A $100 civil penalty may not seem like too stiff a price to pay for flouting the state's new smoking ban, especially since no one has yet been made to cough up that amount for a violation.

But a new administrative fee being considered by the Southern Nevada Health District could increase that by sevenfold, meaning smokers and businesses could face the types of financial punishments that are incurred by first-time convicted drunken drivers.

A staff-proposed administrative fee of $600 is being considered as an add-on to the state-mandated $100 civil penalty. Workshops will be held this week in Las Vegas, Mesquite and Laughlin to determine if the fee should be part of the Health District's enforcement of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, also known as Question 5.

"It is not fair to put this much on the small-business owner when no one really knows how to enforce this law. No one has any real solid control over this issue," Corinna Boldman, an employee of Mulligan's Landing Bar and Grill on Rancho Drive, said Friday.

She said she understood the Health District's point that it needs to recover costs to enforce the law and to force business owners and customers to comply. Still, she called a $600 fee "a little excessive."

"We're not police, and we shouldn't have to get into fights with our customers to get them to put out their cigarettes or go outside,'' she said.

Based on what happens during the workshops, the administrative fee proposal will be submitted to the Health District board for approval during its upcoming March meeting.

The board could approve it, turn it down or make revisions to the proposal such as lowering the recommendation, said Stephen Minagil, the agency's attorney. If a fee is approved by the Health District, a final approval will have to be given by the state's Health Division board.

"That ($600) is the number being proposed by the Health District staff at this time," Minagil said. "The staff of the Health District is charged with the responsibility of enforcement, without any funding from any source."

The fee, he said, is "similar to fees and charges in other areas like solid waste enforcement and food establishment permits. If there are actions of the Health District expended, the board of health tries to correlate fees and charge to recover those kinds of costs. Remember, this is an unfunded law.''

Minagil said the fee is the result of a large number of complaints and reports about business owners and managers who would rather absorb the $100 civil penalty than lose their smoking customers who pump money into their gaming machines.

More than 600 complaints from the public regarding smoking violations have been received by the Health District. No fines have been assessed.

The $100 fine imposed under the law goes to a state education fund, not the Health District. So, Minagil noted, the administrative fee is a way for the district to legally recover costs associated with enforcement; the amount is based upon a review of what it would cost for the agency to comply with the obligations under the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.

"They've (staff) analyzed what it costs, approximately, to do a citation and to give due process of the law. They (the district) can't just send something and say you owe this and they (violators) say 'no thank you,''' Minagil said. "Due process requires some notice and a hearing process. The second level is the administrative staff because they have to send out written notice of a hearing date. Then we have attorneys' fees because they are either going to be present as the case is being heard or providing the violator with information about the law.''

The Health District staff also is proposing to enlist the help of a hearing officer to review disputes under the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.

The hearing officer would be like a mediator. As it stands now, should a violator contest the citation, the Health District would have to take that individual to District Court to get the $100 fine, which officials say is not an effective use of its resources.

"If we really want to get technical, there's also the overhead costs of using the Clemens Room where the (dispute) hearings will be held," Minagil said.

Approved by voters in November, Question 5 prohibits smoking in nearly all public places in the state, including grocery stores, restaurants and bars that serve food. Exempt are casino floors, brothels and smoke parlors.

Tavern owners filed suit in Southern Nevada to get the law overturned. A District Court judge upheld it but took out the criminal component. The Health District was left with the responsibility of enforcement.

The Nevada Tavern Association, which filed the lawsuit, could not be reached for comment on the proposed fee Friday.

Under the law, owners of businesses can be cited for failing to post smoking signs and making ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia available for customers; individual smokers can be cited if they are caught lighting up in an establishment where smoking is banned.

Vickie Anderson, a bartender at Mulligan's, said there's still confusion about the law. She said Mulligan's closes its kitchen during the swing shift and reopens it during the day. There is no smoking allowed during the day.

On Friday, the restaurant area of the establishment, which is partially separated by a wall, was blocked off by a chain and floor sign, which noted the restaurant was closed.

The Department of Motor Vehicles' Web site says that a first-time DUI offender can face a minimum of about $670 in criminal fines, fees and assessments. In Henderson, motorists caught driving 21 to 30 mph over the speed limit in a school zone face a $517 criminal fine.

But individual smokers interviewed at Mulligan's were not so much angry over the potential penalties as they were the passage of Question 5 in the first place.

Bruce Crosley, 44, a construction worker, said it wasn't fair that Mulligan's kitchen had to be closed. But, he said, "I should have voted. None of us did. We should have stepped up to our civic duty. We didn't even dream that it would pass."

Another patron, Doug, who gave his first name only, walked up to Crosley and offered him a Girl Scout cookie, which Mulligan's is providing to patrons to soak up the alcohol. "It's not pot roast, I don't want it," Crosley said.

Although some taverns with food service have removed smoking paraphernalia and posted no-smoking signs, as is required, they are turning a blind-eye to smokers. Minagil told the Health District board that some smokers are putting ashes in coffee cups and on the floor.

"If you are a business owner and continue to not comply with the law, you have to be held accountable,'' said Michael Hackett, a spokesman for backers of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act. "What's going on is the Southern Nevada Health District is developing regulations, which are going to make the businesses accountable for their violations and violators. These types of regulations are being developed in other health districts throughout the state.''

Tracie Douglas, a spokeswoman for the Washoe County Health District, said the agency hasn't experienced the type of noncompliance issues as has the Southern Nevada Health District.

She said about 90 percent of the businesses have been complying since Question 5 became law.

"We are just getting ready to start citing those that aren't compliant. We've written letters and talked to some businesses several times, but for the most part we have just a handful that don't want to play,'' Douglas said.

In addition to adding the administrative fee and the hearing officer, the Health District staff also is proposing changing its food establishment regulations to include a 12th substantial health hazard: secondhand smoke.

Currently, there are 11 such hazards that establishments holding food licenses must adhere to in order to receive a good grade and stay open.

"So you mean our restaurant grade could drop from an A to a C because we expose people to smoke?'' Boldman asked at Mulligan's. "Wow!''

The Health District conducts random inspections of local restaurants and other establishments that hold food licenses. These establishments receive grades based on how well they do on those inspections.

"Just like the food establishment permit holder has a responsibility to make sure the other 11 substantial health hazard areas aren't present in their facility, such as toxic food, they will have to make sure customers aren't exposed to secondhand smoke,'' Minagil said.