City Council

Agenda Request

Agenda Of:

march 06, 2007

Agenda Request No:

III C

Initiated By:

Glenda Gundermann,

City Secretary

Responsible Department:

City Secretary

Presented By:

Glenda Gundermann,

City Secretary

Department Head:

Glenda Gundermann,

City Secretary

 

 

Additional Department. Head (s):

N/A

Subject / Proceeding:

Minutes City Council Meeting February 20, 2007

Approve Minutes

Exhibits:

Minutes February 20, 2007

Clearances

Approval

Legal:

N/A

Executive Director:

N/A

Purchasing:

N/A

Asst. City Manager:

N/A

Budget:

N/A

City Manager:

Allen Bogard

Budget

Expenditure Required:  $

N/A

Amount Budgeted/Reallocation:  $

N/A

Additional Appropriation:  $

N/A

Recommended Action

 

Approve the minutes of the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting.

 

Exhibits

 

STATE OF TEXAS

§

COUNTY OF FORT BEND

§

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

§

 

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

tuesday, february 20, 2007

 

REGULAR MEETING

 

The City Council of the City of Sugar Land convened in a regular meeting open to the public and pursuant to notice thereof duly given in accordance with Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, as amended, in Sugar Land City Hall within said City on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 5:42 o'clock P.M. and the roll was called of the members; to wit:

 

David G. Wallace, Mayor

Thomas Abraham, Council Member at Large, Position One

Daniel O. Wong, Council Member at Large, Position Two

Dennis C. Parmer, Council Member District One

M. Cyril Hosley, Council Member District Two

Russell C. Jones, Council Member District Three

Michael S. Schiff, Council Member District Four

 

QUORUM PRESENT

 

All of said members were present.

 

Also present were:

Allen Bogard, City Manager

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

Joe Morris, City Attorney, and

A Number of Visitors

 

CONVENE MEETING

 

Mayor Wallace convened the session, open to the public, to order at 5:42 o’clock P.M.

 

INVOCATION

 

Mayor Wallace delivered the invocation.

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

Mayor Wallace led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

 

reorder agenda

 

Mayor Wallace, seconded by Council Member Hosley, made a motion to amend the order of the agenda to take up Item IV A, Donation of Trees and Seedlings following recognitions.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

recognitionS

 

texas round-up

 

Mayor Wallace congratulated citizens and the City for being recognized in 2006 as the Fittest City in Texas for the third consecutive year through participation in the Texas Round-Up and Shape-Up Sugar Land; a non-profit organization designed to initiate physical fitness.  The Texas Round-Up, established by Governor Rick Perry, is a statewide program that strives to improve the health of Texans through education, the promotion of physical activity and healthy living. 

 

Mayor Wallace expressed appreciation to Mr. Andy Peal and Ms. Nicole Volek for their diligence in connection with Shape-up Sugar Land and for their inspiration and leadership.  

 

donation of trees and seedlings

 

Mayor Wallace introduced consideration on acceptance of trees and seedlings donations valued in the amount of $3,200.00 and thanked Frito Lay, Keep Sugar Land Beautiful, The Gulf Coast Master Naturalists, Girl Scout Troop No. 107 and Sugar Land Garden Club for their generous donation of trees which will be planted in Sugar Land Memorial Park in celebration of Arbor Day.  

 

Mayor Wallace commented that members of Girl Scout Troop No. 107 planted a Mexican Sycamore in Oyster Creek Park in memory of their leader, Ms. Cindy Dawson, who lost her battle with cancer.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Mayor Wallace, seconded by Council Member Schiff, made a motion to approve acceptance of trees and seedlings donations valued at $3,200.00 from Frito Lay, Keep Sugar Land Beautiful, The Gulf Coast Master Naturalists, Girl Scout Troop No. 107 and Sugar Land Garden Club.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Mayor Wallace introduced Public Comment and entertained registered speakers.  There were no public comments.

 

REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA

 

Mayor Wallace introduced Review of the Consent Agenda and entertained questions and/or comments.

 

Mayor Wallace requested that III A be pulled from Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.

 

CONSENT AGENDA

 

Mayor Wallace introduced III B) seCOND CONSIDERATION:  CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1606 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER TWO OF THE SUGAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE LAND USE MATRIX TO ADD METAL STAMPINGS AS AN APPROVED USE IN THE RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS; III C) SECOND CONSIDERATION:  CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1607 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE SUGAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2 (ZONING) RELATING TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS; III D) FIRST AND FINAL CONSIDERATION:  CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1612 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, CALLING AN ELECTION FOR SATURDAY, MAY 12, 2007, TO ELECT FOUR SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT COUNCILMEMBERS; PROVIDING FOR EARLY VOTING AND FOR NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ELECTION; III e) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 07-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE OPENING OF SECURITIES ACCOUNTS WITH WELLS FARGO BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC, AND THE CONTINUANCE OF SECURITIES ACCOUNTS WITH WACHOVIA SECURITIES, DUNCAN WILLIAMS, INC., FIRST SOUTHWEST COMPANY, AND COASTAL SECURITIES; III F) authorizing execution of a Contract in the amount of $186,043.00 with Zekkours Construction Company, L.L.C. for remodeling 10405 Corporate Drive for Fire Administration offices; III g) authorizing execution of a Contract in an amount not to exceed $144,800.00 with Groundbase Construction, Incorporated for slope pavement improvements at Sweetwater Bridge and Ditch A; III H) approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 06, 2007; III I) authorizing an Agreement by and between the City of Sugar Land and Fort Bend County conveying 0.3646 acres of Duhacsek Park for widening of Old Richmond Road; and authorizing execution of a Memo of Understanding for in-kind work for drainage easement and right-of-way compensation; III J) authorizing a Contract by and between Fort Bend County Precinct 4 and First Colony Community Services Association for Sweetwater subdivision 2007 security services; III K) authorizing execution of an Engineering Design Contract in an amount not to exceed $194,395.00 with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Incorporated for North Wastewater Treatment Plant diversion and force main upgrade.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Hosley, seconded by Council Member Jones, made a motion to approve Consent Agenda.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

ordinances and resolutions 

 

ORDINANCE NO. 1605 - CUP FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH

 

Mayor Wallace introduced SECOND CONSIDERATION on CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1605 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 3100 AUSTIN PARKWAY.

 

Mayor Wallace commented he attends St. Laurence Catholic Church where he chaired the capital campaign for expansion of the church and will abstain from the vote.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Hosley, seconded by Council Member Schiff, made a motion to approve CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1605 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 3100 AUSTIN PARKWAY.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

ORDINANCE NO. 1604 - retail water and wastewater rates

 

Mayor Wallace introduced SECOND CONSIDERATION on CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING MONTHLY RETAIL WATER RATES AND MONTHLY RETAIL WASTEWATER CHARGES.  

 

Ms. Donna Svatek, Treasurer, presented Ordinance No. 1604 amending the Code of Ordinances to provide new rates for retail water and wastewater services effective March 7, 2007, discussed the impact to residents’ utility bills and the peer city survey.

 

The base and volume charges are the two components of a water bill.  The base charge is established by the meter size and remains the same each month; volume charges are established by the water usage and not the meter size.  The majority of Sugar Land customers represent a 5/8 to ¾ meter size with the current and proposed monthly base charge for water and wastewater being:   

 

Monthly Base Charge by Meter Size

Meter Size (in)

Water

Increase

 

Wastewater

Increase

5/8

$   5.52

$   .81

 

$   7.90

$   2.25

¾

5.52

.81

 

7.90

2.25

1

8.61

1.26

 

12.81

3.65

1 ½

22.90

3.36

 

35.52

10.12

2

35.65

5.23

 

55.41

15.78

3

76.96

11.29

 

120.12

34.21

4

212.89

42.53

 

334.75

95.34

6

416.77

61.16

 

658.62

187.58

8

520.64

76.40

 

823.00

234.40

 

For fire line and transient meters, the base charge will increase by $0.81. 

 

The proposed volume charges by user class are as follows:

 

Volume Charges by User

Rates per 1,000 gallons

(or part thereof)

Residential

Commercial

Landscape

Residential- Increasing block

 

 

 

0 – 3,000

$ 0.98

 

 

3,001 – 10,000

1.10

 

 

10,001 to 20,000

1.30

 

 

over 20,000

1.44

 

 

Commercial- Uniform

 

$ 1.17

 

Landscape- Seasonal

 

 

 

    Winter (Oct – Apr)

 

 

$ 1.04

    Summer (May – Sept)

 

 

1.39

Surface Water

0.27

0.27

0.27

Wastewater

2.66

2.66

 

 

The impact to residents utilizing a 5/8” meter, consuming 5,000 gallons of water, will be an increase of $0.81 on the base charge; the impact to residents utilizing a 1” meter, consuming15,000 gallons of water, will be an increase of $1.26 on the base charge.  The commercial impact to customers utilizing a 2” meter, consuming 50,000 gallons of water, will be an increase of $5.23 on the base charge and the landscape impact utilizing a 2”meter, consuming 90,000 gallons of water will be an increase of $5.23. 

 

Wastewater base charges indicate a larger increase the result of fixed costs of the wastewater system.  The average customer wastewater usage for 5/8” to ¾ “meter will see an increase of $2.25; wastewater volume charges will remain at $2.66 per 1,000 gallons consumed.

 

For Surface Water the volume charge will show a breakdown of the $0.27 fee and will be a separate line item on customers’ bill.

 

During winter months, residential customers will be billed based on the average consumption of January and February, with the maximum winter usage for wastewater set at 12,000 gallons; charges will be recalculated each March.

 

The impact to residents for wastewater utilizing a 5/8” meter, consuming 5,000 gallons, will be an increase of $2.25; wastewater charges utilizing a 5/8” meter, consuming 11,000 gallons will be an increase of $2.25.  The impact for commercial wastewater customers utilizing a 2” meter, consuming 50,000 gallons, will be an increase of $15.78.

 

In 2006, Sugar Land ranked the second lowest in fees among the cities included in the study conducted by R.W. Beck, Incorporated.

 

Council Member Schiff voiced concern that the proposed rates will continue to pay for the City utility system; while acknowledging to the residents that the City will be frugal and fair in rate adjusments.

 

Council Member Wong questioned whether additional language could be added to the surface water line item to provide an explanation of the charge.  Ms Svatek responded that the proposed rate adjustment is on the City website and that in her opinion additional language is not warranted. 

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Hosley, seconded by Council Member Jones, made a motion to approve CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING MONTHLY RETAIL WATER RATES AND MONTHLY RETAIL WASTEWATER CHARGES.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

may 2007 bond election

 

Mayor Wallace introduced CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 07-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY’S PROPOSED BOND ELECTION IN MAY OF 2007 FOR APPROXIMATELY $153 MILLION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS. 

 

Mr. Dale Rudick, Director of Business and Intergovernmental Relations, presented a reprioritized Resolution of the Fort Bend County Mobility Projects, adding certain county and city sponsored projects that are adjacent to or lead to and from Sugar Land.  

 

On February 13, 2007, Commissioners Court accepted the Fort Bend County Mobility Planning Committee list of Candidate Mobility Projects.  The County has requested that cities approve a Resolution of Support for the pending bond election prior to the March 12, 2007 deadline for a May 2007 election. 

 

Resolution No. 07-05 affirms City of Sugar Land support of the County proposed bond election in May of 2007 for approximately $153 million in road and bridge improvements.

 

Mayor Wallace questioned if the County makes project changes after the Resolution is executed, could City Council amend and resend the Resolution of Support.  Mr. Rudick responded affirmatively.

 

Council Member Jones pointed out that Commissioner’s Court has not called the election, nor placed specific propositions on the ballot stating that additional information is needed before City Council approves the Resolution; and motioned, seconded by Council Member Schiff, to defer consideration of the Resolution until the April 3, 2007 City Council meeting to allow the County time to develop propositions and place on required ballot.  The motion to defer failed. 

 

Council Member Jones commented that previous proposals have been changed and before giving his approval on the resolution, he wanted a guarantee from Commissioner’s Court that the proposals would not change.  The proposed resolution is vague in stating it is conditional upon the inclusion of the projects in the bond election; if Council desires to give approval upon the inclusion of the items in the bond election, the resolution should contain such language.  Council Member Jones acknowledged the resolution contains the draft list of projects to be included in the proposed bond issue, but omits that Council approval is based upon the inclusion of the projects in the bond proposal. 

 

Council Member Jones stated the City is moving quickly and suggested the inclusion of stronger language within the resolution;  recommended language includes “we approve subject to the inclusion of the following items within the list of projects to be included in the bond issue;” specifically, Council should require the language “subject to.”

 

Council Member Schiff expressed that if the projects are included in the bond election, Council should require clear “subject to” language and that support would be forthcoming. 

 

Council Member Parmer questioned if Commissioner’s Court had indeed ratified the list of projects within the bond election.  Mr. Rudick answered affirmatively that no changes had been made.

 

Council Member Jones inquired if a vote was taken in Commissioner’s Court to approve the list of projects. Mr. Rudick stated he had no factual evidence of a vote but believed there had been one. 

 

Council Member Schiff stated approval should read “subject to” the inclusion of such projects; Mr. Rudick responded that the language could be added.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Mayor Wallace, seconded by Council Member Wong, made a motion to approve CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 07-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY’S PROPOSED BOND ELECTION IN MAY OF 2007 FOR APPROXIMATELY $153 MILLION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS as amended to include verbiage of: “subject to the inclusion of the following projects on the final list of projects to be included in the bond issue”.  The motion carried with Council Member Jones voting Nea.

 

public hearings

 

zoning of 7.75 acres telfair SECTION 8

 

Mayor Wallace convened the public hearing to receive and hear all persons desiring to be heard on a request for permanent zoning of 7.775 acres, Telfair Section 8 located north of Telfair Avenue and west of University Boulevard from Interim Standard Single-Family Residential (R-1) District to Zero Lot Line Single-Family Residential (R-1Z) District.

 

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner, stated approval of the permanent zoning will place the property under the requirements of the standard City of Sugar Land R-1Z District and is in conformance with the City of Sugar Land Future Land Use Plan and the Telfair General Plan Amendment No. 3, approved December 19, 2006. 

 

The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to the Mayor and members of City Council for the permanent zoning to Zero Lot Line Single-Family Residential (R-1Z) District.

 

Mayor Wallace entertained comments from pubic; hearing none the Public Hearing was closed.

 

ordinance no. 1603:  zoning 7.775 acres telfair SECTION 8

 

Mayor Wallace introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION on CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1603 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, PERMANENTLY ZONING THE 7.775 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF TELFAIR AVENUE AND WEST OF UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD AS ZONING DISTRICT R-1Z, ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

 

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner, stated she had nothing more to add and entertained questions.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Schiff, seconded by Council Member Jones, moved to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1603 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, PERMANENTLY ZONING THE 7.775 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF TELFAIR AVENUE AND WEST OF UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD AS ZONING DISTRICT R-1Z, ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

public hearing limited purpose annexation Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 1

 

Mayor Wallace convened the public hearing to receive and hear all persons desiring to be heard on Limited Purpose Annexation of Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 1, Riverpark Community, into the corporate limits of the City of Sugar Land with an effective date for Full Municipal Purpose Annexation as described in the Strategic Partnership Agreement. 

 

Mr. Douglas Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director, stated the public hearing was the first of two required for the Limited Purpose Annexation of Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 1 into the corporate city limits. 

 

On January 2, 2007 City Council approved the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) between the City and the District; the City is moving forward with the process for Limited Purpose Annexation.  The Texas Local Government Code requires that annexation be preceded by two Public Hearings with the second being heard on February 27, 2007.  First reading of the annexation ordinance will be March 20, 2007, with the second reading being on March 27, 2007 to comply with the 90-day requirement in the agreement.

 

Six informational inquiries have been made regarding the annexation with no opposition being expressed. 

 

Mayor Wallace entertained comments from pubic; hearing none the Public Hearing was closed.

 

workshop

 

smoking ordinances

 

Mayor Wallace introduced discussion on research of municipalities’ smoking ordinances and smoking practices in Sugar Land. 

 

Mr. Mike Goodrum, Community and Environmental Services Director, stated at the request of Mayor Wallace and City Council, research has been conducted on the tobacco regulatory environment, comparisons to other cities’ smoking regulations and the economic impact of smoking regulations.

 

Mr. Danny Batts, Management Assistant stated the study compared the City’s ordinance to the smoking ordinances of other comparison cities.  The region comparison list are cities with a population of 30K+ located within Harris County or a contiguous county; the State comparison list is derived from the State Standard Comparison list maintained by the City Finance Department.  The CNN/Money Magazine Top 10 Cities list contains eight municipalities, one of which was not included in this research.  The comparison study covered categories of hotel/motel rooms, municipal buildings, enclosed workplaces, restaurants, restaurants with bars, stand alone bars, retail tobacco bars, retail tobacco stores and outdoor patio areas. 

 

The study found the City of Sugar Land is more restrictive in the smoking ordinance than those in Region, State and CNN/Money Magazine Top 10 Cities listed categories; municipal buildings and outdoor areas indicated the City is less restrictive than other cities’ ordinances. 

 

The current business practices of the City are divided into two categories, (a) census from restaurants, and (b) a survey conducted by Creative Consumer Research of all other businesses.  Representatives from City staff contacted 140 restaurants via telephone and received 130 responses.  The restaurants surveyed revealed 81% of restaurants prohibit smoking inside their buildings which represents a combination of 52% prohibiting all smoking in their establishments and 29% allowing smoking only on outdoor patios; additionally, 19% allow some form of smoking; 17% allow smoking inside their establishments in a separate smoking section; 2% allow smoking throughout the entire establishment. 

 

The survey included “fast food” restaurants and found that 100% prohibit smoking inside their building, while 27% allow smoking outdoors on a patio.  In traditional “sit down” restaurants, 75% prohibit smoking inside their buildings which represents a combination of 46% prohibiting all smoking in their establishments and 29% allow smoking on an outdoor patio.  

 

The business survey included the type of industry, title of person interviewed, office space, average number of employees, average number of years in City, average sales revenue, and revealed a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error.  There were 361 telephone interviews conducted with the top 10 largest employers in the City; SIC Codes were distributed to ensure a representative sample.  Regardless of industry, 98% do not allow smoking inside their buildings, 68% do not have an outdoor designated smoking area with 29% providing an outdoor smoking area.  Businesses enforcement of  policies found 39% have no smokers, 36% ask an employee who smokes to move outdoors, 17% give a verbal or written warning and 7% terminate employment.  

 

The economic impact study contained varying results with advocates showing minimal to no economic impact related to smoking, while opponent studies indicate moderate to severe economic impact directly correlated to the adoption of smoking ordinances.  The Dallas economic study by Professors Weinstein & Clower alleged a decline in sales tax of $11.8 million from restricting the sale of alcohol.  The Texas Department of State Health Services refuted the study and stated general sales had increased.  The economic impact study did not prove valuable in determining the smoking ordinances and comparisons to the City. 

 

In summary, the City of Sugar Land is less restrictive than other cities’ ordinances.  There are three options for consideration, (a) conclude there is no need for an ordinance revision, (b) determine a comprehensive “No Smoking Ordinance” is needed, or (c) develop an ordinance that is more restrictive than the current ordinance, yet less restrictive than a comprehensive ban. 

 

Mayor Wallace stated his position is for a comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance and move forward with crafting an ordinance.

 

Council Member Schiff expressed support for the concept of a comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance with certain language; and expressing that Council should consider that a State Ordinance is forthcoming.

 

Council Member Wong commented on public health issues of smoking and second-hand smoke posing a question regarding the difference between options (b) and (c).  Mr. Goodrum responded if Council made the decision in support of the comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance, then work would begin toward crafting of the ordinance; if Council chooses (c) the more restrictive than the current but less restrictive than a comprehensive ban, Council would need additional information as to specific language of the ordinance.    

 

Council Member Hosley commented the choice regarding smoking is a personal decision and should not be regulated by government; and agreed with Council Member Schiff to postpone any changes in the City ordinance until the bill before the State legislature is heard.

 

Mr. Goodrum stated he attended a seminar addressing smoking regulations where concerns were voiced concerning amending the No Smoking Ordinance.  It was stated amending the bill would change the intent of the bill, limiting cities to regulate their own smoking ordinances and create a level the State deems necessary. 

 

Council Member Abraham expressed support of a comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance. 

 

Council Member Parmer stated he supports a comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance, however, wrestles with the opinion that business owners should have the right to choose whether to allow smoking. 

 

Council Member Jones stated he would want additional information on the 19% of restaurants that allow smoking and if they require assistance from an ordinance to deter smoking in their businesses.  Mr. Goodrum responded the nature of the study was to gather fact and not opinion; staff is cognizant of the 19% and can acquire the information.  Council Member Jones questioned whether the City of Houston Comprehensive Ban was studied; Mr. Goodrum responded affirmatively.

 

Council Member Hosley asked Mr. Goodrum for the surrounding cities’ smoking policies; he responded with:

 

 

Mayor Wallace requested staff begin the study on a comprehensive plan between options (a) and (b).

 

Mr. Goodrum stated the three most common exceptions to the No Smoking Ordinance are tobacco retail stores, cigar retail stores and stand alone bars, which are defined as bars receiving 60% of its revenue from alcohol sales.  Council Member Hosley commented that the Houston policy does not regulate outdoor smoking.

 

Mayor Wallace stated his position to exclude the tobacco and cigar retail stores from the comprehensive ban and asked staff to concentrate on the stand alone bar category only.

 

Council Member Schiff concurred with Mayor Wallace, making it clear that the store is allowed outdoor smoking and requesting staff to survey the stand alone bar.

 

Council Members Wong, Hosley and Parmer stated their position to exclude all exceptions from the comprehensive ban. 

 

Council Member Abraham confirmed his position to exclude the tobacco and cigar retail stores from the comprehensive ban. 

 

Council Member Jones stated his position to exclude the tobacco and cigar retail stores and to give the stand alone bars an option for their smoking patrons.

 

Mayor Wallace requested Mr. Goodrum return to Council with survey information and regulations on the tobacco and cigar retail store category.

 

Mr. Goodrum stated another category cities exclude from smoking ordinances are private country clubs that require membership dues. 

 

Mayor Wallace stated a comprehensive ordinance would apply there as well.

 

Council Member Schiff stated he held to the same position as on the stand alone bar issue.

 

Council Members Wong and Parmer stated positions to exclude private country clubs from the comprehensive ban.

 

Council Member Hosley stated the position to require no regulations.

 

Council Member Abraham and Jones stated the position to wait until additional survey information is heard.

 

sugar land development code 

 

Mayor Wallace