These average ratio sales fig- was further clarified as follows: "Res- nance).These average sales figures tires were then plotted over time. taurant" means were plotted over time.The July The slopes of the least squares re- post-ordinance monthly average,for gression lines were computed for the an establishment with gross sales of example,was the average of the res- 12 monthly averages prior to and af. fond exceeding gross sales of alcohol, taurant sales for July 1993 and July to enactment of the ordinance. The • such as a coffee shop, cafeteria, sac !- 1994 (two Julys after the ordinance slopes of the trend lines were tested wick stand with enclosed seating,soda was enacted).•The slopes of the least for equality using these two regr es- fountain or ice cream shop,private or squares regression lines were comput- sion lines as indicators of the ratio of public school cafeteria, and any other - i establishment, organization, ed for the 12 monthly averages prior sales trends prior to and after enact- club,e�tng rR to and after enactment of the ordi- ment of the ordinance. hoarding house, or guest house, whichK ives or offers food for sale to nance. These two regression lines If enactment of the no-smoking the public. guests. patrons,or employ- were used as indicators of the sales ordinance had a negative impact on ees, except that thc term `restaurant' trends prior to and after enactment restaurant sales in Flagstaff, a cle- shall not include a cocktail lounge if of the ordinance to test the slopes of crease would be expected in the ra- said cocktail lounge is contained with- the trend lines for equality. do of restaurant sales in Flagstaff to in the establishment but physically sep- If enactment of the no-smoking restaurant sales in the comparison at- aratecl from the remaining area by ordinance had a negative impact on Cas, flour to ceiling walls and a door with a restaurant sales in Flagstaff, a larger separate entrance or smoke-face lobbyin the Rios of flag- mean remaining Comparison of area. 'Bar` shall decrease in restaurant sales in Flag- Method 3:an esrnblishmcnt with gross sales staff(during the post-ordinance en- staff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail ;sctment period) than in restaurant Sales Jiefore and After Enactment of the of alcohol equaling or exceeding gross l sale oh'food. sales in any of the comparison areas Nosnaking Ordinance. Part 1. The r:-- would be expected. tit) of restaurant sales in Flagstaff Is) Analyses nonrescaurant retail sales in Flagstaff I determine the effect of prohib- - Method 2: Comparison of Ratios of Flag- was computed. and a comparison was To iting smokingojt restaurant sales, staff Restaurant Sales to Comparison Ar made of this ratio for the 12 months data were analyzed in the following cess Before and f1/?er Enactment of the preceding enactment of the no-amOk- wayY, No-smoking Ordinance. Part 1.The ra- ink; ordinance and the 12 months at• 178 American Journal of Health Promotion 1 1 1 V 1 1`1 1` 1 1 1 1 is.,..., i 1J - ....rV -I V i...r ..r v�- v .r ,••• ..-.. .. - l monthly averages covering the 'Table 2 60-month period January 1990 through December 1994. For exam- Restaurant Sales Trends from Pro-to Post-ordinance Enactment pie. the monthly figure for,January, - _ ._-__ pre-ordinance. s%-a.• the average of Part 1' Part 2t motel/hotel sales for January 1990, Data Set(df az 66) t A t p 1991, 1992. and 1993. These average '" sales figures were plotted over time, .Fia9stalf restaurant sales 0.159014 0.875252 0.269003 0.790683 The slopes of the least squares re- Coconino restaurant sales 0.154811 0.878520 --0.176095 0.881990 Q Prescott restaurant sales 0.591823 0.560600 0.714732 0.753035 gression lines were computed for the Ya'apai restaurant sages 0.150104 0.882186 -0.419689 0.679186 12 months prior to and after enact- Yuma restaurant soles -0.158566 0.877167 0.273019 0.787630 mem of the ordinance. These two rc- County of Yvrna restaurant sates -0.873669 0.392668 0.551975 0.587081 gression lines were used as indicators State of Arizona restaurant sales -0.478307 0.637618 0.080708 0.936177 of the motel/horst sales trends prior' 'Twelve months bolore the ordinance and 12 months Atter the ordinance. to and after enactment of the ordi- 1 Monthly averages of all 60 months,January 1990 through December 1994. I1tnCC to test the trend lines for equality. If the no-smoking ordinance had a ter enactment. For each month un- 1f prohibiting smoking in resu-tu• negative impact on tourism, One der consideration, the associated ra- rants had a negative effect on restati- would expect to sec a decrease in do was plotted. The slopes of the rant sales, one would expect the ratio Flagstaff motel/hotel sales trends of least squares regression lines were or restaurant sales to retail sales to to enactment of the ordinance, computed for the 12 months prior to change; presumably, restaurant sales and the 12 months after enactment would decrease whereas retail sales RESULTS of the ordinance. The slopes of the for Items such as clothing and gro- trend ratio lines were tested for ceries would stay about the same. The following results were ob- equality using these two regression However, if tourism declined after tainted. lines as indicators of the ratio of res- enactment of the ordinance (e.g., as taurant sales to retail sales trends pri• a result of the ordinance), it is pass'. Method 1: Comparison of Restaurant o and after enactment of the or- bre that the ratio of Flagstaff restau- Sales Before and After Enactment of the t.,n ancc. if prohibiting smoking in rant sales to flagstaff retail sales No.smolting Ordinance. None of the restaurants had a negative effect on would not change because both retail tests of the slopes of the regression 'estaurant sales, one would expect and restaurant sales would decline. lines prior to and after enactment at .he ratio to change: presumably, res- To consider tourism, total hotel and the ordinance were significant. That .aurant sales would decrease while rc- motel sales trends prior to and after is to Say, sales trends for restaurant :ail sales (e.g., for items such as enactment of the.ordinance were sales in Flagstaff, Coconino Counts, tilothing and groceries) would stay also examined (see Method 4). Prescott,Yavapai County, Yuma, shout the same. Yuma County, and the state of Arizo- 1 Part 2. This analysis Was similar to Method 4, Comparison of Mote/hotel na did not differ significantly from ?art 1, except that. the monthly ratio Sales Before and A,flcr Ennehne'nt of the pre- to post-ordinance enactment. Ta- figures used were monthly averages No-smuhi:rg Ordinance. Part 1. Flagstaff ble 2 presents the t values and corre- -overing the 60-month period Janu- motel and hotel sales for the 12 sponding j. values for the tests in- ary 1990 through December 1994. months preceding and the ]2 volved. Figures I through 4 are For example, the monthly figure for mortars after enactment of the no- graphs of the data showing the two lanuary, pie-ordinance, was the aver- smoking ordinance were compared. trend lines for restaurant sales for . .ige of the ratios for January 1990, The associated motel/hotel sales the cities of Flagstaff and Ytima. '991, 1992. and 1995 (four Januarys were plotted for each month under ,)rior to enactment of the ordi- consideration. The slopes of the least Method 2: Comparison of Ratios of Flag. ,,ante). These monthly average ratio squares regression lines were comput- staff Restaurant Safes to Comparison Ar- .ales figures were then plotted over ed for the 12 months prior to and eas&&&fore and After Enactment of the . ime, The slopes of the least squares the 12 months after enactment of No-smoking Ordinance. The slopes of i.cgressioil lines were computed for the ordinance.Using these two re- the pre-and post-ordinance ratios of he 12 monthly averages prior to and gression lines as indicators of the Flagstaff restaurant sales to restaurant .fter enactment of the ordinance. motel/lrotcl sales trends prior to and sales its comparison areas showed no .king the regression lines as indica- after enactment of the ordinance, significant differences. That is to say, oars of the ratio of restaurant sales to the slopes of the trend lines were the ratio trend before enactment of argil sales trends prior to and after tested for equality. the ordinance and the ratio trend ;tf• "tment of the ordinance, the Part 2, This analysis was similar to ter enactment did not significantly „es of these two u-end ratio lines Part 1, except that the monthly mo- differ in any' of the 12 comparisons. Fere• tested for equality. tel/hotel sales figures used were Figure 5 is a graph of the ratio data January/February 1998. Vol. 12, No. 3 179 examined the ratio of Flagstaff res- Figure 1 taurant sales to Flagstaff nonrestaLu- rrtnt retail s;tles. A plot of this ratio Restaurant Sales for the City of Flagstaff as a time series is given in Figure 6. The trends for the 12 months prior loom - to and after enactment of the ordi- t,`' '3414„40, n:tnce were compared. No significant 8000 differences were found between� r t these two �.�slid lines for the 12 411111 A 1 Itymonths prior to and after enactment (Part 1) or for the monthly averages 2 8000 (Part 2) for the period January 1990 through December 1991 (see'Table C 4), g I . Method 4. Comparison of Moret/Hotel _ � � : � , 0 � .....� Sales Before and After Enactment of the Enactment Non»toking Ordinance. Monthly hotel./ of Ordinance motel sales trends were tested for the 12-month Pro-ordinance 12-month Post-ordinance 12 months prior to and after enact- Enactment meat of the ordinance to control for • . . fluctuations in tourism. No signifi- cant ignif icant changes in trends were found showing the two trend lines for the enactment (Part 1), as well as the six (see Table 4). Figure 7 is a graph of ratio of restaurant sales in Flagstaff sates ratios for the monthly averages the motel/hotel sales as a time series to restaurant sales in Yavapa! County of all 60 months (Part 2). showing the 12 months prior to and prior to and after enactment of the the 12 months after enactment_ Fig- ordinance. Table 3 gives the results Method 3: Comparison of Ratios of Fat urs 8 provides the monthly average of the test (i.e., the I and p values) staff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail sales for the 60-month period Janu- for each of the six sales ratio trends Sales Before and After Enactment of the aro 1990 through December 1994. for the 12 months prior to and after No-smoking Ordinance. This method This provides further evidence that the no-smoking ordinance had no cf- J .. .. .--*- : '. . � . .':.-...i...... -....„ restaurantfcct on sales in 1l agS taff. Figure 2 DISCUSSION Monthly Restaurant Sales Averges for the City of Flagstaff" This study found no evidence that prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff res- • ,oon •----- taurants adversely affected restaurant sales. The findings support those rc- 0 e°4° ported by Glantz and Smith,'who y compared restaurant sales in 15 cities 1 80004 • where smoke-free ordinances were in g -+1% force with 15 similar communities t 7000 lir lopp, T 1r without smoke-free ordinances and found that smoke-free ordinances diel 242 8000 not adversely affect restaurant sales. V These findings arc also consistent 6000 with other studies in California and tI Texas-19-'2 cc 4000 Fur'thc:rmore, the findings of the present study arc consistent with 0 _L._ 4........4......:......1--1--1--L---2---1 i .1�1__1___11 1 1 1 those of the National Restaurant As- „otoAugSeo O s�No Dec JM Feb Mar Apr May.ve J l Av4 Se i�'G fir a Jean Feb Ma:Apr gray Jot Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance Enactment socia[ion,'=i in which a majority of Monthly Averages:January 1920-December 1994 consumers indicated that they would 1)e inure likely to patronise a restau- rant that banned smoking while fc.,-- Nato that the stope of the trend line reflects hfgner restaurant sales in high tourism months(©,g,• et indicated that they would be less July, August,and September). likely to go to a restaurant that _ . . . _ .. .. . , , .. A banned smoking. When New York 100 American Journal of Health Promotion City's Smoke-Free Air Act went into Figure 3 effect in 1995. the vast majority of the cirv's restaurantc became smoke Monthly Sales for the City of Yuma free. Corson et al." surveyed 389 pa- trons of Neu York City restaurants P0000 - - _______ __ , _ - - ._ - and found that 37.0% or the smokers (approximately one-third of the sarn- plc) reported that they were dining . out less frequently and that 5.3% re- . 80000 ported they were dining out more o frequent]}'. However. 16.5% of the WI I nonsmokers (approximately two- GOOoO'- I ! thirds of the sample) reported din- -5 1 )11 ,I' irtg out more frequently, and only y r 1.4% reported dining out less frc- d quently. The authors suggested that a0000 the Smoke-Free Air Act had a nega- tive impact on sorne restaurants, a positive effect onothers, and relative- 20000- 1 ly no effect on the rest with regard • to sales.They concluded (p. 53) that on the whole, the population of New o~ 1 1 1 , t 1 I 1 , 1 1 t 1..„�.L_.:..-.1- L 1 J--1.-.r:.. it�^ Enactment York City resc:•turants has not been neSa- of Ordinance lively affected economically.The in- 12-month Pro-ordinance 12-month Post-ordinance creased revenge trom smoke-sensitive pa- enactment irons halance5 the decline from violators • . ,.:•;.n,•,•.1,..•t-:,.'a.: -o.,'t.'-.•9,...,..'tt•r_,,•+,. --. anti avuittcrs. It is likely that, as in other cities where smoke-free legislation has been enacted. sales tax receipts from res- taurants will ultimately prove that the Smoke-Free Air Act has no impact on to- ‘. , . . ._ ... • . ... .,,;.;r.•.. ..,,::<.:. ...•,.. . .,:...... tai restaurant revenue in New York Cit Figure 4 •. Moreover,it 1111y well be that over time, $ tis smokers become resigned to living Within the act's parameters,restaurant Monthly Restaurant Sales Averges for the City of Yuma' P revenues will grow as smokers' dining behavior rebounds to pre-act levels. p00001__________--__________ _ _ _ The present study's findings, how- enary aver, anarc notsis consistent short w-ithterm preliimm- i- conoo 70000 ly • pact of the Mesa.Arizona, smoke- -13 I free ordinance on sales at selected ci 1111 ill' businesses.)!`This analysis compared o• e0000 sales in the first 2 months,,Jul)'and Al. 41111‘ -• If August 1996, following the irnple- _� 50000r mentation of a smoke-free ordinance, c eof .dole to sales data from July and August 15 A0000 3995 to determine the preliminary impact of the ordinance on sales. 30000 CrThe investigators found that selected categories of restaurants (not all res- t 20000 taurants were studied) showed an a - e. . tasted sales decrease of about 6%v gm Aigiso OCs N0.ViC Jon Feb Mar AD,May Jun Jut A4 Sop • ,'ie JP -OD iir AO Tay Jun Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance (actual decrease of about 4%) over the 2-month period. However, a Monthly Averages:January 1990-December 1994 2-tnontIi post-ordinance period may not be an adequme length of time to make a judgment about the sales irn- Note that the slope of the trend line reflects tower restaurant sales In low tourism months(e.g.. July,August,and September). pact of a smoke-free ordinance.As `��.•�rl�:f!i••.••• .•••f.• 1 -''ll.... ••1•t•/•'•..♦{1•1.1.1.. .�.{.sf.•'r+..-.rwJ.�..•rr•.rri�.rhi..�Afi)rM I.IW r♦-rN,. �.� • the investigators note, the nein phase January/February 1998.Vol. 12.NO.3 161 1 1 1 1 V 1 1`.1 1�� I I I 1 I•.v r�r v! v •v V - -_ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 1 1 I l 1 • • r • . �•y. f• 1 • of the analysis should provide a clear. Figure 6 er indication of the ongoing impacts of the smoke-free ordinance. Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Yavapal County Restaurant Sales The present stu(ly covered a signif- icant ignificant time period of 5 years. Rather than comparing sales in the first `? 1.2months alter the ordinance with months of sales from the previous year. data were collected for a '" `•• 44,, AIL 44 60-month period. 'Total nonresew- oir rant retail sales data were collected 2 0.8 in addition to restaurant sales data for the entire 60-month study period. o.t3 If prohibiting smoking in restaurants had a negative effect on restaurant sales, one would expect that at least o• �,,.. l l 1 1 1 ! _- -- - t l 1-�_.....4.......4.-1......-1,-.4,—.1-4-4 ,J .k Aug sao Oci NO Doc Jan Fa0 Mai AD.+MtayLJu► .k+Au SOP oa Na,Oa Jan Fey l4ar�May junone of the analyses would show a sig- Enactment nificant difference. However, none of of the Ordinance the analyses conducted found that 12-month Pre-ordinance 12-month Post-ordinance the ordinance had either a positive Enactment or a negative effect on restaurant f.• •/' r : ... ..'. .. .'.. C ._'1v..•�1.�•. '.: '.-''A''..1�'y.i'',-.,.t"' ..'''i.ISL.`+:•Jbl.-r v.,y'..•.•.�1/IIY/•"•'-•.t sales. The present study examined sales .:.._ .- -:.'7,:'''.''''.' tax data obtained from state and lo- Table 3 cal government offices. Since busi- nesses are legally required to report Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Restaurant Sales in Comparison Areas: accurate data, the investigators knew Pre-to Post-ordinance Enactment of no other way to collect more accu- rate data. While it is true that such Ratio of FlagstaffPart 1• Part 2t -data as-c not error-free.any errors Restaurant Sales(dt A 56)to: t p t'�� P would be expected to occur in an Coconino County s nt restaurant sales -0.039000 41969277 0.472401 0.641755 unbiased manner among Flagstaff City of Prescott restaurant sales -0.797700 0.434415 —0.382824 0.705889 and nonintervention comparison ar- Yavapai County restaurant saleS -0.094437 0.925701 0.910955 0.373168 eas•_ City of Yuma restaurant sales 0.318143 0.753674 0.199378 0.843980 This study did not examine sales Counry of Yuma restaurant sales 0.804488 0.430575 0.106583 0.916182 by size 4r type of restaurant (e.g.. State of Arizona restaurant sates 0.189963 0.851253 0.491555 0.628385 fast food or full service). Instead. the • Twelve months before the ordinance and 12 months atter the ordinance. purpose of this study was to C bier. f Monthly overages of ail 60 months,January 1990 through December 1994. mine if prohibiting smoking in all Flagstaff restaurants had an effect on total restaurant sales in Flagstaff. A1-i- . . - - zona. Further research that examines Figure 6 time effects of prohibiting smoking by restaurant type (e.g., fast food VS. full Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Sales to Flagstaff Retail Sales service) anti size may clarify the question of whether-some restaurants 0,25 _-- experience positive effects while oth- ers experience no effect or negative effects (loin prohibiting smoking. ru- 0 2_ turc research should also include ;1 .2 AL A A study of compliance with the urci i- �I. 2 r�`- ,� ���► _ name, for if smokers are not comply- 0.1s , ing with the ordinance. restaurant sales changes cannot be attributed to having smoke-free restaurants. o, } 1 1 1 . . . 1 1. j 1 s ) _ } 1 1 2 T • i Although the present study did Enactment not include -.Z definitive examination of Ordinance 12-month Pro-ordinance 12-month Post•ordlnanco of compliance. evidence indicates Enactment that CC5mpli:_UCe with Flagstal s or-di- .. .„ •.. • -.•......-,... , mince during this study period its 182 American Journal of Health Promotion ' , a cit+ are r cw tilting,smoke free.The city tc;crl, flit: position that enforcement Table 4 1.-otttCf 1.:• re-active rather than pro-zebu . Ratio of Flagstaff Restaurant Saes to Retell Sales: This rncatis that the Police Department Pre-to Post-ordinance Enactment would only respond to citizen complaint. rather thin issttrng citations based on Part 1' Part 2t what.a» (Act.).+late sed.Since the city' — _--- ti•T l its not received ancomplaints follow- .Of ft 56) t P t P ing the first year in which the ordin me was in ailed. I Feel confident that tiler, Ratio of Flagstaff restaurant sales to 0.283054 0.780045 0.( 11814 0.528282 flagstaff retal;sales sire relatively few violations occurring. Holel/Motel saes trends before and af- 0.226023 0.623477 •-0.068817 0.945819 Future. research should also coll- ier ordinance sider the l proportion of restaurants Twolve months belore the ordinance and 12 months atter the ordinance. that were smoke free prior to cnact- t Monthly averages of all 60 months,January 1990 through December 1994. • men( or the ordinance. If the major,- tv already prohibited sinokirng, then very good. Steve Shafer, City Hearing These six hearings occurred within the changes in sales as a result of an or- very months after the ordinance bc- clinance that prohibits smoking are Officer for y�l�tgst:;fl, states in a letter of November 7, 1996, that came effective.The results of the hear- unlikely. In Flagstaff, the majority of ings were that four of the establishments all restaurants (b2%) allowed stnok- the smokingordinance went into effete were determined to be restanrar�ts and ing in at least some areas prior to in June, 1£193.The ordinance contains a smoking was not allowed. One was deter- thc prohibition of smoking in restate- • provision that allows citizens to file a mined to be a restaurant with a bar toil rants. ' . complaint with the city if they witness smoking was allowed if the bar area was The National Restaurant AssoCia- smoking taking place in a local restau- completely enclosed and the entrance tv tions contends that "local govern- rant.After receipt of a complaint, the the restaurant was smoke free. The oth- ments should le.nve individual food city notifies the restaurant owner of thc er establishment was determined to be aservice. establishments Ercc to wort; complaint_ The restaurant owner then bar and smoking was allowed. P • There arc over SS U t estaurants in Fla out arrangements in regard to smok- t�as the option of attendinghearinb �� ing that suit their clientele anoper- d stating his/her position on why staff and there have been no citizen iG otrloking should he allowed at his/her complaints since thc six hearings were �tt.ion." ficiact':t and Ect;xetn, howev. establishment,or abiding by the provi- held.This would lead me to believe that er, found that when Flagstaff resum- sions of the ordinance. Ba.scd on corn- restaurants are complying with the ordi- rants were required to adopt and plaints received by the city.six hearings nance and that the citizens of the city post a smoking policy brit were given . were held because of smoking violations. are satisfied that the restaurants in this a choice of whether to allow or pro- .• ,.,..•y hibit smoking. 82% chose to allow . smoking in at least some areas of the • Figure 7 resttiurata. Therefore, an ordinance MonthlyHatellNlotei Safes for thv City of FJBgstat! that merely requires adoption and posting of a smoking policy but al- . lows business owners/managers to DODO — _ choose a smoking policy that suits - their clientele appears unlikely to 7400 P- prevent exposure of restaurant pa- •. trons and employees to environmcn- Joao tel tobacco smoke. iTi ~u sv N Finaily, future research oilthe ef- fc;cts of prohibiting smoking in reg;- : a000 res- taurants should also investigate food sales in bars. The present study did H 3000 nut i ssess the. itllpact of prohibiting co �rliokin iia r(:stxttrants on food sales "' 20001illir in bars. Since both smoking and lin)- itcd food service (see definition of 1000,- "bar" in methods section) were al- lowed in Flagstaff bars, it is possible 0° . _�_/� t , , i sem--.:..�: .._ _--.- 11�V AC ��V w-.-ww � 1 1 l 1 J p t)ee Jie F.i fear I1pr May am JO Aug Sep Oci No.Des.Jan Fee Mar Apr fly dun that senile smokers began eating Enactment more often in facilities designated as . of the ordinance bars. The present study found that 12-month Pre-ordinance 12-month Post-ordinance prohibiting smokitig in restaurants _.. ., ...� had no effect on total restaurant January/February 1998,Vol. 12, No,3 183 • I 1 I. * I . • .• rpt knowlydziftenlx 1 1-►etithnrr r,rk..,rn.lydgr Philip Piilrflcit it/linger rb. Figure 8 'retie r,f rAt A n.7.,►rtre l(nt/gta(i(Y/'ri.ttarrh'soul(lr.ir,'r rrr C,n1.,-N.t'4r{.A,•ri iinu>rta L'nrwr ttv 4rnstr(uttnnre!of. Monthly HoteitMotel Salas Averages for the City of Flagstaff Jcri►rttn*c At the fem.of the we'll,f e his tesitrtrl•irr ret. jitrinrunc and rr,n.rr4rli•rx thir s(ur(a. Pti.t.strrrlt ref, itv,p,,t v(1n the till uey/or(rrr'r Kinner rood Kroft•firer. 7000 _ _ enr,ltnn..46...oPO 1..),p t >tt r:!Avail,S,-rvirr,s. Refeceis�C:t 0000 I. I'S Department rat I•ir.:rltli;and Htunan Ser- 'it:t:x. 1'Itc i1e-altll Consc(iticneca of Involun- tary Sf:lr,hii)g.tt';t<tlint;ton.DC: UN c.,,,cr.t- a 5000 inter Printing OffiCv:. 1986.UHI-IS Pttbli,:.t. 'g ti<<tt CDC 87417595, v, 2, Notional Rt-r;carClt Council.Etl,irr?slrztcnt;lI ▪ 4000 lirTl;h.lcto S+ru,kr:Nieactlrin&Expostir•t:s;111(1 `° Assessing Health Effes:u.tt'nshin tort.1)(:: N3- 6uital Academy Press. 1931i. r 0000 3. Roberto S,City Council delays tote on x,»t>k- (n t(ir, h:tn.Se-dean.Red Rock Net,•s-:In J1,1. a 2000 -I. Samuels B.Olantr,S.The politics of local to- I,:rccn control.JAMA 1:r)1:2t6:2 114-7. 5. Travnui MP.Brgav 51l7.Clantz SA.The new 1000 tobacco irtdttstrt strategy to prevent local to- bacco tuntrol.JAMA I993:270:470-Mi.G. Shatter NI.Where then:13 1,n Smoke there's O illt t i t_-t 1 1 - 1 r ► 1 ► 1 J- ---' 1 lire ill Flagstaff:cigarette ban ilitr u eateries. Jul Aug Sia Oct Nov On Jin FOO Mar Aor 11s Jun Jul A.g Sep Oa Nov Dee Jan rib Mit Apr�tty,fit S owners tom glial, Tarr Arizona Republic. 18 Pre-ordinance Post-ordinance ,Jule 19)3:1.3. 7. Letters to the Editor,Not coming back.Arivc- Monthly Averages:January 1990-Deeomber 1994 1,3 Daily Sun.-1 Septertlher 1903:6. .. .. ..t. „.•.. _ ....,♦.. ,... -.--.:.:,-: _,1. ,. N, butes C.Smoking ban revisited.Arizona Dail( Sun. 18 July 1993:1,4. 9. Glanu.SA.Smith GRA.The effect of ortli- n,1t1CCS requiring srzluke-IrCC redtaUrartt:t On • .cit:tur:trrt sales.Am J Public Health Itttf.l:3-1: sales; however, ii it is true that some hibiting smoking in city restaurants loth-3. Smokers shifted their dining from had no effect on restaurant sates. 10. Ti,'Ior Cttn3tttring Group.The San Limit Obi- restaurants to then an increase po ordinance:a study o1'the economic ern• bars, pacts on Son Luis Obispo restaurants and in overall meal sales in Flagstaff may _ bars.San Lues OI spn,California:Tailor Coo- .. soul ti rig(`,roup, 1013. have occurred. SO WHAT? Implications for t I. titarorlc••N.Sherwood D.Stttbhlcbinc WC. The accumulating evidence associ- Health Promotion Practitioners The impact of tobacco control csraieu+nces on restaurant revenues in California.Claremont. ating passive smoking with health and Researchers California:The Claremont Graduate School. risks indicates a need for stronger ef- This study seems to indicate The Clarernlont Institute for Economic Polley fo2'cs Co protect nonsmokers from ex- Studies. IJcJ�1. fthat prohibiting smoking in all 12. Ct.11LCIS for Diwase Control.Assessment of poStire to tobacco smoke.A highly Flagstaff restaurants has bad no ef- the impact of a 100 percent smoke-free r,rcii- promising way of reducing an indi- feet on total restaurant 5a105. name nn restaurant salts.\t'c,,t Ltkc hills. Texas.1992-199.1.J.k_MA 1995;27-1:2054. 4idual's exposure to secondhand These findings support the majori- 13. National Restaurant Association.Smoking ii. smoke and providing a supportive ty of other studies on the cconom- Itesiattnnsx:A Consumer Attitude Survey. Washington.DC:National Restaurant.Mese>t•ra- environment for not smoking is is impact of prohibiting srnokiiigFebruary 1993. tigtl Research Department.tirtrnt. through the enactment of ordinances in restaurants, la. Corson DL,Young CA.Enz•CA.Should NYE.:-., If these findings Restatirantetrrs Lighten i,pr Cornell Hotel that prohibit smoking in public arti arc true for communities through- and Re+tattrtnt Administration Quarteri,•. eas. This study represents an objet- out the United Stites. then other pril 1996. 5-113. 13. .E Apiie`d Economies.Economic impact of the live attemrit to assess the impact of cities can enact similar laws,which ow or.lt•tr:r Smoke-lice Ordinance.1t'r>rkirntt! prohibiting smoking in all restaurants 1 pper::erclitslirtar•v Salix Tax Analysis. Nle,a, protect restaurant t patrons and :.Vizutu:rift:reser Department.City of Mesa.on total restaurant Sales. Local goy food service workers from tobacco tt hi. - crnments contemplating the adop- Ili, Sciacc:t•j.Ect:ri:rn.NI.Effects ora city ordi- smoke,without concerns that res. , Saari,'.rt' ulatrrt ,sinokini its t`L'gi3untot.,:testi (loll of smoke-free legislation should fi taurants will lose business. retail'gyres.]Curt,etttm Hetslrh 1993:18:1 note that this study found that pro- 62. 184 Amorlcan Journal of Health Promotion . Page 1 of 7 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 08:14:38 -0700 X-Sender: glantz@cardio.ucsf.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 To: geneb@DX.com From: Stan Glantz Subject: Evans Response X-Attachments: C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\DATA\LISASM-1\EVANSR-1.HTM; Here is a nicer HTML version of of our response to Evans. I suggest that you replace it with this. Response to March 1997 Critique of "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" Stanton A. Glantz Lisa R. A. Smith June 3, 1997 In July 1994, we published a five page paper, "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" in the American Journal of Public Health (1994;84:1081-1085), the leading peer reviewed journal in public health. This paper analyzed sales tax data from the first 15 cities with laws requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants and demonstrated that, contrary to claims of the tobacco industry and its front groups, such laws did not affect restaurant revenues. On April 24, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance, an organization created by the public relations firm of Burson Marsteller for Philip Morris Tobacco Company, held a press conference in Washington, DC to release a four pound critique of this study, prepared by economic consultant Michael K. Evans, which claimed that it was seriously flawed and that a proper analysis of the data showed that these ordinances harmed the restaurant business. This critique was widely distribued to the press and on April 29, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance issued a press release announcing that it had written to Richard Atkinson, President of the University of California, demanding that disciplinary action be taken against Stanton Glantz. They have also written to the editor of the American Journal of Public Health complaining about the peer review process and written to health officials around the country attacking our paper. They have also created "Californians for Scientific Integrity" and started recruiting plaintiffs for legal action. Neither Michael Evans, nor the National Smokers' Alliance, nor Burston Marsteller, Californians for Scientific Integrity, nor Philip Morris have provided a copy of this critique to Dr. Glantz or Ms. Smith. We obtained a copy from one of the reporters that covered the story. We have thoroughly reviewed Evans'critique. Evans did identify a few minor errors in the effective dates of the ordinances. We have corrected these dates and rerun the statistics. While the numbers change slightly, the conclusion that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect business remains valid He also claims to use the same analytical techniques (after correcting the data) as we did and reach different conclusions. A close reading of his critique, however, reveals that he has not based his conclusions on the full data set and that he has manipulated his statistical modeling in ways that we do not deem appropriate. We stand behind our paper. http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/evansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 2 of 7 Misclassification of Ordinances as 100% Smoke Free When They Were Not Evans states that all but one of the ordinances permitted smoking in bars or bars attached to restaurants and this means that the businesses are not 100% smoke free. It is important to emphasize that our paper was a study of the effects of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances. At the time these ordinances were passed, bar areas in restaurants and freestanding bars were excluded because of vigorous lobbying by the tobacco industry and its front groups. We recognized that bars are not included in these ordinances and discussed this point in our original paper (see page 1085). As we noted there, this is not a significant limitation. Evans also noted that several of the ordinances permit smoking outdoors (including outdoor dining areas or take out food eaten outside the restaurant) or in rooms reserved for private functions. We do not see this as a problem. At the time that these ordinances were being passed (and vigorously opposed by tobacco interests on the grounds that business for all restaurants would drop by 30%) the term "smoke free restaurant" allowed for these exceptions. Evans does not present any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that these exclusions account for our results or would seriously bias our findings. Evans also notes that a few cases (Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride) permit creation of separately ventilated smoking rooms. We have contacted the authorities in these cities and been informed that they are not aware of a significant number of restaurants who have gone to the expense of creating such special smoking rooms. Again, Evans fails to provide any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that this exemption has been exercised in a significant number of restaurants to affect the results. All the cities included in our study meet the definition of"smoke free restaurants"that was in common usage at the time (and continues to be used in may places), i.e., no smoking permitted in the indoor dining areas. Effective Dates of Ordinances Evans identified several cities in which he states that our paper incorrectly identified the effective dates of the ordinances. He is correct. We had based our effective dates in these cases on when the ordinance passed or information obtained from the respective city clerks. On close reading of the ordinances, we agree that some of these ordinances delayed implementation of the 100% smoke free provisions and that we had not used the correct dates. (We used the effective date of the ordinance which sometimes was a few months earlier than the effective date of the 100% smoke free provision.) We have corrected our data set and re-run the statistical analysis (revised tables are attached); while the numbers changed slightly, the overall conclusion that these ordinances did not affect revenues did not change. Objections to Comparison Cities Evans notes that several of the comparison cities had some sort of smoking restrictions. We recognized this fact in our paper (page 1082) and noted that to qualify as a comparison city, there had to be less than 60% of seats in the nonsmoking area. Nothing in Evans' critique identifies any comparison cities that fail to meet our stated criterion. Table 1 in our paper, however, mislabels Oroville and Lakewood as having no restrictions, whereas it should have said "some" and http://wvwv.tobacco.or /Misc/evansresponse.html 7/16/01 g Page 3 of 7 Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs as having "some" restrictions when it should have said "none." g These errors have no effect on the statistical analysis and do not affect our conclusions that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant sales. Objections to Using Sales Tax Data Evans objects to using sales tax data. As we noted in our paper (on page 1084), sales tax data are the best source of objective information on the effects of smoking restrictions on restaurant revenues. It is complete (i.e., it covers all restaurants) and it is collected by unbiased tax authorities who have no interest in whether smoke free restaurant ordinances affect restaurant sales, and it is a crime to report incorrect results. Evans also noted that government officials who collect sales tax data sometimes make errors. While this is true and, indeed, we identified a few such errors and helped correct them), there is no evidence that these errors are systematic in any way that would bias the study. This complete data is preferable to samples of selected restaurants such as Evans suggests, which can be manipulated. Government tax officials also have no interest in the outcome of studies of the effects of smoke free ordinances on restaurant revenues. Evans' Reanalysis of the Data To a reader not familiar with statistics, it may appear that Evans did the same analysis we did, yet came up with different conclusions, thereby drawing our results in to question. This is not correct; there are important differences in how Evans did his analysis. In particular: • Evans did not use historical data for at least 5 years before the 100% smoke free ordinance went in to effect. This failure reduces his ability to identify underlying time trends and variability that have nothing to do with the ordinance. • Evans incorrectly states that data prior to 1991 are not available; the aggregate statistics necessary to do the study are still available for eleven of the cities in our study (Bellflower, Beverly Hills, El Cerrito, Roseville, Sacramento, and San Luis Obispo, Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride). Moreover, much of the data needed to do the analysis was included in our paper (in Figure 1). • Evans eliminated 3 cities (Aspen, Beverly Hills, and Ross); we used all the cities. • Evans dropped time trends or seasonable variables if they were not statistically significant; this step could lead to model misspecification and the accompanying biases. The fact that many of Evans' analyses exhibited significant serial correlations in the residuals strongly suggests that his model was misspecified. • Evans states that the adverse effects of smoke free restaurant laws will intensify over time, but presents no formal analysis of the data that supports this point. None of the many different statistical models he uses allow for an increasing (or reducing) impact of such ordinances over time. On page 14 he says that this point will be "argued in the conclusions" but in the conclusions (on page 15) he states this result as if it had been demonstrated earlier. http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 4 of 7 Other Research It is important to note that since our original paper was published, 5 additional analyses of the effects of smoke free ordinances have been produced by legitimate scientific sources. All of these analyses indicate that smoke free ordinances either do not affect restaurant revenues`or are associated with an increase in revenues. They are: 1. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic Impacts of San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, CA: Taylor Consulting Group (under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo). January, 1993. 2. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebin W. The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies; The Claremont Graduate School. January, 1994. 3. Hwang P, Toblas S, Kohout S, Harris M, Satterwhite D, Simpson D, Winn L, Foehner J, Pedro L. Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales -- West Lake Hill, Texas, 1992-1994. WPM. 1995;44:370-372. 4. Pope G, Bartosch W. Effect of local smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant revenue in Massachusetts. Waltham, MA: Center for Health Economics Research (conducted for Massachusetts Department of Public Health). April 22, 1997. 5. Sciacca J, Ratliff M. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant sales. Am. J. Health Promo. 1997;(in press). Conclusion We stand behind our paper. Table 1. Smokefree and Comparison Cities (corrections are in italics) Geographical* Median No. o Inside Outside Household Percent Date Rural Type of Mont Population Urbanized Urbanized Smoking Income of Ordinance Non- in City (1989)* Area Area farm Restriction (1989) Smokers in Effect Effec Aspen, CO 5,049 X 100% 37,467 23.5 8/85 131 Vail, CO 3,659 X some 41,211 Auburn, CA 10,592 X 100% 37,212 24.1 4/91 27 Oroville, CA 11,960 X some 16,614 23.6 http://www.tobacco.orgiMiscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 5 of 7 Beverly Hills, 31,971 X 100% 54,348 21.8 4/87-7/87 4 CA 86,905 X some 35,997 Santa Monica, CA Bellflower, 61,815 X 100% 3 2,711 21.8 3/91-6/92 16 CA 73,000 X some 44,700 Lakewood, CA El Cerrito, 22,869 X 100% 3 9,53 8 22.9 11/91 20 CA 25,158 X some 25,479 San Pablo, CA Lodi, CA 51,874 X 100% 3 0,73 9 24.1 12/90 31 Merced, CA 56,216 X some 24,727 25.1 Martinez, CA 3 2,03 8 X 100% 45,964 22.0 3/92 16 Pleasant Hill, 31,585 X some 46,885 CA Palo Alto, 55,544 X 100% 55,333 19.7 9/92 7 CA 67,460 X some 42,431 Mountain View, CA Paradise, CA 25,408 X 100% 22,954 23.6 8/91 23 Red Bluff, 12,363 X none 19,474 CA Roseville, CA 44,685 X 100% 39,975 24.1 10/91 21 Chico, CA 40,076 X some 19,005 23.6 Ross, CA 2,180 X 100% 84,414 21.6 1/90 42 Tiburon, CA 7,532 X some 75 864 Sacramento, 369,365 X 100% 28,183 25.2 5/92 14 CA 354,202 X some 24,923 25.1 Fresno, CA San Luis 41,958 X 100% 25,982 18.9 8/90 35 Obispo, CA 61,284 X some 29,492 Santa Maria, CA http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/evansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 6 of 7 , Snowmass, 1,426 X 100% 39,107 23.5 5/89 51 CO 1,285 X none 33,259 Breckenridge, CO Telluride, CO 1,292 X 100% 31,968 23.5 4/88 63 Steamboat 6,695 X none 29,363 Springs, CO *U.S. 1990 Census of Population and Housing11 Tobacco Use in California (reported by county)12 for California and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillanc Study for Colorado (statewide) 199113 "Some" refers to no more than 60% seating areas for nonsmokers Number of months for which data were available for this study Table 2. Effect of Smokefree Restaurant Ordinances on Total Restaurant Sales (corrections are in italics) Effect of Ordinance Model City Mean Change, P R2 P bL Fraction of Total Retail Sales, F (percent) Aspen 24.8 -2.0 1.1 .820 .650 .000 Auburn 7.5 1.0 0.5 .071 .329 .006 Bellflower 13.1 1.7 0.5 .002 .433 .001 Beverly Hills 12.8 0.5 1.4 .734 .029 .684 El Cerrito 12.7 -0.4 0.7 .637 .100 .255 Lodi 11.7 0.0 0.6 .955 .004 .945 Martinez 10.3 2.9 1.0 .008 .404 .007 Palo Alto 15.8 0.3 0.9 .760 .178 .022 Paradise 14.9 -1.4 0.8 .078 .181 .075 Roseville 7.1 -0.8 0.4 .043 .150 .121 Ross 43.5 -3.3 9.1 .715 .132 .243 Sacramento 13.9 0.9 0.6 .102 .102 .233 San Luis Obispo 12.7 0.2 0.6 .764 .082 .327 Snowmass 49.2 6.0 5.7 .301 .374 .006 http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Page 7 of 7 S • Telluride 29.6 9.4 4.7 .055 .197 .120 All Combined 18.4 0.1 0.6 .874 .911 .000 Ratio of Sales with Comparison City, C Aspen 1.12 .09 .12 .459 .225 .003 Auburn .44 .04 .02 .094 .119 .192 Bellflower .50 .00 .02 .968 .002 .975 Beverly Hills .56 -.06 .05 .179 .236 .030 El Cerrito 1.28 -.00 .08 .998 .053 .495 Lodi .90 -.02 .03 .652 .272 .016 Martinez .41 .04 .03 .194 .329 .001 Palo Alto 1.69 .25 .06 .001 .325 .002 Paradise .71 -.07 .03 .049 .144 .132 Roseville .68 -.02 .03 .476 .095 .274 Ross .05 .02 .01 .196 .302 .028 Sacramento 1.10 -.05 .03 .091 .403 .001 San Luis Obispo 1.12 -.08 0.6 .177 .154 .113 Snowmass .95 -.29 .20 .193 .584 .000 Telluride .42 .08 .07 .282 .372 .006 All Combined .82 -.02 .02 .487 .881 .000 http://www.tobacco.org/Miscievansresponse.html 7/16/01 Resp one to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 1 of 5 'Y 1Y' Aft I• � •t .1 1� �y 1g'. :X' ' ��� � • e Join ANR I Donate to the ANR Foundation I Free Subscription I Merch a n d i s e M r 1111114004,1111 About Us f Links I Home •jX.NNY�•1. Response to March 1997 Critique of "The,Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free ee Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" Stanton A. Glantz }j- Lisa R. A. Smith June 3, 1997 !!!* VEN**.:rn In July 1994, we published a five page paper, "The Effect of Ordinances ................... Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales" in the American Journal of Public Health (1994;84:1081-1085), the leading peer reviewed 2 :::::::: :::: journal in public health. This paper analyzed sales tax data from the first 15 requiring cities with laws 100% smoke-free restaurants and demonstrated that, ~• its=== contraryto claims of the tobacco industry and front groups, such laws did not affect restaurant revenues. -�''::•;,::•. organization On April 24, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance, an created by the public relations frm of Burson Marsteller for Philip Morris Tobacco Company, held a press conference in Washington,n DC to release a four pound critiquestudy,of this stud , prepared by economic consultant Michael K. Evans, which claimed that it was seriously flawed and that a proper analysis of the data showed that these ordinances harmed the restaurant business. This critique was widely distribued to the press and on April 29, 1997, the National Smokers' Alliance issued aress release announcingthat it had written to p ••••••••••........••••••.. •..'.•M"i Richard Atkinson, President of the University of California, demanding that disciplinary action be taken against Stanton Glantz. They have also written to about the AmericanJournal ofPublic Health complaining the editor of the fpeer review process and written to health officials around the country attacking g o ur paper. They have also created "Californians ns for Scientific c Integrity"egrit yan and started recruiting plaintiffs for legal action. lliki.!!!:!.::.!!!!!!!!!!!�� Neither Michael Evans, nor the N at i o n al Smokers' Alliance, nor Burston Marsteller, Californians for Scientific Integrity, PhilipMorris have a g y� nor Ellegiadiaillprovided a copyof this critique to Dr. Glantz or Ms. Smith. We obtained e da copy from one of the reporters that covered the story. We have thoroughly reviewed Evans'critique. Evans did identify a few minor errors in the effective dates of the ordinances. We have corrected these dates and rerun the statistics. While the numbers change slightly, the conclusion that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect'business remains valid. He also claims to use the same analytical techniques (after correcting the data) as we did and reach different conclusions. A close reading of his critique, http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 Resp one to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 2 of 5 however, reveals that he has not based his conclusions on the full data set and that he has manipulated his statistical modeling in ways that we do not deem appropriate. We stand behind our paper. Misclassification of Ordinances as 100% Smoke Free When They Were Not Evans states that all but one of the ordinances permitted smoking in bars or bars attached to restaurants and this means that the businesses are not 100% smoke free. It is important to emphasize that our paper was a study of the effects of 100% smoke free restaurant ordinances. At the time these ordinances were passed, bar areas in restaurants and freestanding bars were excluded because of vigorous lobbying by the tobacco industry and its front groups. We recognized that bars are not included in these ordinances and discussed this point in our original paper (see page 1085). As we noted there, this is not a significant limitation. Evans also noted that several of the ordinances permit smoking outdoors (including outdoor dining areas or take out food eaten outside the restaurant) or in rooms reserved for private functions. We do not see this as a problem. At the time that these ordinances were being passed (and vigorously opposed by tobacco interests on the grounds that business for all restaurants would drop by 30%) the term "smoke free restaurant" allowed for these exceptions. Evans does not present any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that these exclusions account for our results or would seriously bias our findings. Evans also notes that a few cases (Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride) permit creation of separately ventilated smoking rooms. We have contacted the authorities in these cities and been informed that they are not aware of a significant number of restaurants who have gone to the expense of creating such special smoking rooms. Again, Evans fails to provide any reliable, independent quantitative evidence to support his assertion that this exemption has been exercised in a significant number of restaurants to affect the results. All the cities included in our study meet the definition of"smoke free restaurants"that was in common usage at the time (and continues to be used in many places), i.e., no smoking permitted in the indoor dining areas. Effective Dates of Ordinances • Evans identified several cities in which he states that our paper incorrectly identified the effective dates of the ordinances. He is correct. We had based our effective dates in these cases on when the ordinance passed or information obtained from the respective city clerks. On close reading of the ordinances, we agree that some of these ordinances delayed implementation of the 100% smoke free provisions and that we had not used the correct dates. (We used http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 Respone to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 3 of 5 the effective date of the ordinance which sometimes was a few months earlier than the effective date of the 100% smoke free provision.) We have corrected our data set and re-run the statistical analysis (revised tables are attached); while the numbers changed slightly, the overall conclusion that these ordinances did not affect revenues did not change. Objections to Comparison Cities Evans notes that several of the comparison cities had some sort of smoking restrictions. We recognized this fact in our paper (page 1082) and noted that to qualify as a comparison city, there had to be less than 60% of seats in the nonsmoking area. Nothing in Evans' critique identifies any comparison cities that fail to meet our stated criterion. Table 1 in our paper, however, mislabels Oroville and Lakewood as having no restrictions, whereas it should have said "some" and Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs as having "some" restrictions when it should have said "none." These errors have no effect on the statistical analysis and do not affect our conclusions that smoke free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant sales. Objections to Using Sales Tax Data Evans objects to using sales tax data. As we noted in our paper (on page 1084), sales tax data are the best source of objective information on the effects of smoking restrictions on restaurant revenues. It is complete (i.e., it covers all restaurants) and it is collected by unbiased tax authorities who have no interest in whether smoke free restaurant ordinances affect restaurant sales, and it is a crime to report incorrect results. Evans also noted that government officials who collect sales tax data sometimes make errors. While this is true (and, indeed, we identified a few such errors and helped correct them), there is no evidence that these errors are systematic in any way that would bias the study. Th18 complete data is preferable to samples of selected restaurants such as Evans suggests, which can be manipulated. Government tax officials also have no interest in the outcome of studies of the effects of smoke free ordinances on restaurant revenues. Evans' Reanalysis of the Data To a reader not familiar with statistics, it may appear that Evans did the same analysis we did, yet came up with different conclusions, thereby drawing our results in to question. This is not correct; there are important differences in how Evans did his analysis. In particular: http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html • 7/13/01 Respone to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 4 of 5 .• • Evans did not use historical data for at least 5 years before the 100% smoke free ordinance went in to effect. This failure reduces his ability to identify underlying time trends and variability that have nothing to do with the ordinance. • Evans incorrectly states that data prior to 1991 are not available; the aggregate statistics necessary to do the study are still available for eleven of the cities in our study (Bellflower, Beverly Hills, El Cerrito, Roseville, Sacramento, and San Luis Obispo, Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride). Moreover, much of the data needed to do the analysis was included in our paper (in Figure 1). • Evans eliminated 3 cities (Aspen, Beverly Hills, and Ross); we used all the cities. • Evans dropped time trends or seasonable variables if they were not statistically significant; this step could lead to'model misspecification and the accompanying biases. The fact that many of Evans' analyses exhibited significant serial correlations in the residuals strongly suggests that his model was misspecified. • Evans states that the adverse effects of smoke free restaurant laws will intensify over time, but presents no formal analysis of the data that supports this point. None of the many different statistical models he uses allow for an increasing (or reducing) impact of such ordinances over time. On page 14 he says that this point will be "argued in the conclusions" but in the conclusions (on page 15) he states this result as if it had been demonstrated earlier. Other Research It is important to note that since our original paper was published, 5 additional analyses of the effects of smoke free ordinances have been produced by legitimate scientific sources. All of these analyses indicate that smoke free ordinances either do not affect restaurant revenues or are associated with an increase in revenues. They are: 1. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of the Economic Impacts of San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, CA: Taylor Consulting Group (under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo). January, 1993. 2. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebin W. The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California. Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies; The Claremont Graduate School. January, 1994. http://www.no-smoke.org/evans_response.html 7/13/01 Respone to March 1997 Critique of"The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Rest.. Page 5 of 5 3. Hwang P, Toblas S, Kohout S, Harris M, Satterwhite D, Simpson D, Winn L, Foehner J, Pedro L. Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales -- West Lake Hill, Texas, 1992-1994. NEMWR. 1995;44:370-372. 4. Pope G, Bartosch W. Effect of local smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant revenue in Massachusetts. Waltham, MA: Center for Health Economics Research (conducted for Massachusetts Department of Public Health). April 22, 1997. 5. Sciacca J, Ratliff M. Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant sales. Am. J. Health Promo. 1997;(in press). Conclusion We stand behind our paper. Secondhand Smoke I Smokefree Advocacy I Airports Campaign I Tobacco's Dirty Tricks I Hot Documents I Ventilation Preemption I Youth ©2001,Americans for Nonsmokers'Rights,American Nonsmokers'Rights Foundation Some images are©2001 wvwv.arttoday.com Designed and maintained by Diane Jones. http://www.no-smoke.orgievans_response.html 7/13/01 Page 1 of 3 Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance on 2 Restaurant Sales -- West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994 Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), which is associated with adverse health effects among nonsmokers (1), is a health hazard of particular concern for patrons and employees in restaurants (2). To protect nonsmokers, many local governments have enacted ordinances requiring restaurants to be smoke-free. However, the potential economic impact of these laws on restaurants is an important concern for restaurant owners. On June 1, 1993, the city of West Lake Hills (a suburb of Austin), Texas (1995 population: 3000), implemented an ordinance requiring a 100% smoke-free environment in all commercial establishments to which the public has access, including all restaurants and restaurants with bar areas. This report summarizes an assessment of sales in restaurants during June 1993-December 1994 compared with January 1992-May 1993. Restaurants in West Lake Hills had a variety of menus and food-pricing scales. Restaurant sales data for West Lake Hills were obtained from the Texas State Comptroller's office. Aggregate monthly sales data* from January 1992 through December 1994 were obtained for the eight restaurants in West Lake Hills that had indoor dining areas and were in operation during all of 1992 and until the ordinance went into effect in June 1993 (one of these restaurants closed in April 1994 because its lease expired). These sales data included the 17-month period preceding implementation of the ordinance (January 1992-May 1993) and the 19-month period following implementation (June 1993-December 1994). Restaurants that opened during the assessment period were not included in the analysis because the purpose of the study was to assess the impact of the ordinance on a consistent panel of restaurants (five restaurants opened during September 1992-July 1994). Data were analyzed using a linear regression model (3) that examined the relation between total restaurant sales and the presence of a smoke-free ordinance and that incorporated seasonal variations in sales and temporal economic trends. For each factor examined (i.e., time [year and month], quarter of the year, and presence of the implemented ordinance), a corresponding regression coefficient was calculated to measure the effect of that factor on total restaurant sales. A positive regression coefficient suggests that the factor was associated with increased total restaurant sales, and a negative value suggests that the factor was associated with decreased total restaurant sales. To test for multicollinearity, variance inflation factors were computed for each independent variable in the model. The Durbin-Watson statistic was computed (4) to test for first-order autocorrelation (correlation of the residuals [error terms] for adjacent observations over time). Total monthly sales for the restaurants during 1992-1994 varied by season. Sales peaked during the second quarter of each year. In the initial regression model, the variance inflation factors for the ordinance variable and the year variable were above four, indicating multicollinear involvement between these variables. To address the multicollinearity, the time variable was removed: although reanalysis did not change the regression coefficient for the ordinance variable, the standard error was substantially decreased. The variance inflation factors for this final model indicated that multicollinearity was no longer present, and the Durbin-Watson statistic indicated that significant first-order autocorrelation was not present (Table 1). The regression coefficient for the second quarter of the year was positive, suggesting that restaurant http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MMWR.html 7/13/01 Page 2 of 3 sales were greater in the second quarter of each year than in the first quarter (Table 1). The regression coefficient for the ordinance variable was positive, suggesting that the total sales of the restaurants did not decrease after implementation of the ordinance. Reported by: P Huang, MD, Bur of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control; S Tobias, S Kohout, M Harris, D Satterwhite, Office of Smoking and Health; DM Simpson, MD, State Epidemiologist, Texas Dept of Health; L Winn, City of West Lake Hills; 3 Foehner, L Pedro, Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Editorial Note: The findings in this report are consistent with assessments using similar methods in other locations that have reported that the implementation of smoke-free ordinances has not been associated with adverse economic effects on restaurants (3,5,6). Previous reports of decreases in restaurant sales following the enactment of clean indoor air ordinances have been based on anecdotal information (7-10), on studies that used restaurant owners' self-reports of the impact on their business instead of validated sales data (7,8), and on studies that used tax data to measure restaurant sales but collected data for only one or two quarters following implementation of ordinances (9,10). In comparison, the assessment in West Lake Hills was based on sales data that were validated by tax revenue reported by the State Comptroller's office, included data for periods of time sufficient for statistical analysis, and employed multiple linear regression techniques to account for temporal trends and seasonal variations in sales. The findings in this assessment are subject to at least three limitations. First, because of limitations in data, an ordinary least squares regression model--which assumes no autocorrelation--was used in place of a more specific time series model; however, the Durbin-Watson statistic indicated that significant autocorrelation was not present. Second, the model only explained 33% of the variation in total restaurant sales; future studies may benefit from the inclusion of other variables that can affect restaurant sales. Third, because the assessment focused on a consistent panel of restaurants and excluded restaurants that opened during the assessment period, the findings cannot be generalized to all restaurants in West Lake Hills. The economic impact of smoke-free ordinances is an important consideration for policymakers concerned about the ETS exposure of nonsmokers; assessment of the potential economic impact of these laws should be based on the most objective, scientific evidence available. The findings from the assessment in West Lake Hills has provided policymakers in that community with a scientific appraisal of the impact of public health measures to reduce exposure to tobacco smoke. In addition, the assessment in West Lake Hills provides a model for other local and state public agencies to consider when evaluating tobacco-control programs. References 1. US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MMWR.html 7/13/01 Page 3 of 3 Environmental Assessment, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs, 1992; publication no. EPA-600/6-90/006F. 2. Siegel M. Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace: a review of employee exposure and health effects. JAMA 1993;270:490-3. 3. Glantz SA, Smith LR. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1081-5. 4. Durbin J, Watson GS. Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. Biometrika 1951;37:409-28. 5. Maroney N, Sherwood D, Stubblebine WC. The impact of tobacco control ordinances on restaurant revenues in California. Claremont, California: The Claremont Graduate School, The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 1994. 6. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Luis Obispo ordinance: a study of the economic impacts on San Luis Obispo restaurants and bars. San Luis Obispo, California: Taylor Consulting Group, 1993. 7. Gambee P. Economic impacts of smoking ban in Bellflower, California: analysis of survey data, February-May, 1991. Bellflower, California: California Business and Restaurant Alliance, 1991. 8. Charlton Research Company. Pacific Dining Car Restaurant and Southern California Business Association, December 11, 1993-January 15, 1994. San Francisco, California: Charlton Research Company, 1994. 9. Laventhol & Horwath, Certified Public Accountants. Preliminary analysis of the impact of the proposed Los Angeles ban on smoking in restaurants. Los Angeles, California: Laventhol & Horwath, Certified Public Accountants, 1990. 10. Masotti LH, Creticos PA. The effects of a ban on smoking in public places in San Luis Obispo, California. Evanston, Illinois: Creticos & Associates, Inc, 1992. * Top rotect confidentiality, individual restaurant sales data are not released by the Comptroller's office *********************** • ©1996 Gene Borio, Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645). WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org).Original Tobacco BBS material may be reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit *********************** Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage/Resources Page/Health Page/Documents Page/ Culture Page / Activism Page *********************** END OF DOCUMENT http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/Restaurants_MMWR.html 7/13/01 Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smo.. Page 1 of 2 Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smokefree Legislation January 29, 2001 Dear Senators: I am writing to urge you to advance Legislative Bills 227 and 423, and to briefly share with you San Luis Obispo's success as the world's smoke-free leader. In 1990, San Luis Obispo, California became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings including bars and restaurants. Since that time, municipalities around the world have followed suit, using San Luis Obispo as a model. I'm sure you are aware that cities and counties from Amherst, MA to Shasta County, CA have adopted smoking bans in public workplaces, bars and restaurants. The trend has also taken hold outside the United States in communities from Canada to Ireland. I must admit that, at the time the ordinance was presented, we were extremely wary of it. We feared that the ban on smoking would cost the community revenue,jobs, tax dollars, tourists and tourist- generated income. We ended up coming out in support of the ordinance, seeing it as a leap of faith that wouldn't hurt business. Suffice it to say, our initial fears were unfounded and today, I'm pleased to report that the effects have been extremely positive. According to reports issued by the California State Board of Equalization, the number of eating and drinking establishments in the city have grown, taxable transacations from eating and drinking establishments have eclipsed statewide levels, the number of tourists to the city has grown exponentially, and the ever-important transient occupancy tax collected by the city is at a record high. In fact, we believe that tourists seek out San Luis Obispo as a vacation destination because of our clean air and pristine environment and appreciate our concern for the health of our visitors and residents. An interesting side note: restaurants just outside of our city limits, ended up voluntarily enforcing the ordinance (before it became state law) to compete with city-wide restaurants who were reaping the benefits of the smoking ban. I sincerely hope that our decade of unprecedented positive growth will convince you that a move to make Nebraska restaurants smoke-free is a true "win-win." Thank you for your consideration. Very Cordially, David E. Garth President/CEO San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro St. http://www.tobacco.orgNews/010129garth.html 7/16/01 'Letter to Nebraska Senators from San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in favor of Smo.. Page 2 of 2 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 This document's URL is: http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html *********************** Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage/Resources Page/Health Page/Documents Page/Culture Page/ Activism Page *********************** END OF DOCUMENT • http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html 7/16/01 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 3 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 20,2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Brent Sinclair, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: West Lambert Lane Park Improvements BACKGROUND The 40-acre West Lambert Lane Park site was acquired and annexed by the Town in 1997. A Parks Planning Advisory Committee was commissioned that same year to develop a plan for the site. McGann and Associates was hired as consultant to develop a Master Plan under the direction of the Advisory Committee. The Master Plan Report was completed in December of 1997. The Master Plan features an extensive trail system, restrooms, picnic ramadas, a roller hockey/in-line skating facility, combination basketball/tennis court and children's playground.round. The estimated cost for constructing all of these facilities was $1.4 million in 1997. There have been no recent cost estimates generated for this plan other than the trail system proposal outlined below. NEW PROPOSAL Staff has a re ared proposal to construct a modified version of the trail system in the Master Plan. It includes a p p looped trail system with connections to Lambert Lane and to the neighborhood to the north (Canada Hills . es) Villa . The trail construction would consist of three inches of decomposed granite on a graded base. One of Villages). the inner loops of the trail system would be ADA accessible and marked accordingly. The remainder of the trail would not be ADA compliant due to topographical constraints. In addition, an asphalt parking area able to accommodate 10 vehicles would be constructed on the west side of the property and connect to Lambert with an access drive. Other minor amenities such as benches, signs and bicycle racks are also includes in this proposal. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost of this proposal is $150,774.00. No funding source has been iden es Community Development Director i Town Manager Attachments F:\individ\HBS\BLANK TCC WEST LAMBERT LANE PARK PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED QUANTITY AND COST ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTALS Concrete Vertical Curb LF $ 16.00 570 $ 9,120.00 Asphalt Concrete (3" on Native) TON $ 31.00 _ 267 $ 8,277.00 Decomposed Granite (3") SF $ 2.00 28000 $ 56,000.00 Grading Parking Area and Paths SY $ 4.00 5278 $ 21,112.00 Permanent Pavement Markings (Painted)(White) ,LF $ 0.50 100 $ 50.00 Permanent Pavement Markings (Handicap) EA $ 250.00 1 $ 250.00 Pavement Markings (Yellow) LF $ 0.55 _ 300 $ 165.00 Clearing and Grubbing LS $ 7,500.00 1 $ 7,500.00 Mobilization LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 Misc. Benches, Signs, Bicycle Racks LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Engineering, Survey, Staking (15%) $ 17,400.00 . Contingency (15%) $ 17,400.00 TOTAL $150,774.00 w f 1 • • CANADA HILLS VILLAGES. 1 . i -. ! • •• GOLF ' •, � ; I 5 V ';�; COURSE ,; - COURSE - -- - ---... i!.. GOLF < • f,.; • 2 ' I 1. 11........:{ • _wa'•Jan_ulo o«JOC vea aee_asa aeo'es•�re:w.aM.�+►le..` ,_��.�a��_�'`moi_-•� - � -� .' � TOWN LIMITS %y ' '- - CRESTA'DE 1 .• ---......„...-,-_:.-:-e CANADA: t VACANT r PARK i _ . - = `� ' „,,i 1 i - - . ACANT SITE VI 1 z 1 < VACANT CCMMERCIA• v 4 9 LAMBERT LANE 1 --1-------„--•- - . . - - , : . __ _. kn, , : , i • . . . = .. .---- , ..._. , - • --- ,. .. _____ xi •. . ., i :. , ....- , . ,.. , , ; ! . . • • . • 1 -------- 1 VACANT PIMA -7 UNNAMED- " - ; 1 1 • - COUNIY 1 SBDIVIS!ON t. i r 1 , VACANT NORTH ill 0 200 500 FEET West Lambert Lane Park Oro Valley Parka Department Figure 2-8 Prepared by. McGann and Associates inc., (Existing Land Use) Landscape Architects and Planners Page 2-8 1 ....3 5E] o ,.. : . . ''.:.1 $ ' [ !, 7, ...,.... -.....i ,:..„.i.i. ;:.,.; t.i..;. , v, , . a 2 , I : I; •T , I i I .:...—'— I , .._- •..,,9::.01.....,-.. .,'. .1,,IP-:',....,,,:?':44',,:',"..,,,,fil..f4''::'''‘•'--'-'-c''''''''.(i) . ' C) 0' , , 1 ' AAt1 i ‘,' ...'. ' ' iro*-1.:,.. , •, , '4. V,1,1 1r".',''''',•'..:::'''',::Crif•OitWV4Ari!..4.',041ifiii,'";',:4,'"0..:.,..0 .'''. "-::,..::: :',Oiltili;l'fi..kii;.;:.';:',....1.4.::;;:i'61,:;111. ..:.''' :':q' : ,,, i 7.-r 0 1 '.0:::4)::6' '(.;\G.0.7. :...,, ...i.:;,,, ..9 0::,,,,-;/4.:',.:...'.7_,..e,, 71...iii.,,...;, ,:; 0,G ..,. •... ; 4':::•':P**:„:;-',':.:...:i'Al,...;:i)i:v...' '4.2!.11,1:',t.E..sAllits31;3.11,:kif,:'1:7 -....I'.1. -:::::ili''...0.;..`'..'" . 0.0 i , (,. ..): •.'..--.11..1)5rf-',..',4,,P.;'.'..'.. ,,,''' 14 go) ''''''7.41,,.:',.-)..'1,'"ii?.,'4.,01P711fr...,...'-:'-'..i:1,..i...,,-:::::::':,:3.i's;,;i4t,k0'4,:10.,:,.1-, O.-#.-...{.,,,q'iP:':-'','•:..4*7. ,i):',..•...,.4:7..,,!..-z-, ..''' ,-.--,-' s,.;1.i'i ' - ry-.., .-.;---,--ctr__ -'--Z"'il'-''-::::;:‘'''' ii,‘ ,nt/ 04*11 jp.A, ‘'t!.4:;..,-',i,'„:.•f,ti;itiaiticia,14.:',::!!,,',,,,?.14'iti'Se.,,,......,,: , ,. ', ',-'4kCP' :'.#!'-'''-..;.i.;.::-'!;:,:s!i'''''.'s•:,::-.WI::,;7'''.:,;.?6:...W. G t5' '-'''')''-' .6')'' .' .--. .',$: iYki$''..1.,:-:-.. ...7,,'T,..,.2.1.''.',',,.:,_.",.::','''.i..,,;'.'!,:':.. .,4' '',:;::',;,-,..: *;:a 1 „., )1! ,,,,,,.,,;,,....(iiii. ..,,,,,..a.",;,,,...:,:,),..,...f,i..:tefit5,?,..k.e!..1,,,:i:,:i..;. :4:11.‘;',.',-1;' ';',,,,,,,,....:,44.:,:!...':',,ijc,..:' wff..:; ,.'.,:':. ,,, ,,,,,--(2.,,0,--..; :,..,.;.:0,-.,%,„;;:41::".1,...A.-.r:-.04,:c3:::i'. ',.,A,w,,:;f ......,;,.;‘......,,,,,.. ,,,...,46' i'‘:::,.,",qc!';'-';',.91, . ., . -,44i,',2,,,,,',/ 0'40:', v.i. -,..,,,...*if,t,..;,,,,,,,,e,:::...,,,,,,I,,i,„,,,,i. (,..-).,..c4:,.-:.,, ,, 0..:..,c`, ....,...:,,,...4...,.!?0::.,.'4,:olc,i,j..-iki..f,,,,,.' ,'',......i.:',.0,..,,,,,,,,,,,,, , -.. fa •.,' :.•,':'(3(,..0-.,,,;',::,- gw.;:'.4,,:.....11,:lie !:•'",',.•.-:0., t.:', ,., 1;,.:,,....,-3,...,'....f?.4.41f,iol 0 ni.:;tiet41,4.‘;'.1,`,.f..fA,..o '....4-!!:,fr--q:'.‘:,::''•',:.,-''.''''.4.,.: ! .:.• *0 . 0 --Oiiiii..:.,'::,4012,, ,, -,.. '..,::.,:'4,..(1,,...„.'4.... ,4..,;4 4c*:,' :,;44ic}:::',' .,A 0, ,..,v..!,,,,444,A.;,,,,i,;-.:i,".„„k6p,, i - ,, 4:i.,.,., .....;.:.'...,;e...,ir.4*`'I'',74-'t%14...,;:.T. .4.4.4,?:,-,,,,i1..:0„%.-: ,.,',...r.'0.r.,,,,,i,fRo.,,h,„4.-r.,':.;s".•. ; ".:.'f',""' .1),) e i o a. k7'..0 1,, .A*)::.1 0.7(4aet.P.:,,.'iT.:•,..4,.00;.41:,'Irt:;::.Y';'..-,11,'''''ss,:..' .'!4,';':'-''''::.,'!-'':'''''''''.. .:';','''''s'''...'::'';' ..:'..•'.1*.;40:;!•::,.7"..:'vi I 0, 6...-s:.,S.,-,,,,.',./:,.:.:,'41)',,,..... .s..,:.°,:.:';/..,:,:.1.!:*........:...:474k',41,:Kii".04ift,:ieb,p.,176,;,:: I • , 0 ''. ()v4')0 0:4:4#14.",: -A7.1....;..a.....::7:'?1.7..;.:.4:1441,L,'.4"..!/1'.?!....,7-7!7:411.49,arti,P.,, •Sli;314,,i)14,41,1r,-,i': ',,,,,,; - `,'-',';'..:-.",--HI;L:c43*11,-:-.: 1 (;) --6.—'-re.-. :',,...-----'-'..,. ..:-.:,'',..:..•.::,,,.:4:-..:,-...'1:',--..,...;,.-,. .!,..,,,,,,s,,,,ii. ...,,,.,;14,-4...;,,,,-„4,‘' ,.1>;,:44,.,,','.!,fi,.:J,,.,,.....,,,,, ,'. .,-.:,,-,,"..:.--..r.,.;. . : • 00 0 az -- - --,., -....i,.,--,_:•...,..t...-:-..-,,,,y--,* .i.,-- .:: -e'ek-f-,..-••;:•--;•':•fr'''.. -.6-.' . 0 ,..,,,........k.,•.-4..v,no,4,--.00.,:,,:...,,,,,, ..." e , ,.,..-......::'..i. e , .,•.L.-;,,„;1.i,..,:-,:::-.7..,-:.,:i„;,. .40.-F.7,,;,,-..!.;:Yi..:;,... ...•...0.- is * ;1,64`' ''417',7'fr.... °' i 1-'-:-..,i,';,',::•,:,....'s.'.::-.20',,,,;,,,--i--i,&.,,,,,::-„. -0.1...;4,.,,yt..0i.;,,:1-•,' ,.,44'1,'..,,,•:'.,'.,'.,71....,,:(:.5:.D'i,;..:'',''7'''''.1.,,,'1,1. . P& -;-:,':,'=:.. 0 ,6)11 L,..-° Q c0) : ; :;.-!:!:;;::':•-•-•-'.,:;:,,;..rt,';',1:),',,,[4,Pii,..:::::-.. ..: '.r.:.'..'...''.: • ',... .: .'''''',':"4.;;.;7,..:-;'..,:!''...:::'""' r: 0 ° ''''""'',;(0.L;ti'''',.:'.';'..1,','..ik'..,-1.',..::.:!.i...4,,i.:-,',4,,. (7.,,.) ..,...,cioc:'\!;.;. 0 p c' __ , ,, :.,,,,I.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,..:;,!,.;;;i:,,,L:;:,,,;,,,,, i.,.,t;;;:i.-.,.., .:,.-....‘;.::..,-.•, ..‘,, ':..--.:17,,...,:::::,..,.,....4.:,..,01i4,4:10:t.-ii,,,,,iti,,,,i*,,b.,..., '''',..cr,.:1.4.ti?1:4;:;,t.ittli-lk,irif:':'If,:0,qc.':16:;, .'4"..,-.1'0 0 -.-.., ),i.Lc,-), o''''''Q.-,.'.'''‘i,:-'4:i'oPl.':'::',P.,Yfliiai',,.,',$f:i‘k':?s,,'/;;:t1::4-',-::.:,::-g.''::.:;.1,:..'f,:iv.::.,;.64t:,t-i•.1/4":,)-ik:;.':.ii;.;,:',,itof,-eitrit(,..ili!ftai'''':;::,::',,,:'''::'V'4:?,!;:.z',,.;.'id,;.,'1!N:;.1::N..r,'',n ..iff.,;;',.!:j.to *),:, ,. ?- :::i ):'. .9...,.:.:471.463171010,illi.i.',,;:;:::.:::::',,:!:',..',-:::24.,;..)!';,.•;'''.'„„,%',{-,,. .........ii„,....-.,,..: ,''''',..,',7-•-...„-,ie:::'.-.,.;,,i:,.4',,-"vff,;tic,.:'.',',',f'',:,,itit::.. .i'.4gPi::,-)k),,,-:,:'.:.: ',,,i';;:i1'..i.:,i.,,:',',::','..,.'::::,;:,;-,,,:i,'4.:':',1'.:i':;'.:.'11?:::;_-1.k,---.4 .0 .' z . . .., w''11' C'e..e' ...),:1,,,c;.,..,!,:',...'. --4'..*,. :•ifi,-.,,,,,,,:q0P/P,,,,Y, ''(-c .,.....r4!,9;,,,l':;f4„;',Zilm,.....t1`,!.71';'.• '''.1441.1-ift. im.... a ...,,,,,,,,,,„,r,A,,,,,,,:,.!..,,,F,:rti,!•,,.--,...;:spf-vi,:,..y,,i,, .-..,,,4w04..--, .() ! 1•(/.....c.1:414..':40:(;'..k''F';'.1'9,.?4:'''''.1.;:t:',...c..,., „..Tert./IY.,:'#:;,,,,%' • !;;',,.?.. : :;:: . ,,.,\.,, 0.. , 0 •••,:...i:i C*1 (' CI CIC) ' wr *:.i: • 7:::..`t;'.:4): t:?..t''''.7 ''V,,,...,e,'i ; .,. 1 .,11,10.r. P '...:;s:,'.:4:ii..:fj'::.;1•%.;filtg-,,.,,t..,\\ 'Iv,... .....'".: 41,;k1(015::1;. :?,::;1', ' '''''.: :'''7'''''.'.::;.;C:.".':'-liflifi:$.?/4.4(/..):';' , ,-. .4*3:t:gtl. . : : .e:':.:':.;.'.....:',;,...:::!',;':::iNik,..",.;:,.:,..:I':;. . ,-.,m.,.; , ..:;.j,,,,,:okilf,,A-,41,,,:o,„,,,ti.:;...1::.,:f.::,.,..,,,. ...4,1:'',..410;:'.:1'.:,..v rj•H-H -,.,,P- '-.4341,4,,,,,,!?,•:;11! :07#;',-..11,:***.t:':,1. . ,.10:4.t.P. ,,,:.':::'i';:?ii.:IPS:j:::::!:41,4k1A, - .10:04::‘,':,•..:Ittgl,'0)4.t.'epc.',:',.,A.t.'Vr.:J,',,..::::!'41.,...i'',. .7.::-..:.7-,.„I.,. '-:-, ..-..: ..‘:- .,),,,41, f':.:".:113.-'111kV:..."''' "..•;i',,,14.'„e.4:•''''life,,,,:,..:Y,)'..i1.:.4.,:..,e-,,:::„:,)4'.4,,,r,ia];(......• 4) ...':'11;.::,:::::.:!.,i,...i.,,,,Yi'li,!1.1%,„.-... ,' 6,',..f.,'..':-..,,,,..„1:0,4.0.7.77'.-.7'''I''..,.,,,'‘iki'-'4<'','''' '';.)tl'4:::....•; -- I i. '...i......'..k. .1:7,f...:' '",.'...?.'3'...'ilE.c ..'!".'iiffi'',.,::* ./.....;i:'i....4:400t14 Q1 )!0 r-- , %.,.,.. .,....... t.. ,. -..,,',,,w,.-,-',::•...1..,.-ew:::.'.;:::::12Di i'„,:.; ,..,„ c) `#444,-, ...,,, .;‘,..,....:_.,,A:::,1,,,itzk:,:,:f.../ ,,....2:_`-: i.: ,,,,,,...‘.;,,..,.:.:.-:',—,ar),.:•:,,- ,,..,.;:t 0 ,..:A.t...y..-..?"...,v,m,:iv :.— .—• .- .' ,....,:i:4`.::;-It'ilil.. , ':,..,:-'. n;•:-',#,-...':.);-,'''-',Ni‘4,--''.::;fi.:... ' ,..,.....t:;-',..*:::: 0:::::' . , •••••47t:','''6'?''''OrEi''i..* , — ,..,,*. :,.,,,44,,,,,,;(t)It':'. ;,.,..,...., ,..:,.......i.t...:,$3,,i'Ata ..,,,.-..* ..;;., : '`...'eas,y1,.,..0' •..-..-•••• ''', 0, 7 0 A—a 0 -I ..!'. ,...:::.i.i';',',..;.'eil''..:‘.4.;',: :i:,Q.Y.T,V ',,,,,..gwr.x...,,,e--4.-. 444.-,..:•,••!..:•:.4.•••••••••.,..1,,„.,,,,,,,,,,, ii. i . /1 • ,V. 0 f 2.t.' ; *,;Xl';'.,:4,.' '::'i'•'''''10 •,,t',:,...,-...,'.1,, ,'', /.,_.;,0,--N ,' a rileo.- • . ao _ ,..:C,...,44,.....;;*::.,,:, ,V;:ti'..,!!..:•.:.:3;;isli.;':;„‘Y* ':'"':”'" li i' "I 0 ' ' '4 . '-'• 41;11111 111111 I I I ....„... ..4.,.:,..., ...,,,,,,,,p-i,my,,,,,,,N,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,K11,7,114:..e., . II, :u.' -L,,f•' '3 ..1 ,„..., a.....-.,-," . • c--c7.) 7 - ' -,..i*:. a':(,,t'''Or ''''''''''''''''/AC4!4*Ih6.2).;:'''''''."4.. ' • 11 /I/1 M11111111/1111 ',3 i,:-1".,,,,,,,,,..--,-, go i 6 ...Y4' 0 (! (:_).•,Sp' •_.,,, i, ,i ';‘. 01 . ' 'V) iiiiiiIiiiiilifillw,....„ i a .7.,.... -.,• ty, U ,0)..'i,..474),;.0)4'.0.I-. - 0 . ,i4,_ 40 .,,.;:,..',,,,,g,i.P.,,',.;,4.:'',- ' . ! ..) (-) -(...4,) 0 ,.._,...,,,,,,.*,''.-c,110fi.?'„,ifi,),g4'at ilio,. :::'-',- ;:',.,•:::..;, 6.,, 06-,,-.(..77,t) ".........______- -3.1 4reifct... Mil) _41!....„..! n.... - ,z • -;:.'..G "G , .. ,,... , • . ! .-•.-'-''' •.TriTI .1 __,__"''• .„. •-.,i.i.:,:: ,.' "!,.--.::016-,-1"431tV:11:711(1r11.-:;' ,7 ,1 '-`,.. 5t .:,,-3';- '.1.• '-±- -C) I, F,',.?! fd.r `, -7.'-'. .-= . •;-; ::, .-;:'..,;4 ' 1 1 ,..7.! I I. -1 I; TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STUDY SESSION 4 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 20,2001 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: CHUCK SWEET, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY REVISION. SUMMARY: On August 4, 1999 the Town Council approved Resolution No. R 99-79 A, adopting Lodging Industry Incentives Policy/Guideline. This policy/guideline has been applied as the basis for two Economic Development Agreements, the first for the Ritz-Carlton Resort project and the second for the Sheraton El Conquistador Resort meeting space expansion and re-investment projects. The need for an increased presence of retail businesses that generate sales tax revenue has become the highest priority for Economic Development as the future years revenues forecast clearly indicates a reduction of residential construction related sales taxes. Recently the Town has received proposals for major retail developments located along the western side of Oracle Road (Steam Pump Village and the De Rito Partners projects). In at least one instance the developer has requested that an agreement between the Town and the developer addressing the "sharing" of sales tax revenues be considered (see attached letter from De Rito Partners). Additional considerations by the Council that could be included in a revised/expanded Economic Development Policy address the possibilities of providing assistance for the Retention and/or Expansion of Existing Businesses, consideration of expansion of the Town's boundaries through annexation (i.e.; paving of streets, construction of a trails system, etc.), aggressive recruitment of"Targeted" employment based businesses (high tech/high salary), and the flexibility to react to needs in a future setting. The use of incentives has been an accepted practice by many communities for a long period of time. It is prudent that the use and/or consideration of using incentives should be carefully defined. In most instances the community must receive an important(as determined by that community) benefit in some measurable form. Some examples of current incentive practices in established Arizona communities include: Sales Tax Revenue Sharing, Transient Lodging Tax Revenue Sharing, Reduction of hook up fees and/or impact fees, Reclassification of property resulting in lower property taxes, Infrastructure Improvements both for private sector businesses as well as part of an inducement for annexation activities, and other actions. When you move beyond the Arizona state line you will find incentive practices that also include: Direct financial grants, gifting of land or significant reductions in the price of land, and payment for all forms of utility extensions. The need and opportunity to re-address the Town's Policy towards use of various forms of Economic Development related incentives and/or inducements appear to be appropriate at this time. To that end I have prepared the attached Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Incentive Policy Guidelines. The Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Incentive Policy Guidelines was developed as a comprehensive view of the use and possible application of incentives and/or inducements by the Town Council. The applicable uses are very broad by design to allow the Town Council discretion and flexibility. The Policy statement clearly states that the "Town may consider using some form of incentives"providing complete discretion as too applicability. Furthermore, the Policy statement states "These incentives will only be TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STUDY SESSION COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 SUMMARY: CONT used when the Town satisfies itself that ..... would have a significant,positive effect on the Oro Valley economy"thereby requiring a litmus test that must be satisfied each and every time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. De Rito Partners letter. 2. Draft Resolution. 3. Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Guidelines. 4. Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). FISCAL IMPACT: N/A CHUCK SWEET TOWN MANAGER DP25 I L. L.C . April 27, 2001 Mr. Jeffrey H. Weir Economic Development Administrator TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Re: Vistoso Towne Center Southwest Corner of Tangerine and Oracle Roads Oro Valley, Arizona Dear Mr. Weir: In response to your recent meeting with Bruce Dunn, I am sending you this correspondence on behalf of DP25, L.L.C. to express our desire to commence formal discussions pertaining to a tax revenue sharing development agreement with the Town of Oro Valley for Vistoso Towne Center. As we witnessed by the last neighborhood meeting, the proposed layout and design of Vistoso Towne Center have been well received. I am excited about this project with the Town's assistance and look forward to our future discussions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, DP25, .L.C. l 411[ll Mart, De Rit Man._i, g ember MD/mc 2400 East Arizona Biltmore Circle/ Building 4, Suite 2450/ Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Ph: (480) 834-8500/ Fax: (602) 381-1981 / Development Fax: (602) 553-2940 C:\old\WINWORD\MD\Oro Valley\Town of Oro Valley\Tax.Rev.Sharing-J.Weir.doc File: Vistoso Towne Center—Town of Oro Valley RESOLUTION NO. (R) 01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY GUIDELINES. WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley's General Plan has identified pursuing diversification of the local economy as highly desirable and is well supported by the community, and; WHEREAS,the existing Community Economic Development Strategy states that one major action step desired is the development and adoption of a Business Incentive Policy, and; WHEREAS,the existing Community Economic Development Strategy further states that the Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to attract or retain targeted businesses, and; WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley recognizes the importance of developing a policy and guidelines that include similar considerations for the retention and expansion of existing targeted businesses as those that apply to the attraction of new targeted businesses; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: The adoption of Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Incentive Policy Guidelines, attached herewith, provides examples of items that a business owner/developer may request consideration for. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this day of , 20 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY GUIDELINES GOAL: Top rovide the Town Council a set of guidelines that assist in the retention of targeted businesses and the attraction of new or expanding targeted businesses to the Town of Oro Valley resulting in the diversification of the existing tax base and the creation of employment opportunities. POLICIES: In certain cases the Town may consider using some form of incentives in order to attract or retain targeted businesses. These incentives will only be used when the Town satisfies itself that the addition of the new business or retention and/or expansion of an existing business would have a significant, positive effect on the Oro Valley economy. The need for diversification of the local economy which minimizes dependence of residential sales tax revenues is a necessity. This policy places a priority emphasis on new and existing businesses thatg enerate significant sales tax revenues. As a guideline the following listing can be viewed as a rioritized preference: 1. Resorts, 2. Retail, 3. Other Lodging, 4. High Tech Job Creation, and p 5. Service Providers. The following general provisions shall be considered prior to offering incentives. 1. Incentives will only be offered if they are actually necessary in order to affect the retention and/or expansion of an existing business or to attract a new business to the Town. This would include: - A situation in which the Town of Oro Valley has determined that the retention of an existing business is desirable. - A situation in which the Town of Oro Valley is competing with other cities for the expansion of an existing business to the Town or where incentives are actually necessary to affect the expansion of an existing business. - A situation wherein incentives are needed to induce a business to relocate or expand their operation to the Town of Oro Valley from an existing site in another city. 2. A high priority should be placed on the businesses "targeted"in the Community Economic Development Strategic (CEDS) Plan (1997, or the most recent update). 3. The project will have a substantial positive economic impact on the community, i.e.;the number of jobs created or the sales tax created by the project in the long-term will offset the short-term costs offered by incentives. Additionally, the project will be of such size or consequence to produce significant employment or sales in related sectors. 4. Incentives should not continue for more than a 10 year period. 5. An emphasis should be placed on firms that provide diversification (within targeted industrial or commercial sectors)to the Town's economy. 6. The Town will not buy land or existing buildings or construct buildings for purely private objectives. The Town's position should be to offer incentives that have a relationship to public benefit. Improvements such as streets, water lines,traffic signals, storm drainage, parking structures, parks and open space, and similar publicly assessed improvements are examples of public-private financed incentives. Acquisition of property and construction of buildings, if necessary, must be related to a public purpose. .............._......... 7. The dollar amount of the incentives offered shall not exceed the cost of the project considered nor shall the incentive value be more than the project could reasonably expect to return in benefits within a ten year period. 8. Private dollars should be utilized whenever possible to up-front identified project costs and then to be reimbursed by the Town to avoid straining the Town's operational or bonding capacity and reduce the Town's front-end risks. 9. Incentives can be utilized for retail, commercial and industrial projects Town-wide. 10. In certain instances incentives may be offered in conjunction with annexation activities which are viewed as important strategically. In the case of large-scale development areas, incentives should be combined with a community facilities district, where feasible, to offer maximum flexibility in attracting development. 11. The intangible or unmeasurable benefits of a business to a community, such as the location of a headquarters facility, enhancement of attractiveness to other similar businesses or suppliers, or other similar image-related items are also very important and should be considered along with other factors when making decisions on incentives. 12. Generally Retail projects which qualify should generate significant sales tax revenues similar to projects normally identified at a community or regional shopping center level. 13. Retail development projects are currently the highest priority. 14. New Retail development should have an emphasis on meeting a need not currently being filled in the community, or providing a higher level of service/goods/products than presently available, or providing similar services in an area not currently being served. 15. Final authority for any approval of the use of an incentive and/or inducement rests with the Town Council. 16. Each action is separate and independent from all other actions associated with the approval of the use of an incentive and/or inducement. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY P — . . . . ' '/ \_LE.Y /1 0 , ----:::, . .. : ... 0 •,_s .., -,7,;.•, • 4 ,".:,, ,,0 --:11 / -- *''i�w1.{ �- taf s n. ��. ` * l4r 7 ',.. ddd Ael � yam: .,`-4 P.'..-. .� '.�.. ; ,,Fu �. =w: y'•. .mak.-t,.., . .... /(''' ''''.------, ____._----- .-- N, .r v .M::..'.. n' �.s... w.:r,v.... ♦,.s♦ a,',F .iC�'xyn.q. �., 9r'. .: „ � OU/ D ----Q '\9 ' COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY • • • • � TOWN OF ORO VALLEY � COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT s STRATEGY • • • • • • • SEPTEMBER 1997 r • • •• • • f • • • • • • i• • • I * 11 I • li • I• I• 1• I• I • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL • CHERYL SKALSKY Mayor PAUL PARISI Vice-Mayor BILL KAUTENBURGER Councilmember FRANK BUTRICO Councilmember DICK JOHNSON Councilmember Acknowledgements The following persons were instrumental in the development of the Town of Oro Valley's Community Economic Development Strategy. Economic Development Plan Task Force Cheryl Skalsky Mayor Kit Donley Pro L.A.N.D. Dennis Douglas Chairman, P&Z Commission Melissa Franklin Educator, Amphitheater School District Patti Jo Lewis Development Review Board Richard Maes Vistoso Partners Michaele Ann Melton El Burrito Patio Restaurant Patty Morris Tucson Electric Power Oscar Rothenbuecher P&Z Commission Mark Weinberg Diamond Management Town Support Staff Chuck Sweet, Town Manager Norm Phillips, Economic Development Administrator David Andrews, Finance Director Don Chatfield, AICP, Planning & Zoning Director Bryant Nodine, AICP, Senior Planner • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • � Mission Statement ... 1 • � Background ... 2 • Scope and Organization ... 3 • � Purpose ... 4 A • Action Steps ... 4 Town of Oro Valley-Assistance for Economic Development ... 9 Challenges and Vision for the Future ... 9 Appendix Economic Development Partners — Programs and Assistance ... 12 go Economic Development Contacts ... 18 TABLE 1 - GTSPED Targeted Industries ... 19 111 • • lb • 41/ 1 1 • f • • A • • • • • • • • • • • • • MISSION STATEMENT 4r 11P "To increase the quality of life for Oro Valley citizens and the business community by developing a positive business climate consistent with the community's values to ensure the long-term financial and economic r sustainability of the Town of Oro Valley." • • • i •• • •• • • • • f • • • 1 i • Background During the past year there has been a concerted effort on the part of Town and private individuals to develop an organized plan of action for economic development in Oro Valley. Oro Valley leaders have begun to realize that resources available for economic development are being depleted. The limited commercial and industrial lands are rapidly being developed. Also, the demand for municipal services creates an incentive for the Oro Valley community to establish a stronger commercial/industrial tax base in order to keep local taxes at a minimum. In July 1996, the Town adopted the Focus 2020: Oro Valley General Plan, which included an Economic Development Element. A key policy (3.IA) in the Economic Development Element of the Plan states: "Economic Development touches everyone and everything within a community. Policies made now will have substantial impacts on the future. They will determine the services a town can provide to its residents and the quality. To ensure that future growth reflects the desires of the community in balance with an analysis of the Town's financial needs, a Strategic Plan for Economic Development will be detailed to ensure that future development will complement community values and work toward implementation of the community's economic vision for the future." The development and use of an economic development strategy was deemed to be an important step in providing for implementation of the General Plan Goals and Policies. Without a strategic plan for action, the implementation of the General Plan Goals and Policies would likely be sporadic, uncoordinated, poorly timed and inefficient. With a strategic or action plan for economic development the Town can make the best use of limited resources in providing a focused economic development program for the community. A statement in the Economic Development Element of the General Plan says it best; "The success of the General Plan is measured by how well the plan is implemented." Important actions called for in the General Plan Element include: • Appoint an Economic Development Task Force to work closely with the Economic Development Administrator (EDA) to develop a Strategic Plan. • Develop an economic development marketing plan. 2 • Coordinate closely with surrounding municipal and regional as well as Statewide organizations. • Develop and maintain a computer database inventory of available land and buildings • Develop a fiscal impact analysis before initiating an annexation. • Develop an Economic Development Impact Analysis to be incorporated into the evaluation of significant development proposals. • Initiate the design of thematic entry monuments at key entry areas to Oro Valley. One purpose of an economic development strategy is to organize and implement these and other actions necessary to provide for an effective economic development effort. The second action item suggested in Economic Development Element was the appointment of an Economic Development Task Force to work with the EDA in developing a Strategic Plan. The Economic Development Task Force was appointed by the Town Council in August of 1996 to coordinate the completion and adoption of a strategic plan. The first Task Force meeting was held in October of that year. Care was taken to include members which represented various major groups within the community, i.e., small business, developer, land owner educator, utilities, home owner, etc. The Task Force met monthly from October of 1996 through August 1997. The Town Manager, the Economic Development Administrator, the Finance Director and the Planning and Zoning Director facilitated the meetings. In September 1997, the strategic plan document was completed and sent to the Town Council for implementation. Scope and Organization This document is designed to bring together under one cover the existing and planned strategies and programs into an overall community economic development strategy for the Town of Oro Valley. The name of this plan is the Town of Oro Valley Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 3 Purpose The purposes of the Community Economic Development Strategy are as follows: • Implement the Goals and Policies of the Economic Development Element of the Town General Plan. • Make the best use of limited resources in providing a focused economic development program for the community. • Link all development-related programs and strategies in a formal way. • Provide guidelines in decision-making to the Town's political and administrative leadership to achieve unity of purpose in the pursuit of economic development goals. • Attract new public and private resources to assist in carrying out the action steps contained in the CEDS. Action Steps (1) Establish an Action Program and operating budget for the Economic Development Administrator (EDA). The EDA will work with the Finance Director and Town Manager to develop an action program and operating budget for one year and operating guidelines for a three-year program (subject to refinement). This program & budget will provide the general framework in which the EDA is expected to operate and is based on activities needed to implement the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. The one-year program will provide a focused scope, while the three-year program provides the broader operating context. This process of developing the one and three-year program is advanced by one year and updated. (2) Insure that adequate funding resources are available to implement the action steps contained in this document. The EDA and the Finance Director will work with the Town Manager and Town Council to assure that adequate funding is available to carry out the action steps contained in the Economic Development Strategic Plan. 4 (3) Pursue private, county, state and federal funding sources. The EDA will seek out available funding from various sources including the private sector and various governmental agencies. (4) Develop and implement a Business Retention Program. A retention program will be developed which provides for regular visits by Town staff to Oro Valley businesses. A survey will be utilized and information summarized at the end of each year and an annual report produced. The report will be used to analyze and evaluate Town services, development trends and other information relating to the business community. The report will be presented each year to the Town Council. (5) Monitor expansion plans of businesses in the community. In conjunction with the Business Retention Program, the EDA will closely monitor the expansion and relocation plans of businesses in the Town. The EDA will assist expanding businesses with their plans and help to expedite the development review and construction process. (6) Work with appropriate agencies in assisting local business and retaining local companies in Oro Valley. The EDA will work with the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC), the Industry Network Corporation (INC), Pima County's Business Assistance Center, the Pima Community College Small Business Development and Training Center and the Arizona Department of Commerce in assisting local businesses and retaining local companies in Oro Valley. (7) Work to attract retail development in the community by maintaining regular contact with the development community. The EDA will maintain regular contact with landowners, real estate professionals, and developers in order to attract new retail development to the Town. Contact with the retail community will be facilitated through attendance at meetings and conferences of the International Conference of Shopping Centers (ICBG) to secure new prospects and network with retail professionals. 5 (8) Streamline the development review process. The EDA will work with the Town Development Review Ad Hoc Committee and Town staff to streamline the development review process. A procedure will be developed to expedite the permit process in response to development requests of significant importance to the Town image, tax base or employment base. (9) Create and foster a positive image Create ap ositive image for the Town and use that image in marketing plans to promote Oro Valley in industries such as retail, manufacturing and tourism. Specific action steps are: • Complete an Identity/Image study for the community. • Use the study in developing marketing plans for retail, light industry and hospitality and tourism industry attraction. • Work with the Town Council and other appropriate groups to develop and enhance a sense of community identity through landscape and design themes/treatments at entryways to the Town or along major road corridors. • Work with the Town Council, Arts Board, Public Works Department and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to provide directional signage to Oro Valley along the 1-10 freeway and State Routes 77 and 89. • Work to establish the Town Hall Complex and surrounding vicinity as the "Town Center" of Oro Valley and work to establish this site as the focus and identify for the community. • Promote Oro Valley as progressive, on the move, properly staffed and favorably disposed to accommodate the need of new retail, high tech industry and resort and tourism developments. • Portray Oro Valley as a quality place to live, work, shop and recreate. Demonstrate the commitment of Town officials to accommodate commercial and industrial developments, which contribute to the community's identity. • Reinforce the competitive strengths of Oro Valley as a place for business, capitalizing on the unique recreational opportunities and desert and mountain p g beauty, highly hi hly educated citizens, high median income and rapid growth. (10) Work with regional organizations to improve the image of the Town in the development community. Work with regional organizations such as the Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC), Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) and the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce in developing the Town image. Work with such organizations to improve the image of the Town within the development community. 6 (11) Develop a strategy to encourage northern Town and unincorporated area residents to shop and do business in Oro Valley. It is recognized that it is important to provide nearby shopping opportunities for those Town residents in the Rancho Vistoso section of the Town and citizens north of Oro Valley. This area has significant economic potential and should be included in the Town Marketing Plan. (12) Develop and adopt a Business Incentive Policy The Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to attract or retain desirable businesses. Guidelines and review criteria will be established to assist the Town in deciding when to grant such incentives. (13) Develop a computerized Fiscal Impact Analysis The EDA will develop a computerized fiscal impact analysis for use in measuring the benefit of specific development, rezoning or annexation to the community. (14) Develop and maintain a Database Inventory The EDA will develop and maintain a computer database of available land, buildings and lease space. (15) Develop and Maintain an Oro Valley Business Directory Develop a Business directory as part of an effort to retain retail dollars in the community and encourage residents to use Oro Valley services. (16) Develop Economic Development Web pages Develop Economic Development Web pages on the Internet, including a retail, industrial /office and general information and demographics page. The existing Oro Valley tourism page will be updated. (17) Work to increase the number of tourists, both seasonal and year round, that come to Oro Valley. Work with the MTCVB, the GOV Chamber of Commerce and the Sheridan El Conquistador to increase the number of tourists that come to the area. (18) Work to attract uses which support the hospitality/tourism industry. These uses include retail businesses such as hotels and restaurants, which generate sales and bed tax revenues for the Town. 7 (19) The Town will target the following list of retail, tourism and industrial uses for areas identified appropriate in the General Plan. These targeted uses meet one or more of the following criteria: • High paying jobs • Strong projected job growth • Underrepresented in the Oro Valley market Retail * • Furniture & Home Furnishings • Big-box Discount Stores • Restaurants • Drugstores • Movie theaters • Clothing stores Tourism • Resorts • Hotels/motels • Driving range Office • Corporate headquarters/regional headquarters • Back-office facilities • Health services • College, institutions • Professional offices Services • Dry Cleaning • Insurance services • Banking and credit institutions • Insurance Agencies • Investment Services Industrial The Town will target the Greater Tucson Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GTSPED) selected industries** as described in the Greater Tucson Strategic Economic Development Plan, July 1996 (see Table 1). * Well-designed specialty retail developments (such as Saint Phillip's Plaza in Tucson) are much-preferred over strip commercial projects. * * A group of industries under the group heading "Fabricated Metals/Industrial Machinery & Equipment" has been not been included due to incompatibility with the Town General Plan. 8 (20) Work with appropriate agencies in developing industrial/office leads and prospects. The EDA will work with the GOV Chamber of Commerce, GTEC and the Arizona Department of Commerce in developing industrial/office leads and prospects. This will include coordination on marketing materials and attendance at relevant events, trade shows, conferences and prospecting trips. (21) The status of the Economic Development Plan will be reviewed annually by Town officials. The EDA will review the Economic Development Strategic Plan annually with the Finance Director and Town Manager. Appropriate modifications will be brought forward to the Town Council for adoption. An annual status report will be prepared and presented to the Council reviewing progress on completion of the action steps identified in the Strategic Plan. Town of Oro Valley-Assistance for Economic Development Local governments in the Tucson regional area, individually or in association, promote local and regional economic development. The state grants municipal governments, such as Oro Valley, the power to engage in economic development. These powers allow the Town to provide the leadership, energy and perspective to bring together the different segments of the community. Guidelines for the Town use of assistance for business location or expansion are outlined In the Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Incentive Policy. Challenges and Vision for the Future The economic and physical transformation of Oro Valley will occur as a result of a combination of physical, political and socio-economic factors which will influence the direction of growth and development in the years to come. External and internal forces influencing growth in Arizona and the region will filter down to Oro Valley, generating impacts in its economy that are difficult to predict. The Town economy evolved as a result of the work of early pioneers who conquered the desert after harnessing water and energy resources. Later, with the advent of World War 11, a diversified industrialization process began to take place. This along with large population immigration, created by workers coming to take jobs in new area industries, has transformed Oro Valley into the fastest growing town or city in the State of Arizona. 9 Economic growth and development in the region evolved, until recently, without the guidance of comprehensive planning, fueled primarily by speculative forces and population immigration. Planning the future economic and physical growth of the Town, which is closely tied to the City of Tucson and the region, poses many challenges. To be beneficial, economic development must not only help create wealth, it must also generate community benefits and be consistent with the unique character of the Town. A statement at the beginning of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan put this in perspective: "Oro Valley's economic future is interwoven with its distinctive character based on a residential/resort image and its proximity to the Pusch Ridge Wilderness, Coronado National Forest and Catalina State Park. Diversification in the local revenue base, encouraged through additions to employment and shopping opportunities, is desirable. However, any new development must be consistent with the community's vision for the future and values." The Town Council and staff will continue to work diligently to carry out this vision. 10 s • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Economic Development Partners — Programs and Assistance Success in economic development is best achieved through cooperation with a number of local, regional and State agencies and groups. The following is a discussion of the most important of these organizations and what they provide in the way of programs and assistance for economic development. Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) Economic development was an elusive function in Arizona until recently. At the initiative of a variety of individuals and organizations, the State Legislature enacted the Omnibus Economic Development Act in 1989, directing the Department of Commerce to assess Arizona's business climate and draft the first statewide strategic economic development plan. This effort culminated in the design and publication of Arizona's Strategic Plan for Economic development (ASPED) in October 1992. To implement ASPED, the Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED) was established. GSPED identified ten key economic clusters upon which to build and expand Arizona's future economy. 1. Bio-industry 2. Optics 3. Environmental Technology 4.. Software 5. Food, Fiber & Natural Products 6. Tourism and Experience 7. High Tech Industry 8. Transportation 9. Mining & Minerals 10. Senior Living As defined by ASPED, an economic cluster is a geographic concentration of competitive firms in related industries that do business with each other. Clusters include companies that sell inside and outside of the region as well as support firms that supply raw materials. These become magnets for companies to locate in an area and create a spawning ground for start-up companies. Also, these create large, diverse pools of experienced workers; attract suppliers who tend to congregate in their vicinity for increased efficiency; and foster a competitive spirit that stimulates growth and innovative strategic alliances. The activities of GSPED will be of benefit to the economic growth of Oro Valley. In particular, those related to the High Tech Industry, Optics, Tourism and Experience, and Senior Living. 12 The Arizona Department of Commerce is the key agency responsible for marketing promoting and romotin the economy of Arizona while providing support to GSPED in implementing cluster initiatives. In 1993, the National Marketing p g Division of the ADOC aligned its recruitment efforts with GSPED. Their marketing representatives were each assigned specific GSPED industry groups. The Department of Commerce approach has been to emphasize the non-urban areas in their recruiting efforts. Leads and prospects considering the Tucson or Phoenix metro areas are turned over to the corresponding regional agency (GTEC or GPEC). While recruitmentp rospects are turned over to GTEC and not to Oro Valley, a number of important incentives are made available to the Town by the ADOC. • The Commerce and Economic Development Fund The Arizona Legislature established the Commerce and Economic Development 9 Commission (CEDC) to help expand economic opportunities in the state. A CEDC fund capitalized yearly with a percentage of lottery proceeds was established by the Legislature to help retain, expand, and relocate businesses to Arizona. The CEDC funds are administered by ADOC. Direct loans, loan guarantees and interest rate subsidies are directed by the CEDC to businesses. Priority consideration is given to businesses seeking to relocate and expand in rural and economically disadvantaged areas and to minority and women owned business. The allocations are made on a first-come first-served basis. • Work Force Recruitment and Job Training Program The Arizona State Legislature established the work force recruitment and job- • trainingfund in 1993 to provide customized training to firms that create new jobs r in Arizona and to businesses that undergo economic conversion. Grants are s administered by ADOC and offered to financially sound for-profit enterprises. Those firms identified within the GSPED clusters receive priority consideration. grants� The cover the cost of recruitment, screening, assessment, interviewing, • materials design, and training costs, among others. Training is provided through g • established community colleges, or private post-secondary educational institutions, or other qualified providers, as requested by the company. fik • • The Arizona Business Connection S Thisro ram is operated through the ADOC and provides assistance in p g business expansion, relocation and start-ups. The office is a resource for information regarding licensing, permits, applicable taxes, applicable regulations, g g • and financial referrals to local, state and federal agencies, as appropriate. Small • i 13 • businesses established in the Planning Area can access and benefit from these programs. • Private Activity Bonds Private Activity Bonds can be issued for industrial, manufacturing facilities, and equipment. The Town of Oro Valley or the Pima County Industrial Development Authorities can issue these bonds. • Revolving Energy Loans Under this program, qualified Arizona companies can receive financial assistance for long-term, fixed-asset plant expansions for the manufacture of energy-conserving products and energy-conserving building retrofits, including the acquisition of qualified energy-conserving improvements and equipment. • Environmental Technology Tax Incentive Program The State of Arizona offers tax credits and exemptions to companies that invest $20 million over five years in manufacturing technology that produces goods from recycled materials and renewable energy. • Defense Restructuring Assistance Program Under this program, defense contractors can receive individual and corporate tax credits for conversion of defense activities to commercial activities. • Economic Strength Fund This program approved by the Arizona State Legislature provides private non- profit and/or local government financing for highway or road projects which retain or significantly increase jobs in Arizona, or which lead to significant capital investment, or which make a significant contribution to the economy of the State. • Arizona Enterprise Development Corporation (AFDC) Loan Programs AEDC offers several types of Small Business Administration (SBA) Guaranteed Loans to small businesses including: SBA 504 and SBA 502 fixed asset subordinated loans, SBA 7A working capital and debt refinance, and bridge 11, loans for land, building acquisition, inventory or equipment. • � • • Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) Program f This program, a part of ADOC Community Assistance Services, offers 1 specialized services and funding assistance in the form of matching grants to 4) • 14 rural communities. The communities use the assistance to maintain viable economic development programs and to make themselves more attractive for capital investment, industrial expansions and business locations. • Community Facilities Districts Arizona's Community Facilities District Act, allows a landowner or a group of landowners to request by petition that a municipality establish a community facilities district within the city limits to finance and construct public infrastructure and facilities. The district provides developers and cities with a new and flexible mechanism to deal with the rising costs of new community facilities. Several financial options are available to construct and maintain infrastructure, including: General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds, Special Assessments and Assessment Bonds, Uses Fees and Charges, Municipal and Private Contributions. The type of projects that could be funded include: water and sewerage storage, flood control and drainage, lighting and traffic control, streets and parking, police and fire facilities, public buildings, school sites and facilities, parks and recreation among others. • Other Programs: Other Arizona programs that may offer potential for economic development are those offered through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Revolving Loan Funds, the Arizona Department of Tourism and the Arizona Film Commission. Federal Over the years, the Federal Government has introduced a vast array of programs that local jurisdictions can use to improve their economies and neighborhoods. These programs range from specific development projects for rural and urban development to job training. While the breath and funding of federal programs is always subject to changes in national policy and emphasis in Washington D.C., local communities can make themselves aware of opportunities and where possible, participate in those programs. The following is a list of federal programs and agencies that offer the most potential to promote • development in concert with the attributes of the Planning Area. S • Small Business Administration Loans • • These loans are offered through the state of Arizona. i • The Rural Economic and Community Development Service, and the Consolidated Farm Services Agency, formerly the Farmers Home • Administration (FmHA) provides a vast array of programs including • 15 guaranteed loans and grants to rural areas for water/wastewater facilities, community facilities (e.g. fire and rescue or health facilities, schools), business and industrial loans. • Economic Development Administration (EDA) Public Works Grants The EDA programs are directed to the funding of public works and development facilities that contribute to the creation or retention of private sector jobs and to the alleviation of unemployment and underemployment. For example, EDA funds could facilitate the construction of an industrial park in Oro Valley. • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Oro Valley is not an entitlement jurisdiction and relies on Pima County for CDBG funding (see below). Pima County • CDBG Funds Entitlement funds received through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development are utilized to support community and economic development activities in the Town of Oro Valley. These funds are received through the Pima County Entitlement Program and may be used by the Town for economic development projects, public works, community facilities, public services and planning. • Pima County Industrial Development Authority The IDA was established by Pima County to facilitate financing through the issuance of tax exempt private activity (industrial revenue) bonds for manufacturing, infrastructure and medical developments. These bonds are generally limited to land, building and equipment for manufacturing purposes and they are capped at $10 million. The proceeds from the sales of bonds are made available to finance projects through loans, leases or installment sales agreements with private credit-worthy companies. Payments are used to pay the principal and interest on the bonds as they become due. Interest rates are normally three to four percent lower than those charged through conventional borrowing. Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) The Town contracts with GTEC to provide national and international marketing activities for the region. GTEC receives and markets sites in the area to 16 • � prospects passed onto them from the Department of Commerce and also � prospects developed through the group's own marketing efforts. i • The membership dollars provided to GTEC from Oro Valley and other towns and organizations in the Tucson area help improve the business climate, and attract • new employers to the area. Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) This organization receives funding from public agencies such as the Town of Oro Valley and from a number of Tucson area corporate sponsors (especially those in the hospitality industry). The activities result in bookings of hotel rooms and conventions with the impact of several million dollars each year to the local economy. Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce ffs The Chamber provides a local network for the exchange of ideas between the business community and the Town. Also the Town has worked jointly with the Chamber on a variety of economic development issues and projects. Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) � TEP works with the Town and other economic groups to provide assistance to � companies in the area of business attraction, expansion and retention. The � Economic Development Section of TEP provides various forms of assistance � including power information, sharing of lead information and in certain cases rate r reductions for firms considering expansion or location in the Pima County area. 40 Private Sector • � One of the most critical pieces in the puzzle, fundamental to the building of i foundations for economic development is the private sector. The private sector � consists of local lenders, developers, investors, builders and contractors, • professionals, chambers of commerce, professional and business associations and the utilities. • + Non-profit Sector Another key sector in economic development is the non-profit sector. The non- profit sector includes colleges and local universities, community based organizations, economic development corporations, neighborhood groups and in private foundations. This sector is an important source of both training and 119 funding for economic development programs and projects. • • � ♦ 17 • 411 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS • • Chuck Sweet, Town Manager 297-2591 • Norm Phillips, Economic Development Administrator 297-2591 David Andrews, Finance Director 297-2591 Don Chatfield, Planning & Zoning Director 797-9797 41 David Hook, Town Engineer 797-2442 1 •• Bob Maassen, Building Official 797-9096 • 110 ft i •• r •• i IP • • 11 • • • • • ` ♦ 18 • TABLE 1 1 1 • � GTSPED TARGETED [NDUSTRIES • � Optics � Ophthalmic Goods (SIC 3851) Optical Instruments & Lenses (SIC 3827) �1 Analytical Instruments (SIC 3826) • Photographic Equipment& Supplies (SIC 3861) • • Environmental Technologies Fluid Meters & Counting Devices (SIC 3824) Analytical Instruments (SIC 3826) ik Measuring & Controlling Devices (SIC 3829) � Environmental Controls (SIC 3822) dlk� Aerospace � Space Vehicle Equipment (SIC 3769) � Guided Missiles & Space Vehicles (SIC 3761) i Space Propulsion Units & Parts (SIC 3764) Space Commerce Biolndustries 41111 � Biological Products, Except Diagnostic (SIC 2836) • Diagnostic Substances (SIC 2835) • Medicinals & Botanicals (SIC 2833) 411 S' Teleservices 410 � Telecommunications Services (SIC 4812. 4813. 4822) • • Sofhvare/Information Services • Computer Professional Services (SIC 7376) • Data Processing (SIC 7375) S Electronic Information Services (SIC 7374) Computer& Data Processing (SIC 737) • Prepackaged Software (SIC 7372) � Computer Integrated Systems (SIC 7373) • � 19 e Electronic & Other Electronic Equipment • � Electronic Components & Accessories (SIC 367) • Semiconductors & Related Devices (SIC 3674) � Printed Circuit Boards (SIC 3672) • Instruments & Related Products � Fluid Meters & Counting Devices (SIC 3824) • Analytical Instruments (SIC 3826) � Measuring & Controlling Devices (SIC 3829) X-ray Apparatus & Tubes (SIC 3844) Surgical & Medical Equipment (SIC 3842) � Electromedical Equipment(SIC 3845) � Process Control Equipment (SIC 3823) • Photographic Equipment & Supplies (SIC 3861) Environmental Controls (SIC 3822) � Instruments to Measure Electricity (SIC 3825) Ot i « • i 110 w 11• �r s - s •• • • 20 • t