Loading...
WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 05/16/2014WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD MINUTES May 16, 2014 Wichita Falls- Wichita County Public Health District 1700 Third Street - Parker Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Plowman, Chair Julie Gibson, D.V.M, Vice -Chair David Carlston, Ph. D. Robin Moreno, MHA -HAS, ACHE Larry Rains, D.D.S. MEMBERS ABSENCE EXCUSED: Michael Lamar, M.D. Jane Leach, R.N., Ph.D., Secretary Lou Kreidler, R.N., B.S.N. Amy K. Fagan, M.P.A. Kevin Hugman Miles Risley Peter Scott Wichita Falls, Texas Board Members Director of Health Assistant Director of Health Assistant City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Attorney I. CALL TO ORDER AND NEW MEMBER INDUCTION Scott Plowman called the Special Health Board meeting to order at 12:05 pm followed was the new member induction in order to attain a quorum. The induction of Dr. David Carlston into the County appointed Citizen At -Large left by Dr. Kirk Harlow was conducted by Janice Flores, Notary. 11. TOBACCO ORDINANCE Lou Kreidler, Director of Health stated since the April 25`h meeting on the Tobacco Ordinance and the stake holders meetings some significant changes had been made to the ordinance. The Health Coalition of Wichita County was formed in 2012 led by the Executive Committee Team made up of over 40 community leaders in the Public Health system including all major Hospitals, CEOs, Directors, Helen Farabee, YMCA, United Way, Health South, Community Healthcare, Clinics of North Texas, MSU, WFISD, Indigent Healthcare, Public Health, Wichita County Physician groups, Dr. Williams of Burkburnett, WF Area Community Foundation, Dieticians, Food Bank, Board of Health liaison Scott Plowman, and SAFB. The Health Coalition developed a community health improvement plan within that plan was detailed 6 strategic goals to accomplish; 3 comprehension and 3 system based. One of the groups was the Tobacco Prevention sub group with the goal to reduce the prevalence of those individuals whom use tobacco products. As Tobacco Prevention outlined their projects they looked at the development of a proposed revision to the current ordinance based on feedback from the entire Coalition. Representatives from all physician groups signed a letter in support of the need for a comprehensive smoke free ordinance and formed a partnership with the Health Departments new grant Tobacco Prevention & Control Coalition (TPCC) with an entire focus on education. The Coalition found in the review of the current ordinance that was last revised in 1994 it was the strongest in the state of Texas but currently one of the weakest. The ordinance allowed separate smoking sections in restaurants, smoking in bars and private clubs, designated smoking sections for employees, and smoking in hotel /motels room rented to guests. They looked at the Surgeon General 50t' Anniversary Report that stated out of 20 million American's that lost their lives to smoking over the past 50 years that 2 million of those were nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke. The report stated it was clear there was no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. In Texas second hand smoke is the number 1 health risk. Cigarette smoke contains more than 7 thousand chemicals and 70 of those are known to cause cancer. Second hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States killing 46,000 to heart disease and 3,400 due to lung cancer annually. The information is important to Wichita Falls (WF) the WF data showed that in Wichita County the current adult smoking rate is 21 % and the State rate is 18% from the past County facts to the present year the smoking rate in Texas declined and WF increased. An average of 18% of women aged 18 to 29 years reported smoking while pregnant in 2010. Currently there is no data on youth smoking the TPCC grant will conduct in conjunction with the State a behavioral risk factor surveillance study in the Junior and High schools to determine what the smoking rate among the youth is. The premature birth rate in Wichita County is ranked 176 out of 230 per county that puts us in the lower one third counties in the state of Texas. In Wichita County cancer and heart disease are the two leading deaths of those 49 years and older. Cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure rates are all higher in Wichita County than in Texas. The facts show that in Wichita County the health is poor in the community. The immortality rate in Wichita County is 8 deaths per 1,000 and in Texas 6 deaths per 1,000. An intern working at the Health Department looked at the Wichita County infant immortality rate and had done studies that found 18% of women that are pregnant smoke in Wichita County. Dr. Rains responded that the ordinance will not affect those 18% they are going to smoke anyway. Amy Fagan replied that was true but one thing the study shown was the places with comprehensive smoke free ordinances the culture of health changed over time especially for workers. A lot of pregnant moms from the lower social economics tend to work are in that 18 %. A Health Department intern did an in depth survey in the Women, Infant and Children program (WIC) that found in the comprehensive smoke free ordinance workers decreased their smoking habit or quit because of the ordinance it was an inconvenience to them and the hope is the ordinance would modify behavior. Lou Kreidler stated it had been asked why electronic cigarettes are included in the ordinance. Currently the e- cigarettes are unregulated there are no restrictions on the ingredients that manufacturers can or cannot include. Laboratory tests have confirmed that the vapor from e- cigarettes contain glycerin, pieces of tin, aluminum, iron, nickel, arsenic, copper, lead, carcinogenic compound, and volatile organic compounds. They increase experimentation among young adults, renormalizes smoking and lead smokers who have quit to vapor and reestablish nicotine addiction. The ordinance would make enforcement at a facility easier for managers and owners they would not have to spend the time to determine whether a person is smoking a real cigarette or e- cigarette. Youth, middle, and high school students who used electronic cigarettes 0J were more likely to smoke real cigarettes and less likely to quit then students who did not use the device. A new study showed that children were more likely to smoke heavy when older. The graph presented showed the rate of electronic cigarette use drastically increased among high school students. At the stake holder meetings with the bar and restaurant owners, hotels /motels, bowling alley, bingo parlor, and taxi cabs there was minimal questions about e- cigarettes and no requests to take the e- cigarettes out. Second hand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer, heart disease, low birth weights, chronic ailments such as bronchitis, asthma, and other health problems. Pregnant women who have been exposed to high levels of second hand smoke have a higher rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, and fetal deaths. It was questioned with the ventilation systems in the ordinance why not continue that. Now there is evidence that the systems do not work the American Society for Heating and Refrigerating and the Air Conditioning Engineers stated at present the only means of effectively eliminating the health risk associated with indoor exposure to second hand smoke is to ban smoking activity. The groups that, design, build and install the systems openly state the systems do not work to prevent harm from second hand smoke. Tobacco smoke contains odorless chemicals not seen or smelt that does not mean you are not at risk. The other thing always done with the consideration of an ordinance revision is to review what other Texas cities have done there are 35 cities with comprehensive smoke free ordinances. Cities between a 90,000 and 180,000 population in comparison to our population was reviewed. Followed was the review of some of the definitions and the revisions in the proposed ordinance. Sec. 58 -101. - Definitions. Smoking means to inhale, to exhale, to burn or to carry any lighted cigar, pipe, cigarette, weed or other plant in any manner or form, or to use an electronic cigarette. Public Place an enclosed area or any portion thereof to which the public is invited or to which the public is permitted or allowed access including but not limited to banks, bars, bingo halls, educational facilities, fraternal organizations, health care facilities, hotel and motel rooms, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, waiting rooms, and work places. Workplace means an enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer in which employees work or have access to during the course of their employment. Sec. 58 -102. - Smoking prohibited in public places. Smoking would be prohibited in certain places as follows; • Any public place. • Any enclosed City building or facility. • Any enclosed area of a work place. • Within 20 feet of an entrance or open window of an enclosed area which prohibits smoking, if entry allows children under the age of 18, or Within 5 feet of an entrance or open window of an enclosed area which prohibits smoking, if entry does not allow children under the age of 18. Bar owners concerned over the 20 feet entrance requirement stated it would drive patrons out into the parking lot or street which would be a safety issue so with the addition of the 5 feet entrance it would allow patrons to go out to a patio area and be served. 3 The proposed revision prohibited smoking in a public park but after feedback from the Mayor he did not want all the parks prohibited so an addition was made that within 20 feet of a playground in a public park, festival, concert or place sponsored by the City on City property. • A pavilion in a public park, the seating area of any outdoor arena, stadium, amphitheater, bleachers or grandstand for the use of spectators at sporting or other public events, or a pool or pond in a public park. Section 58 -103. — Exemptions. The article does not apply to: • a private residence except when used as a child care, adult day care, health care facility • a retail tobacco store • a retail electronic cigarette store Representatives from the one Bingo hall in Wichita Falls voiced concern about the economic impact to immediately go smoke free in the large establishment and stated plans had already been in place to create a smoking room. Lou Kreidler and Amy Fagan met the representatives to view the establishment and plans. The Bingo hall would be exempt in the first year to complete the remodel plans in place with the additional things asked of them. For years two and three they can have a separately enclosed ventilated smoking room then at year three have to be completely nonsmoking. Dr. Gibson asked why they are any different from anything else. Lou Kreidler replied part of the research done shows there are no economic impact to bars and restaurants over time. What research was found on bingo parlors showed that smoking bans put in place are detrimental to bingo parlors business that they are different. Denton has an ordinance which allows their bingo parlors 3 years to come into compliance with a nonsmoking room with the Wichita Falls ordinance in 3 years the Bingo hall would be nonsmoking now 90% of players are smokers. The ordinance gives them time to cultivate their nonsmoking base with plans of a nonsmoking area larger than the smoking area over time that base will be filled. At the 3 year mark the Bingo hall would be nonsmoking it gets to the same place just gives them more time to do that. The ordinance would prohibit smoking in taxi cabs the owners would be required to post no smoking signs. Some of the language was changed in the enforcement that the owner or operator within 5 minutes would have to request the smoker to cease smoking, not provide service to the smoker, request the smoker to leave the premises if requested to cease and the smoker continues to smoke. Scott Plowman asked if the owner or person would receive the penalty. Lou Kreidler replied the person would receive the penalty not the owner. Dr. Rains asked who would do the enforcement. Lou Kreidler replied the Health or Police Department either department can. Dr. Rains asked if she thought the Police Department would be going around these places and giving out tickets. Lou Kreidler remarked she thought when they are in bars at night and see a nonsmoking offense they would address the issue but they are not going out to specifically look for people that are 4 smoking. Before when the ordinance became effective the Health Department went out at night several times just to ensure compliance with the rules and that probably will be done again. Peter Scott explained that technically it applies to the owner, operator and smoker. The smoker commits an offense by smoking where prohibited, the owner /operator commits an offense if they do not take the steps necessary to attempt to integrate nonsmoking if they do then the owner is not written a ticket. Lou Kreidler added if they follow the steps in the ordinance, posted the signs, pulled up the ash trays, when someone comes in smoking they inform them it is nonsmoking to put the cigarette out if they do not they are asked to leave then the owner has met their burden it is on the smoker that is who will be penalized. Miles Risley stated that the police will be giving out tickets. Other cities where comprehensive smoking has been established the police do use that as a tool it is known that people because of their other behavior needs are quite often smoking so that is a search incident that could lead to an arrest. David Carlston questioned when it says not to provide service to the smoker that means while the person continues to smoke. Lou Kreidler provided an example: A person goes into the bar /restaurant smoking they are told it is a nonsmoking facility to put the cigarette out. The person walks off continues to smoke they are approached again told they cannot be served if they continue to smoke and need to leave the premises. Scott Plowman remarked if it is across the board in the City it will be easy to enforce. Lou Kreidler stated a comprehension tobacco education program is to be developed with a requirement to do public education that is the component the TPCC comes in to go out not only to educate the public about the harmful effects of tobacco but also work with community businesses and public. Section 58 -110 - Minor access to tobacco products was already in the ordinance the electronic devices was an addition that requires the products to be behind the counter or in another secure location that prevents minors from accessing the products without the intervention of an employee. Out of the three stakeholder meetings held the bars /restaurants was the most vocal. Four walked out under the impression we were not here to work with them that we had our minds made up and it was not going to do them any good to stay at the meeting. On Tuesday afternoon a large stakeholder meeting was held with the bars to listen to their feedback and their perception with going smoke free was they would go out of business. They opposed the 20 feet distance and other things. Another smaller meeting was held Monday with an attorney that represents 25 of the bars, Iron Horse owners, P2, The Office, and owner of Fast Eddy's and Fat Albert's. The group asked for very specific things which initiated changes in the language and the enforcement. The minors access to tobacco products and electronic cigarettes language was changed to state they cannot be accessible to minors. The outside patios was taken out which was a big concern for them they asked that the outside patios be put back in because that gives their patrons a place to smoke in a controlled environment. The owner of Stage West voiced her concern that they do not allow people to loiter in the parking lot they are told to go home or somewhere else that nothing good ever happens when you have people loitering in the parking lot so to allow a patio it gives a place for the patrons to go smoke and be in a controlled environment. 5 Dr. Gibson thought there needs to be more specifics on where the patio is there is nothing worse for a nonsmoker to have to walk through a smoking area to get to a front door. Lou Kreidler replied that on the patio requirements for bars they will have to meet that 5 feet distance from the public entrance and for restaurants it will be the 20 feet because that protects young children. Anyone of the age of 18 that goes into a bar will still contend with smoking on the patio. The Iron Horse talked about putting in a patio maybe close to their front door simply because they are land locked and do not have other space to do that with. Dr. Carlston remarked that you can easily have a table that is 5 feet away from the entrance but you are walking through several tables that are right next to the frontage and handicap parking. Lou Kreidler responded that the restaurants are 20 feet because they serve children under the age of 18 it is just the bars that allow the 5 feet. Dr. Carlston said that the entrance must be defined as the door rather than entry way. Miles Risley answered that an entrance is a door. Scott Plowman questioned even if it is an emergency door on the side not at the entrance. Miles Risley answered he would say that is an exit keep in mind when analyzing municipal ordinances you have to analyze them in the manner that is least contusive to the charge against the city. Dr. Rains asked if there was a definition between a restaurant and a bar. Lou Kreidler said in the ordinance it has been defined as; provides service to minors as a restaurant and provides service to over the age of 18 as a bar. It is simply if you serve a population over the age of 18 then it is the 5 feet distance and if you serve those under the age of 18 then you have to meet the 20 feet distance. Dr. Rains asked if the ordinance was county wide. Lou Kreidler replied only city wide it is a city ordinance though once it gets passed plans are to approach the rest of the county such as Burkburnett, Electra, and Iowa Park. Amy Fagan supplied handouts on the 35 cities with 100% Smoke -free ordinances with things of interest in their ordinance which included the traditional setback with the majority to have the 20 feet setback, El Paso the only one with zero, and some smaller cities with up to 25 to 30 feet. Other information was listed and whether they allow patio access. There are 79% of people that do not smoke in Wichita Falls verses the 21% that smoke. Lou Kreidler stated from several studies done it has been shown there is not negative economic impact from smoking ordinances that are put in place. The CDC did a study on the comprehensive smoke free ordinance passed by El Paso in January 2002 that showed it did not affect the bar and restaurant revenue for the year after it took effect. The study used multiple linear regression analysis to account for economic and seasonal trends. In the 2010 analysis of the economic outcome of smoke free laws showed that smoke free legislation does not hurt restaurant or bar business and in some cases businesses may improve. The 2006 Surgeon General report states that evidence from the peer review study that smoke free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry. A Houston study conducted by an independent third party evaluator analyzed restaurants and mixed beverage sales used multi- variance regression analysis controlling for secular economic seasonal trends found no negative economic impact. The largest case literature review looked at 56 cases that met their criteria sales data adjusted to inflation controlling for economic trends and seasonality found no negative economic impact on the hospitality industry. The behavioral risk factors surveillance survey in 2009 asked the question; if there was a total ban on smoking in restaurants would you eat out more? 27.4% said they would eat out more, only 5.6% would eat out less, 67% said it would make no difference. Asked if there were a total ban on smoking in bars and music clubs would you go to bars and music clubs more often? 18.7% more often, 8% less often, and 73.3% no difference. A graph was presented on studies done in El Paso show the restaurant, bar, and mixed beverage revenues by fiscal quarter from 1990 to 2002 can be seen when the ordinance went into effect in 2002 that restaurant and bar sells increased. In Austin the beverage sells again the graph shows the effect of the ordinance after it went into effect in 2006 again you can see there was no economic down trend from the ordinance being passed. In Dallas restaurant and bar sells before and after the ordinance looked at dining places that sold alcoholic beverages, eating and drinking places that sold alcoholic beverages, just drinking places, eating and drinking places that sold beer and wine then total eating and drinking sites you can see none of those show there was a detrimental effect to their business. Of smokers 80.7% reported that smoke free dining laws had not affected their dining habits. The smoke free laws are associated with increases of hotel revenues in Mesa, Arizona, in Los Angeles, New York, and the state of Utah. California and New York tourism increased after the enactment of smoke free policies. A 2014 analysis of 129 cases of smoking bans in bars and restaurants showed that overall there were no substantial economic gains or loses. Included were some testimonies from city leaders because it is important to see what the impact has been. In May 2013 Lewisville Mayor Pro Tern Leroy Bond in the State of the City Address said the new ordinance has been in place for nearly 5 months and has not slowed down the restaurant traffic in the slightest in fact city wide restaurant receipts was up 4.25% year over year during the first quarter operated under the new ordinance. In addition to increased food sales mixed drink sales increased by 2.18 %. James Cook, Community Relations and Tourism Director said that sales did not go down due to the ordinance some people insisted the ordinance would cause restaurants to lose money or even close and that did not happen. In February 2009 a study conducted by the City of Houston found that a smoke free air ordinance had no economic impact on businesses the former Mayor Bill White said it is reassuring that we did the right thing we protected workers who often do not have a say in where they work. When you look at the cost of smoking vs. nonsmoking, the CDC places a price tag on those employees that smoke for each employee that smokes a business will pay an additional $1,760 in loss of productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. Estimated costs associated with second hand smoke on nonsmokers can. add up to $490 per smoker per year plus a smoker can cost an employer $3,853 more per year than a nonsmoker. Absenteeism is decreased smokers miss an average of 6.16 days of work due to sickness while nonsmokers miss an average of 3.86 days of work. The American Productivity audit conducted a study with data from the US Workforce that tobacco was one of the greatest variables observed when determining workers loss of production time greater than alcohol consumption, age, education, and family emergencies. Benefits of our community where we live, work and play comprehensive smoke free laws that include restaurants and bars was associated with a rapid decrease in hospitalizations a 15% for heart attack, 16% for stroke, 24% for asthma and other respiratory illnesses. A graph presented showed that between the two year period from 2011 and 2013 the percentage of Texas voters that supported a statewide smoke free law increased 4% from a 70% to 74 %. Based on feedback from the bar owners it was put into place where this would not take into effect for six months. Once the patios was added back in some concern was that some places already 7 had patios and some would have to put in a patio that it was an unfair disadvantage compared to a place that had a patio so it was changed to six months to give more time to put things in place and the Health Department time to educate the public on what is being done. After meeting with all the stakeholder groups it was a good compromise it allowed to address the complete indoor smoking ordinance so there would be no smoking allowed indoors and work places, it protects children and families when in the parks in areas where families tend to congregate. Based on the stakeholders input it is believed that concessions had been made where they could be and still have the greatest good for public health in our community. We reviewed with the Health Coalition the changes made; the setback for the bars from 10 feet to 5 feet, took the patios out as a final decision, and the limitation from 30 days after the ordinance was passed to 6 months. It was asked of the board to have a vote today on whether or not to support the ordinance at the City Council. Dr. Gibson asked to discuss what kind of smoking education Amy Fagan answered that research done shows about 80% of those that smoke want to quit with the new grant will be offered free cessation classes to equip them with a quit line. If they meet certain economic criteria they will be eligible for certain nicotine replacement therapy whether patches, lozenges, or gum. Participation in the Kids Fest drew in 57 people to sign up for the cessation classes. People actually quit smoking from the time they saw and counseled with the staff to the time they came back. Also to provide education with the kids and the families not that you are a smoker and bad what we have heard it is about the addiction and educating people on the addiction and how to overcome the addiction and how never to start. Robin Moreno asked how is it to be disseminated; at health fairs, commercials, in the newspaper. Amy Fagan replied the budget is about $336,000 a year out of that budget 20% about $50,000 has to be designated for advertisement which will be face book, social media outlets, television, radio media, theaters, buses, working with the housing authority that recently went smoke free on their property, and some other places that typically do not interact with health related outlets. The program has worked hard to target different facets of the population particularly those whom we know are more at risk. The bingo hall wants to see a nonsmoking crowd and to help convert the current smoking clientele. The program has offered to help with cessation classes on site and hand out literature before bingo sessions, it is a change in culture and we are going to help them get there. Dr. Rains stated that being in the health industry he was torn because he hates smoking it has nasty effects on his patients too. His concern was that he did not feel he had the right to dictate to a business owner that they cannot allow illegal activity in their facility. Someone was going to have to guide him to convince him of that. Scott Plowman stated that he had fought it before but this time it came across as an employee issue and that he got on the Health Coalition. It has got to be across the board to survive like El Paso and Austin if you start picking and choosing which the bars have started to attempt to pull away from the restaurants to say it is not an employee issue it is an age issue is what he heard today that it is not going to be fair. He was all in being an ex- smoker that everyone will survive given the six months to prepare. Lou Kreidler remarked the only place where it is an age issue is the difference in the distance from the door. David Carlston said the biggest thing is the education part it will have an impact on peoples smoking behavior but it is not an ordinance designed to protect people from smoking and damaging themselves it is an ordinance that protects those from second hand smoke and the Et1 employees stuck being exposed to it the purpose of this ordinance is you can do whatever you want that is legal as long as you are not damaging, hurting someone else. Scott Plowman added that you will also have the employee that will tell you they know it is dangerous or they do not smoke but choose to work here. Dr. Rains stated that is their choice their choice to go to your establishment. David Carlston remarked it is easy for us to say it is a choice but it may or may not be. Dr. Gibson replied it is not a choice if she wants to go out to eat and not want to smell it, look at the rights of the nonsmoker too. It is not necessarily looking at something that is legal it is something affecting the health of everybody there. Dr. Carlston stated if we recognize that is the focus of the ordinance to eliminate second hand smoke exposure in public places in which is going to have a huge impact to the employees as well as the patrons it makes sense. All the impacts in term of county wide smoking rates, etc. those are all secondary gains but the ordinance is primarily and solely for the safety of people and their exposure to second hand smoke. Amy Fagan added another example is we were first in the State with a hotel /motel ordinance other municipalities now have a hotel /motel ordinance and we heard the same argument at that point as well because again it is regulating businesses for a desired public health outcome. We know now with the major bed bug outbreaks last summer in major cities heard on national news that we did not have that here. We had the same trend graph that over a period of time one room periodically would have bed bug issues but it was identified early because we were there regulating that establishment. We are kind of in that business of doing things that are of a regulatory nature, regulating the behavior of employees in terms of what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot be, and how they prepare food in order to have a desired public health outcome. Dr. Rains stated one of the requirements of his employees is that they do not smoke it is totally contradictory to what they are. Dr. Gibson said her facility is smoke free her employees do not smoke they can do what they want on their time but they do not smoke anywhere on the premises. Scott Plowman said they have different type of employees. Dr. Gibson said she has employees that smoke to but are not allowed to at her business. Dr. Carlston replied that is an individual owner operator choice the ordinance again is addressing public places. He asked if City council can line item it, accept it as written, or reject it. Lou Kreidler answered council can line item it and change what they want. Dr. Carlston asked if the board votes a recommendation of support can it be put in that council either accept as is or if rejected or modified the board would revisit their decision he felt that would be important. Lou Kreidler replied certainly who ever makes the recommendation can make the recommendation that it is recommended to Council as written and be the Board's recommendation that it be equal across the board and that smoking not be allowed in one location and not another. D Miles Risley responded to keep in mind making a recommendation at this point unlike some Boards that the Health Board is an advisory board. It might go down better rather than saying you cannot make any changes at all to the recommendation to say the recommendation is conditioned upon the across the board universal applicability of the smoking ordinance. Dr. Carlston stated he thought it was important that the City council know if the board does vote in support that the supportive vote might be altered and would not be applicable if council modified certain parts of the ordinance and those parts be identifiable. It would be important for council to know if they changed a specific aspect of the ordinance that they are going against the board recommendation. Kevin Hugman added that the City council is a public meeting anybody can come, anybody can sign up to speak on any item and he would encourage anyone here that has an interest to come an speak as an individual and as a member of the Health Board. Scott Plowman asked if the date was known Lou Kreidler replied on June 3 it would be up for discussion and June 17 would be the vote. The way Council works is on June 3 you can sign up at the beginning of the meeting to speak for 5 minutes and at the June 17 meeting they generally withhold comments until the item is brought up for discussion once she has done her presentation the Mayor will ask for any comments from the Council or the public. That is the opportunity for anyone from the public to make comments and speak. Dr. Gibson asked for her own clarification if they did go and change some of the things can we just do it again. Lou Kreidler answered there are three ways to get an item on Council; it comes from staff, three councilors have to vote and say they want it as an item for discussion or the Mayor can put it on there. Miles Risley stated assuming it is on for discussion on the 3`d you ought to come on the 3`d that is when it is said this is what we want changed in the ordinance, we want it to read this, this, this and then it is going to come back and be voted on. It is not unusual for City council during that discussion to come to a consensus and then it gets brought back as they expected. Kevin Hugman said they may very well take public comment during discussion certainly if a number of people are signed up to speak he may hold that and say let us talk about it. Miles Risley said on the scheduling they may end up putting the discussion off until the June 17th that Lou just knows what they have told her so far but they may get lobbied by enough bar owners that they want a little more time for the public to review it this will be legislatively active we cannot comment to any kind of schedule time frame. Scott Plowman asked for any recommendations today, does anyone want to make a motion. Dr. Carlston made a motion to endorse the ordinance as written to go to City council with recognition it needs to be universally applied that the vote is contingent upon the universal application of the ordinance and the e- cigarette remains that any modifications of those two things would definitely change his vote. Scott Plowman stated we have a motion on the floor to accept the ordinance with the exception it has to be across the board universally and e- cigarettes remain in the ordinance. 10 Dr. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. NEXT MEETING June 27, 2014 IV. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:10 pm. .nynaLU1V WJ yvt YA Print Name Scott Plowman, Chair. Julie Gibson, D.V.M.. Vice -Chair, or Jane Leach R N PhD Secretary WFWC Public Health Board Title 11