Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato will veto a bill that prohibits smoking in restaurants, bars and other workplaces if the ban does not apply to the Pittsburgh slot machine casino.

Mr. Onorato said yesterday allowing smoking in the casino would put other restaurants and bars at "too big of a disadvantage" in trying to compete for customers.

"It is not fair to Downtown restaurants. It creates an unfair advantage and that's not right," he said.

Mr. Onorato was reacting to an amendment passed by the state Senate Wednesday that would allow smoking in casinos statewide regardless of local ordinances.

The amendment, part of a larger package of changes being proposed for the slots law passed in July 2004, now goes before the state House for action.

Mr. Onorato said that if the measure is approved, "I will definitely veto" the no-smoking legislation passed by County Council Tuesday. He said a casino exemption would go "against the word we gave to the Downtown restaurant association that everyone would be treated the same way."

"It means that every single smoker who wants to smoke has one option -- that's at the restaurant in the casino. That's not fair," he said. "You arbitrarily create an unfair playing field and I'm against that."

Mr. Onorato added that some council members have urged him to veto the bill, given the possible casino exemption.

Mr. Onorato has 10 days to act. He said he did not know what he would do if the state House does not act on the casino exemption within that time frame.

Council President Rich Fitzgerald, D-Squirrel Hill, said the state's casino exemption "throws a monkey wrench into the whole works," and it's unclear what will happen if Mr. Onorato vetoes the ordinance.

"My sense is we don't have the votes now to override it," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "We're split on this."

He added that he shared Mr. Onorato's concerns that restaurants and taverns will be at a competitive disadvantage if they must be smoke-free while casinos do not.

"This isn't just one single issue about health," said Mr. Fitzgerald, who was the original sponsor of the bill. "I wish it was. But we've got to be practical about this."

Some council members contend the ordinance should still be enacted because it was primarily intended to protect employees from being exposed to secondhand smoke in their workplaces.

"I'm not willing to sacrifice our legislation over a mistake that the state made," said Councilwoman Susan Caldwell, R-Plum. "We should let our legislation stand and if the state [allows smoking] in casinos, then shame on them."

In a letter to Mr. Onorato, Smokefree Pennsylvania Executive Director Bill Godshall said failure to enact the local ordinance could stall efforts for a statewide ban, which could trump a casino exemption.

And, "it would be a travesty for you to veto an ordinance that protects 99 percent of workers in Allegheny County from tobacco smoke pollution just because the state Legislature exempts one workplace in the county," he said.

"We need to be cognizant also of the business part of it," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "You've got to balance this out."

Even if there aren't enough votes to override a chief executive veto, the matter likely won't end there.

"We'd have to reconsider what we did," said Councilman Michael Finnerty, D-Scott, chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. "I don't know if it would change anything, but it definitely would have to be discussed again in light of the [state exemption]."

Still, "I'm hopeful at the end of the day, once we maybe make some amendments and adjust things, that we will have a smoking ban," said Councilwoman Joan Cleary, D-Brentwood.

She added: "This is a workers issue. There's people that work in those casinos, too, so I don't understand where the state's thinking was on that."

Several council members were dismayed that the state Senate tagged the casino exemption onto a gambling reform bill without discussing it with local officials, health experts or the public.

"I didn't even know the legislators were talking about doing anything like that," said at-large Democratic Councilman John DeFazio. "I'm just shocked and surprised."

Council members are "trying to implore the state House to remove that clause from the gaming reform legislation," Mr. Fitzgerald said. In Allegheny County, "we came to a consensus. It was an open process. If you disagreed with this bill, that's fine, but at least you got to voice that opposition."

But the state Senate's action represents "a major change in the landscape of how this [local] bill was presented and how this consensus was reached by County Council," he said. "At the very least, we need to revisit this issue. And I'm not sure right now if I'll vote to keep it or not."

Like others, Mr. Onorato said the Senate's action took him by surprise. He said it is another reason a smoking ban should be done uniformly at the state level rather than by local ordinance.

But he also indicated through a spokeswoman Tuesday before council's 14-1 vote that he would sign the no-smoking ordinance as long as it did not include too many exemptions.

Mr. Onorato said yesterday he also wants to review amendments attached to the bill Tuesday before deciding whether to sign it. One in particular he wants to scrutinize bans smoking on any property owned wholly or in part by a health care facility.