This week's City of Madison Common Council meeting adjourned at 5:15 Wednesday morning with the city's smoking ban intact, but opposition unrelenting.
Alders rejected the proposal to repeal the smoking ban by a 10-to-9 vote. The vote for the advisory referendum, a proposal that would have let citizens decide the fate of the ban with a yes or no vote, was not as close — alders rejected it with a 14-to-5 vote. The close vote for repeal encouraged tavern owners and employees to continue their efforts to repeal the ban, according to Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4.
"The proposal for repeal picked up four votes since July," Verveer said. "The Coalition to Save Madison Jobs was energized by that. They are going to try to persuade two more alders to change their votes."
The State Assembly is considering a statewide smoking law, and Verveer said he is not done in the City of Madison yet, either.
"I am going to fight to exempt tobacco bars from the ban," Verveer said. "I also want to eliminate language in the ordinance that bans chewing tobacco. That just flabbergasts me. Nobody's ever heard of a secondhand dip."
Verveer said Common Council members — some swayed by the emotional testimony of bar owners and employees — seemed committed to help struggling taverns.
"I do think there will be some efforts to help the businesses hurt by the ban," Verveer said.
Ald. Austin King, District 8, said finding a compromise to help businesses would be difficult.
"Neither side has been amenable to any kind of middle ground on the issue," King said. "The issue is still black and white."
Verveer suggested some form of a hardship clause could be an agreeable solution for struggling taverns. The hardship clause on the agenda Sept. 20 was not offered after the referendum rejection.
A hardship clause would give businesses with a decrease in receipts since the implementation of the ban a chance to allow smoking to get revenue back on track. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz expressed, in a written statement, his view on any form of a hardship clause at a Board of Health for Madison and Dane County meeting last week.
Cieslewicz said he would support a hardship clause given a few conditions. First, businesses would have to show a significant decrease in revenue. Cieslewicz did not have a specific percentage in mind, but said it would have to be greater than the 10 percent loss in the Sept. 20 proposal. Cieslewicz made it clear an impartial third party would have to confirm the decrease in business. Also, the clause would not allow businesses to remain exempt longer than it takes them to get back on track.
Verveer said the debate about the smoking ban would not subside until the Common Council finds a solution for floundering bars and taverns.
"At the end of debate this morning, council members discussed possible ideas to help the business, but nobody could agree on a compromise," Verveer said. "Whatever the solution is, we're going to try to find one."
