Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said his thoughts on the issue had evolved over time and he now supported including <br />bars in any ordinance contemplated, as reflected in Option 1. He said that there was increasingly <br />good science that made it clear that secondhand smoke was dangerous. Mr. Kelly said that <br />unlike patrons, the employees in work places where smoking occurred did not have a choice <br />about whether they were exposed to secondhand smoke. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner that the program should be self-supporting. He sought input <br />from staff about other options to pay for the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue seemed self-evident. He was concerned about <br />the issue of including bars in the ordinance and suggested an approach that gave businesses <br />some lead time, such as a year or two, to comply, and that required those businesses to clearly <br />advertise that they were a smoking environment. He acknowledged the issue of employees' <br />exposure to secondhand smoke but said that those individuals were free to decide where they <br />wanted to work. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 was also concerned about the cost of implementing the ordinances. He suggested that <br />it might be easier to fund the program through licensing rather than through a tax on tobacco <br />products. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was supportive of the concepts inherent in the proposed ordinances. She said <br />that public health had always been the County's responsibility, and she questioned the County's <br />position on the proposals. She thought that enforcement of public health regulations <br />appropriately rested with the County Health Department. She also preferred to go forward with <br />the City of Springfield to enact similar ordinances at approximately the same time, and asked <br />about the status of that option. Regarding the option of licensing, Ms. Nathanson pointed out <br />that the City had discontinued a selective licensing program and she would be reluctant to get <br />back into the licensing business without a comprehensive review of what was licensed or should <br />be licensed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the first option for both proposed ordinances. He said that the City had a <br />role in ensuring employee safety. He was unsure about the position of Lane County and <br />Springfield but believed the City Council must consider the citizens of the City of Eugene. He <br />thought the City would get suggestions on modifications from citizens. He wanted a smoke-free <br />work place for all employees all the time. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked if local citations for minor in possession offenses would require a separate <br />ordinance, and who had provided input about the concept. Ms. Bohman said a separate <br />ordinance may be needed, and the department was still in the process of evaluating the concept <br />so it was premature to discuss public input. Mr. Lee asked if other communities had similar <br />ordinances. Ms. Bohman did not know, explaining that she had not been involved in the analysis. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that his concern was about those people who were using a legal product: <br />where could they go to do so? He acknowledged concerns about public health of employees. <br />Mayor Torrey was very concerned about the impact of tobacco products on youth and said that <br />the focus of the ordinance was to deal with the person who sold cigarettes to youth. He said that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 19, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />