Sunfish Gazette
Atwater, Minnesota http://www.mnnews.com/newspapers/atwater.html
Are profits going up in 'no smoke?'
Local propreitors weigh in on impact of smoking ban
by Sandy Dressing Editor
Editor's Note: This is the first report a of a three-part series on the impact of the Freedom to Breath Act. Future installments will focus on effects -from the perspective of legislators, health care professionals and private individuals.
The Freedom to Breathe Act implemented statewide Oct. 1, 2007, made Minnesota the 20th state to enact so of a statewide indoor smoking ban. It prohibits smoking in all bars, restaurants, private clubs, indoor public space and places of employment. The law expands the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act that has restricted smoking for more than 30 years.
Prior to its passage, some restaurant and bar owners expressed concern about the effect the legislation would have on their profits. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association warned that the ban would reduce the already slim profit margins of its members. It was commonly predicted that businesses in the smaller communities of outstate Minnesota would be hardest hit.
Now, four months after the law went into, effect, local proprietors of establishments that offer on-sale liquor are using words like "disaster" to describe the economic impact on their businesses. Among those who spoke to the Gazette last weak the consensus was that if you own a restaurant the news is not good and if you rely on alcohol sales for the majority of your income the news is downright ugly.
Sharon Dokkestul and her husband Howard were just getting thier feet wet when the bar, went into effect They officially opened Choo Choo Mill Bar.& Grill in Grove City a year ago March 1. That means can't compare sales figures of the past four months with those of same period a year ago, but Dokkestul has strong evidence of the decline in her business when she looks at a record of her monthly sales and usage tax reports since March 2007.
Sales and usage taxes are 6.5 percent of gross on food and 9.5 percent on liquor. Dokkestul's reports indicate that Choo Choo Mill has suffered a 58 percent drop in average monthly sales since Oct. 1.
Jacklyn Haney, one of the owners of Great Western Steak House in Atwater, estimated their bar sales to be down between 60 and 70 percent since Oct.. I, 2007. The bar and restaurant began operation about the same time Dokkestul opened Choo Choo Mill.
"We're a new business." Haney said. "This is a hard hit to take."
Toby Giese, owner of McPete's 11 Sports Bar & Lanes in Atwater said he is experiencing similar losses. He said he has lost 45 percent of his business since Oct 1 compared to the same time period last year.
"My happy hour is non-existent" •. Giese said as he surveyed his empty building. "Look, it's 2 p.m. on a Friday and there isn't a customer in the place and I can tell you this, it won't be much different come 4 o'clock when happy hour starts. I'd like to know where all the people who promoted this are now."
Giese. himself a non-smoker, said the ban affected his business far more than he anticipated.
"I actually looked forward to [McPete's] being smoke-free." he said "I thought it would be nice to be able to wear the same jacket two days in a row without it smelling of cigarette smoke." That was before he realized how drastically his business would fall off.
Slow to non-existent sales are not the only contributors to the ever lower bottom line for these business owners. Higher utility bills resulting from doors opening and closing when customers step outside for a smoke, reduced productivity from employees used to smoke behind the bar and now need to take time off and leave the building money invested to try to keep smoking customers are a few of the problems mentioned by local bar owners.
Giese said it cost him $2,000 to erect a heated smoking shelter on the patio in order to accommodate patrons who wish to smoke. Dukkeistul and Haney do not have space to erect a shelter since their only customer entrances open directly onto the sidewalks in front of their businesses.
Mary Peterson of Jimmy's Pizza and Terry Thompson of Thompson's Bakery and Coffee House both said they see little difference in their businesses as a result of the new indoor smoking restrictions. Thompson and his wife Audrey have always posted their restaurant as smoke-free, - they haven't needed to be as concerned with losing their existing patrons. Although Peterson has a small smoking area on her site, her patrons were largely non-smokers even prior to the law change.
"I may have seen a slight increase in my eat-in business, but nothing ing substantial." Peterson said. She hasn't noticed any increase in her orders for pizza delivery.
Thompson hasn't noticed any increase in his business either. This may be ammunition to debunk the proposal that smokers would switch their patronage to eating establishments that do not serve alcoholic beverages thus avoiding the situation of wanting a cigarette when you have a drink.
It seems more likely that smokers are simply staying home to do the things they used to go out for.
In our next issue, we will look at some of the things proprietors are doing in an attempt to accommodate both smoking and nonsmoking clientele as well as present some ideas about how the government might be able to provide some relief to hard hit out state businesses.
Editor's Note: This is the first report a of a three-part series on the impact of the Freedom to Breath Act. Future installments will focus on effects -from the perspective of legislators, health care professionals and private individuals.
The Freedom to Breathe Act implemented statewide Oct. 1, 2007, made Minnesota the 20th state to enact so of a statewide indoor smoking ban. It prohibits smoking in all bars, restaurants, private clubs, indoor public space and places of employment. The law expands the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act that has restricted smoking for more than 30 years.
Prior to its passage, some restaurant and bar owners expressed concern about the effect the legislation would have on their profits. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association warned that the ban would reduce the already slim profit margins of its members. It was commonly predicted that businesses in the smaller communities of outstate Minnesota would be hardest hit.
Now, four months after the law went into, effect, local proprietors of establishments that offer on-sale liquor are using words like "disaster" to describe the economic impact on their businesses. Among those who spoke to the Gazette last weak the consensus was that if you own a restaurant the news is not good and if you rely on alcohol sales for the majority of your income the news is downright ugly.
Sharon Dokkestul and her husband Howard were just getting thier feet wet when the bar, went into effect They officially opened Choo Choo Mill Bar.& Grill in Grove City a year ago March 1. That means can't compare sales figures of the past four months with those of same period a year ago, but Dokkestul has strong evidence of the decline in her business when she looks at a record of her monthly sales and usage tax reports since March 2007.
Sales and usage taxes are 6.5 percent of gross on food and 9.5 percent on liquor. Dokkestul's reports indicate that Choo Choo Mill has suffered a 58 percent drop in average monthly sales since Oct. 1.
Jacklyn Haney, one of the owners of Great Western Steak House in Atwater, estimated their bar sales to be down between 60 and 70 percent since Oct.. I, 2007. The bar and restaurant began operation about the same time Dokkestul opened Choo Choo Mill.
"We're a new business." Haney said. "This is a hard hit to take."
Toby Giese, owner of McPete's 11 Sports Bar & Lanes in Atwater said he is experiencing similar losses. He said he has lost 45 percent of his business since Oct 1 compared to the same time period last year.
"My happy hour is non-existent" •. Giese said as he surveyed his empty building. "Look, it's 2 p.m. on a Friday and there isn't a customer in the place and I can tell you this, it won't be much different come 4 o'clock when happy hour starts. I'd like to know where all the people who promoted this are now."
Giese. himself a non-smoker, said the ban affected his business far more than he anticipated.
"I actually looked forward to [McPete's] being smoke-free." he said "I thought it would be nice to be able to wear the same jacket two days in a row without it smelling of cigarette smoke." That was before he realized how drastically his business would fall off.
Slow to non-existent sales are not the only contributors to the ever lower bottom line for these business owners. Higher utility bills resulting from doors opening and closing when customers step outside for a smoke, reduced productivity from employees used to smoke behind the bar and now need to take time off and leave the building money invested to try to keep smoking customers are a few of the problems mentioned by local bar owners.
Giese said it cost him $2,000 to erect a heated smoking shelter on the patio in order to accommodate patrons who wish to smoke. Dukkeistul and Haney do not have space to erect a shelter since their only customer entrances open directly onto the sidewalks in front of their businesses.
Mary Peterson of Jimmy's Pizza and Terry Thompson of Thompson's Bakery and Coffee House both said they see little difference in their businesses as a result of the new indoor smoking restrictions. Thompson and his wife Audrey have always posted their restaurant as smoke-free, - they haven't needed to be as concerned with losing their existing patrons. Although Peterson has a small smoking area on her site, her patrons were largely non-smokers even prior to the law change.
"I may have seen a slight increase in my eat-in business, but nothing ing substantial." Peterson said. She hasn't noticed any increase in her orders for pizza delivery.
Thompson hasn't noticed any increase in his business either. This may be ammunition to debunk the proposal that smokers would switch their patronage to eating establishments that do not serve alcoholic beverages thus avoiding the situation of wanting a cigarette when you have a drink.
It seems more likely that smokers are simply staying home to do the things they used to go out for.
In our next issue, we will look at some of the things proprietors are doing in an attempt to accommodate both smoking and nonsmoking clientele as well as present some ideas about how the government might be able to provide some relief to hard hit out state businesses.
