# General Government Committee - October 7, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 7, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3470 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3470?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-10-07 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 9,223 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government Committee met on October 7, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., with Kay presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session, taking 12 motions and votes overall. The meeting included 4 public comments from members of the public. All three items on the agenda were approved. These included a Facilities & Fleet Management proposal from Farmer to abolish a Security Officer position and create an Administrative Officer position in its place, an E-Cigarette Ordinance presented by Gorton, and a set of Items Referred for consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 7, 2014: * Kay * Scutchfield * Ford * Akers * Beard * Myers * Clarke * Lane * Gorton * Lawless No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The council took the following actions during the meeting: **Ordinance 0130-26: E-cigarette Ordinance** [timestamp: 00:44:43] Motion by Gorton, seconded by Ford, to approve the e-cigarette ordinance amending the definition of "smoke or smoking" to include e-cigarettes. Passed by voice vote. **Ordinance 0130-26: Facilities and Fleet Management Ordinance** [timestamp: 00:58:49] Motion by Kay, seconded by Ford, to place the facilities and fleet management ordinance back on the council docket for second reading. Passed by voice vote. **Committee Removals** The council passed the following motions to remove items from committee: - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Clarke, to remove the Coroner's Office Salary & Classification item from committee [timestamp: 01:00:57]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Clarke, to remove the impact of vacant positions on parks, maintenance, and programming from committee [timestamp: 01:00:57]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Clarke, to remove the grant review process from committee [timestamp: 01:01:27]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Gorton, seconded by Clarke, to remove the e-cigarette ordinance from committee [timestamp: 01:01:59]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Clark, seconded by Clarke, to remove the procedure for underwriting/sponsoring parks facilities from committee [timestamp: 01:02:29]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Clark, seconded by Clarke, to remove corporate branding from committee [timestamp: 01:03:05]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Clark, seconded by Clarke, to remove the exploration of shared artistic direction between Lyric and Downtown Arts Center from committee [timestamp: 01:03:39]. Withdrawn. - Motion by Ford, seconded by Clarke, to remove the Bluegrass ad relationship from committee [timestamp: 01:09:45]. Passed by voice vote. - Motion by Akers, seconded by Clarke, to remove the facilities and fleet management ordinance from committee [timestamp: 01:10:15]. Passed by voice vote. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 01:10:45] Motion by Kay, seconded by Ford, to adjourn the meeting. Passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included the following financial action: **Administrative Officer Position Funding** Ordinance 0130-26 appropriated $61,383 in funds for the creation of an Administrative Officer position in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. ## Public Comment Four members of the public provided comments on e-cigarette regulation and safety. **Carol Riker** [timestamp: 00:16:08] presented scientific evidence regarding e-cigarette aerosol pollution. She stated that e-cigarette aerosol contains toxic particles and gases, including formaldehyde, propylene glycol, and metal particles. Riker emphasized that these emissions pollute indoor air and pose health risks similar to traditional smoking, and argued that e-cigarettes should be regulated like tobacco products due to their harmful emissions. **Tony Florence** [timestamp: 00:27:04] addressed the safety and social impact of e-cigarettes from a different perspective. He argued that e-cigarette vapor is safer than secondhand smoke and that scientific evidence supports its safety. Florence criticized studies linking e-cigarettes to smoking initiation as misleading and characterized vaping as a harm reduction tool for smokers. He urged the committee to avoid overregulation. **Anthony Landrum** [timestamp: 00:38:38] shared a personal experience with vaping as a smoking cessation tool. He stated that he successfully quit smoking through vaping and described the vapor as less irritating than cigarette smoke. Landrum argued that decisions about allowing vaping on premises should be made by individual business owners rather than by city regulation. **Harold Hensley** [timestamp: 00:41:26] also spoke about vaping as a personal health choice and community support. He described how vaping helped him quit smoking and stated that it does not produce the same harmful effects as cigarette smoke. Hensley argued that government should not regulate personal choices made in private businesses. The public comment period reflected differing perspectives on e-cigarette safety and regulation, with speakers presenting contrasting views on the health impacts of vaping and the appropriate level of government oversight. ## Contested Items ### Creation of Administrative Officer Position and Abolition of Security Officer Role A procedural dispute arose regarding the creation of a new Administrative Officer position and the concurrent abolition of the Security Officer role. Members raised concerns about whether the new position had been created specifically for a particular individual, which prompted questions about the fairness and openness of the process. This concern led to a temporary delay in discussion while council members reviewed an email from Councilmember Farmer for clarification. Following this review and reassurance from leadership that the process had been conducted in an open and fair manner, the matter was resolved and discussion proceeded. ### Regulation of E-Cigarettes in Public Spaces A heated discussion took place regarding the regulation of e-cigarettes in public spaces. The debate featured sharply opposing viewpoints. Public health advocates emphasized the potential health risks associated with e-cigarette aerosol exposure, arguing for regulatory measures to protect public health. Conversely, e-cigarette users and their supporters argued for personal freedom and contended that vaping was a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes. The discussion also included challenges to the validity of certain studies cited in the debate, as well as concerns raised about potential government overreach in regulating the use of e-cigarettes. The contested nature of the scientific evidence and fundamental disagreements about the appropriate role of government regulation characterized this contentious exchange. ## Facilities & Fleet Mgmt. -- Abolishing Security Officer Position and Creating Administrative Officer Position [timestamp: 00:06:03] The committee discussed a proposed ordinance to abolish a vacant Security Officer position within the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management and create a new Administrative Officer role in its place. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The item was presented by Farmer. Committee members Reed, Kay, and Gorton participated in the discussion. **Concerns Raised** During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding potential favoritism in the hiring process for the new Administrative Officer position. Committee members sought clarification on how the recruitment and selection process would be conducted to ensure fairness and prevent preferential treatment. **Outcome** The committee approved the ordinance and voted to move it back to the council docket for second reading, allowing the measure to advance in the legislative process. ## E-Cigarette Ordinance - Gorton [timestamp: 00:12:19] The committee discussed a proposed ordinance to include e-cigarettes in the city's smoke-free ordinance. The debate centered on whether e-cigarette aerosol should be regulated similarly to traditional tobacco smoke in indoor spaces. **Key Speakers and Presentations** The discussion involved committee members Gorton, Riker, Florence, Landrum, and Hensley. Public testimony presented scientific evidence regarding e-cigarette aerosol and its effects on indoor air quality. **Main Issues Debated** The primary focus of the committee's debate was the health and environmental impact of e-cigarettes in indoor settings. Public testimony highlighted that e-cigarette aerosol contains harmful chemicals that pollute indoor air, providing a scientific basis for potential regulation. **Outcome** The committee voted to approve the ordinance and send it to the full council for further consideration and final approval. ## Items Referred [timestamp: 01:00:27] The committee reviewed several items that had been previously referred to determine whether they required further action or could be removed from the agenda. **Items Reviewed** The committee considered removal of the following referred items: - Coroner's Office Salary & Classification - Impact of vacant positions in Parks - Grant review process - Additional items noted for completion or closure **Discussion** Key speakers in this discussion included Scutchfield, Ford, Clark, Akers, and Gorton. The committee evaluated each referred item based on whether it had been completed or no longer required further action. **Outcome** The committee voted to approve the removal of the referred items from the agenda. The items were determined to have either been addressed or to no longer require committee attention at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Approval of the e-cigarette ordinance to amend the definition of 'smoke or smoking' to include e-cigarettes - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Motion to place the facilities and fleet management ordinance back on the council docket for second reading - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Coroner’s Office Salary & Classification item from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the impact of vacant positions on parks, maintenance, and programming from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the grant review process from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the e-cigarette ordinance from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the procedure for underwriting/sponsoring parks facilities from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove corporate branding from committee - **Motion** — withdrawn: Motion to remove the exploration of shared artistic direction between Lyric and Downtown Arts Center from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Bluegrass ad relationship from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the facilities and fleet management ordinance from committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm listening. Good morning. Good morning. It's just a little after 11. I think we'll get started. if council members can take their seat. We've got the walking wounded with us. Welcome. This is the General Government Committee, October 7th. One, two, three. I think we have a quorum, and there's a couple other people who will be here briefly. So I'm going to start with the committee summary. Have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion to second, approve the summary. Any comments, questions, corrections? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Looks like they just turned my mic up. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, facilities and fleet management. But Council Member Farmer is not here for that issue. Craig, do you have any information about where we stand with that? Oh, John Sheet's going to speak to it. Good morning. I'm just here to answer any specific questions that the committee might have. I believe there's some information already being provided by email to Council Members. And I'm not sure exactly if there are any specifics above and beyond what was discussed. We're glad to provide any clarification needed. Thank you. Council members, again, in the absence of Mr. Farmer, I'm not sure what the specific issues were, but does anybody have a question or a comment or a concern? If you'd log in, Vice Mayor Gorton. Well, I thank you for that, Mr. Chair. I missed the meeting when this was put in committee, and I wasn't sure why it was put in committee. And so I wondered if there's anyone who knows the answer to that and why we shouldn't move it on. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Reed? I think I can give a little explanation because I discussed this with Council Member Farmer. and Council Member Henson. And the concern, I believe, that was raised was about this position that we were creating, the supervisory position, along with the abolishment of an existing security position. There was an email sent to the council members that I believe questioned the wisdom of that move, and they wanted to basically, the issues were raised, were we creating this position for a specific individual? And I think that was the primary concern. I answered to Council Member Henson in an email, the response to those four questions that you all were given. I didn't know if she had shared or not. The answer to the main question is no, we are not creating a position for one specific individual. Everyone that's qualified is welcome to apply for the newly created position. We felt this was necessary to create an additional supervisory role with increased emphasis that's been placed on security. And I think that basically sums up why we're here. I appreciate that very much. And Mr. Chair, we have, the council itself has requested a fair amount of tightening of security, which is in the process of being done. And so, I mean, I'm not sure why we would want to delay this. I would want to hear from others if we do need to, and otherwise I would hope that we'll move it on back onto the docket. Or did it come from new business? Is that where it came from? Second reading. It was second reading. Okay. I would hope we would move it on then if there's no. And I think one concern, and I would want to relieve the anxiety of those who have sent the email, is that this is not any attempt to go back and privatize security. We're talking about one position that's been vacant. We want to enhance the security with the team we have now. And in this selection process for this additional person, I would want to do like I've done on parks and other positions, include a member of the council and or members of your staff in the selection process. This is the email suggested that both the council and the administration are involved in basically manipulating the process to give specific people promotion, and neither of us are, and would welcome your involvement in the selection process. Mr. Chair, would you entertain a motion since no one else is on to speak? I would, if you would hold that just a moment. So there is an email that came to me and I guess the members of this committee just now. Just now? If I read the time date correctly, yes. And I gather it's a message that was sent from Mr. Farmer to Craig earlier today, but the rest of us have not had the opportunity to look at it. Well, actually, if I – what I'd like is for people to have a chance to look at this before we take action. And it's a bit unusual. What I'd like to suggest, actually, in terms of process here is that we hold this agenda item for a moment and go on. Give people a chance to look at this and then come back to this agenda item if that's the pleasure of the committee. Are there any objections? If not, give us a couple minutes, and we'll go on to the next item and then come back. Okay. Thank you. We'll be here. Thank you. And thank you. Okay. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the e-cigarette ordinance. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As many of you know, in 2003, our council passed the first clean indoor air ordinance in Kentucky that after, I think, what, two years or so of work, mainly by our health department and the Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy, all the good folks who worked on that. And I don't think at that time e-cigarettes existed. And so we did our best job at the time. Our smoking ordinance went all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court and was upheld. and our citizens love, I believe, from the input I've had, being able to go into public places and work spaces and have clean air. And so most recently, I've watched several things occur. You know, the governor used an executive order to go ahead and ban smoking, including e-cigarettes in state government buildings. and the Lexington Center Corporation Board met a couple weeks ago. Council Member Beard and I are on that, and the Lexington Center Board voted to ban e-cigarettes in all of its facilities. That's the Opera House, Rupp Arena, Lexington Center, the shops, and all of that. and also a major action was taken by the health department. The board passed their resolution asking us to consider this. So I am thrilled that our committee gets to hear this and debate it, and Mr. Chair, with that, I'll turn it back to you. I know Carol Riker's here, and Dr. Rice-Leach is here, our Commissioner of Health and lots of advocates. So thank you for that opportunity. Thank you. I have a council member lined up. Would you prefer to hear from the folks who have come to address this issue, or do you have a question or a comment you'd like to do first? I was just going to make a comment. That's okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I just wanted to say that I was here when we passed the original smoking ban, and I will say that it's exceeded my expectations, I think, for its effectiveness. And I would strongly encourage that we include e-cigarettes in the ban today because it's targeted, as I see it, to young people, and that is setting a precedent. They might try the e-cigarettes and then go to regular cigarettes. And I can tell you, smoking is terrible for your health, and I think we've demonstrated that already in Kentucky because we've got a lot of people that are sick from smoking. So I would strongly support the modification to the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other council members who wish to speak at this point, I will go to the sign-in sheet and will allow the people to speak, and then we'll come back to council. The first person I have is Carol Riker. Welcome. Thank you. And if you would just give your name and address and proceed. My name is Carol Riker. And I'm here from UK College of Nursing and the Kentucky Center for Smug-Free Policy, where I'm a faculty associate. And I want to acknowledge my address. It's 2714 Stetson Lane in Lexington. Hi, Mr. Chairman. Could you get a little closer to the mic, please, ma'am? Sure, I was getting a little feedback there for a minute. Oh, okay. Is that better? Yes. Okay, great. So I'd like to acknowledge others that are here, as Linda said, the health department and citizen advocates and people from Drug Free Lex and from the medical center. I'm here at the request of Vice Mayor Gorton to discuss the scientific reasons for including e-cigarettes in our law I want to say first what I will not be talking about And Mr. Lane gave me a good segue into that We're not going to talk about whether e-cigarettes entice youth and get them hooked We're not going to talk about the sweet flavoring added to cigarettes E-cigarettes, we're not going to talk about whether e-cigarettes help people quit smoking I'm not going to talk about ad campaigns for e-cigarettes that glamorize smoking. I'm not going to talk about children ingesting the e-liquid and calls to the poison control center. And I'm not going to talk about health risks or potential benefits of using e-cigarettes. We're simply going to talk this morning about whether or not they pollute the indoor air. so where am i clicking this at you'll be happy to know that nobody has any success with that initially can someone provide why do we need to cover e-cigarettes and lexington smug-free law basically e-cigarette aerosol contains toxic gases and tiny particles to which workers and patrons are exposed. And I think it's important to remember always our workers, because the workers would be breathing this aerosol for hours and hours each week if e-cigarettes are smoked indoors. So, I want to say that the science is strong for the fact that e-cigarettes pollute the air, and I'll mention just a few studies. First, Schober showed that the use of electronic cigarettes impaired indoor air quality and increased levels of inflammatory markers in humans. Secondly, Rachel Grana showed that the size and numbers of particles emitted from e-cigarettes are similar to that in conventional smoking. Just a word about the size of those particles. They are tiny, very tiny. The size of a human hair cut, sliced 100 times lengthwise. That's the size of the particles. So as you can see, it's easy to breathe them in and for them to lodge in the lungs and cause problems, be carried through the body with the bloodstream and so forth. And then Williams found that e-cigarette aerosol also contains medicals and silicate particles. And there's new studies that I just received maybe two days ago about third-hand smoke, and which showed that the nicotine from e-cigarettes sticks to surfaces in the environment where it then reacts with the air and off-gases carcinogens. So they're kind of repeating all the studies we did with cigarettes for the elements that are in e-cigarettes and finding the same thing. So to elaborate a little on the Schober article about the tiny particles, he found there were high concentrations of the particulate matter, 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter during vaping sessions. And if you compare the levels he found, which were a mean of 197, It's right up there with Lexington's indoor air quality before our law, which was an average of $199. So e-cigarette aerosol is not simply water vapor. It contains things like propylene glycol, which is a lung and eye irritant. Actually, that's what we think of as theater smoke. And there were studies done decades ago that showed that exposure to that was harmful. contains formaldehyde and beta-nicotirine, which cause cancer, contains metal and silicate particles, and nicotine, which of course is addictive and dangerous to unborn babies. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers is the group that develops ventilation standards for buildings. And both ASHRAE and the World Health Organization state that e-cigarettes need to be regulated just like tobacco smoking because they emit harmful chemicals which are known to cause cancer. And I think it's instructive to note that the tobacco industry spent years attempting to prevent ASHRAE from identifying smoke as a significant indoor air pollutant, although ASHRAE finally did that. And now they've come out with a very strong statement that not only can no ventilation clear a building of secondhand smoke, but that e-cigarettes need to be included in the regulation against secondhand smoke. So I wanted to mention also that the FDA is in the very long process of regulating e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. That's a very long, rigorous process with looking at the science in great detail, and they've just begun it by doing a deeming regulation that states their intent to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. And how that came about, originally the FDA wanted to stop the import of e-cigarettes, and they were going to the ports and refusing the shipments, and one of the companies, Soterra, which then was the maker of Enjoy, sued. And it went all the way through an appeal, and the courts still said that the FDA should regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. So now that that has occurred, and they are intending to regulate it as a tobacco product, the industry is advocating for less regulation than other tobacco products. Just so you know, we could have a whole seminar on that, but our topic is whether it glutes the air or not. Now we're 50 years past the first Surgeon General's report on smoking, and that we find that many of the same particles and toxic gases in secondhand smoke are also in e-cigarette aerosol. These same tiny particles and toxic gases cause heart and lung disease and cancer. And so I think it's good to learn a lesson from it. And the Cancer Society says that we cannot forget the lessons of the past where modified cigarettes were supposed to be less harmful and instead created greater harm. Things like filters and low-tar nicotine cigarettes, which one just drew on more deeply. So let's not wait another 50 years, I guess is the message there. So what you might hear from the e-cigarette industry. Restricting e-smoking in public places makes the product less attractive. And so we are simply in an amendment such as this to our ordinance. We're simply asking people to step outside. they might say also that harsh regulation will do more harm than good for those looking for an alternative to smoking. Well, again, we're just asking for people to step outside. So if indeed somebody's using an e-cigarette to quit smoking, they can step outside, because actually smoke-free laws are evidence-based to help people quit as well. And then you'll probably hear that e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes, But really, workers and patrons in Lexington expect our air to be clean, our indoor air, and they don't want it to be less polluted than with traditional cigarettes. They want it to be clean. And I think all our citizens deserve clean indoor air, especially where they work 40 or more hours a week. Here are some of the other communities we would join. First Hales had second reading last night. Actually, that date is outdated, but they had second reading last night, and I don't know what the outcome of that was. Theirs includes e-cigarettes, too. Nationwide, as of October 1st, we have three states that include e-cigarettes in 100% of smoke-free venues. We have 11 states in other venues, such as schools, health departments, and so forth, or government places. And then there are 226 laws across the country at this point. So remember that if we include e-cigarettes in our ordinance, we would only be restricting their use inside. People will still be free to purchase and use e-cigarettes, except in workplaces and public places. So if you all have any questions, please feel free to ask us. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask, there's a few other people signed up. We'll get their comments, and then I'll turn it back over to comments from council. I have Tony Florence signed up, and two people who have yielded their time. Is Miranda Florence here in yielding time, and Ashley Engel here in yielding time? Yes? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Florence? and if you just state your name when you get to the podium and your address and you'll have your time and theirs my name is tony florence my address is 3521 hunters greenway and that's here in lexington kentucky 40509 okay um tony florence i'm the owner of 723 vapor uh it's a locally owned vapor shop here in town. I've been doing this for a while. But as a method of introduction, I want to say, like, who are vapors? There's a lot of misconception about vapors. Over 99% of vapors are ex-smokers. We are attempting to kick a very vile habit that is attributed to 400 plus thousand deaths a year. We're attempting to overcome our own addictions. One of the biggest issues regarding to applying e-cigarettes to the smoking ban is the second-hand effect is harmful. A lot of people have stated there's heavy metals, toxic chemicals, et cetera, in second-hand smoke, and that's totally true. I mean, there is. But it's in parts per million or smaller that is of a magnitude much less than a normal cigarette, that is of a magnitude far less than what the FDA and science has generally considered a safe level. If you guys like to eat sushi, you know, There's parts per million of lead in sushi and mercury, but it's at a level deemed safe by the science and the government and the FDA. But, I mean, don't take my word for it. I mean, here's a number of studies. Here's a 14-page synopsis. Igor Burstin, Drexel University, says that what we're exhaling, what's coming out of our mouth, is safer than the air that you would get in major cities like Los Angeles air quality. Another study, this is a 10-page synopsis by five doctors and scientists for the UK Center for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, Queen Mary University, Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine, a division of clinical pharmacology and experimental therapeutics, bioengineers, and psychologists that also state what we are exhaling by orders of magnitude safer than normal smoking. It's also by orders of magnitude far less than what scientists out there have determined to be the toxic levels. So if scientists in their science lab doing their science things are telling me that it's okay, what is coming out of my mouth is not toxic to the average individual, I will tend to believe that because those are scientists. These are not people Google searching stuff on the Internet. So if there's no real serious medical impact to secondhand vaping, in which I can generate hundreds of scientific reports in regards to the safety of this, then maybe it's a social ramification. And I'll be completely honest. There will be people who will blow a big cloud at a restaurant or a public event. But by that same token, if I go to the sporting event or at my workplace and someone's around me with a noxious perfume, you know, they lay it on the dracar or something like that, that's offensive to me. If someone's got bad body odor at a game and I've got to sit next to them, that's offensive to me. There's lots of offensive things, but it's a matter of politeness and consideration. It should not be a matter of legislation. We're just trying to stop smoking. It's a smoke cessation tool. So if there's no medical reason and there's no social reason for the government to get involved, it is of my opinion and the 6,000 other vapers who currently live in Langston that you shouldn't get involved. It's not necessary. The science doesn't support it. I mean, according to them and their articles, it does. But I can run contrary to it, too. I can generate these all day long. But, you know, you might say public ban. Add it to the public ban. Whatever. And I'm saying that's probably going to be a bad idea. because you know what we are? We're recovering addicts of cigarette smoke. You know why we're vaping? We don't want to smoke cigarettes. We don't want to join that 440,000 person statistic of people dying every year. So if you make us go outside with the other smokers, man, we're going to be surrounded with all the lovely aromas of camels and all that kind of stuff. It's going to be a temptation. It's going to be a bad temptation. It's going to be a lot of regression. People who are vaping will want to go back to smoking. If you're an alcoholic and you're in the program, would you force them to sit in bars all day long? It's probably not a good scene for them. So, you know, smoking kills a lot of people. We're trying to stop smoking. That's the smoke cessation tool that we're after. I'm going to digress a little bit. E-cigarettes and vaping gets a lot of bad publicity. There's a lot of bad stuff that comes out, it seems like, every day. And why is this? You know, big tobacco is losing billions of dollars every year to the e-cigarette industry. You know who's got a good marketing ability? Big Tobacco. A lot of these tests and studies are coming from, directly from Big Tobacco or Big Tobacco sponsored. Big Pharma, same thing. There are a lot of smoke cessation tools out there that the pharmacy industry is promoting. Guess what? They're losing piles of money too. And they are putting out a lot of these studies that say e-cigarettes are horrible. So is there any surprise that there's bad press about e-cigarettes and studies, et cetera? That's not a surprise to me. It's sensationalist journalism. It's a fair degree of intellectual dishonesty when they're putting out a lot of these numbers that aren't really accurate. And I want to just give you an example, just a quick example. There's a magazine called The Week. It's really big overseas. According to The Week, youth who tried e-cigarettes were six times more likely to take up smoking than those who didn't. Wow, that's awful. People who try e-cigarettes are six times more likely to take up smoking than those who didn't. This is how that was generated. It was from a CDC questionnaire surveying youth nicotine habits. They asked whether they would smoke a cigarette at any point in the future if it were offered by a friend. Multiple choice options were definitely, probably, probably not, and definitely not. In the interpretation of the data, all those answering definitely, probably, and probably not were included in the statistic for those who would definitely graduate from vaping to smoking. That's a clever juggling of statistics. It's also not a very fair representation of vaping. So anyway, there's a lot of stuff saying how bad vaping is, but there's also a lot of stuff saying how good vaping is. I mean, not good. It's healthier than cigarettes. Nothing is good. Drinking a Coke's not good. Drinking coffee's not good. So here's a really nice report talking about how vaping is a much better alternative for myocardial toxicity, your heart muscles. Here's another wonderful study talking about how it's better on asthma. Michael Marlowe, noted scholar from George Mason University, stated that up to 6.4 million smokers may potentially become ex-smokers via the use of e-cigarettes and that, quote, FDA regulations will jeopardize public health by not estimating benefits associated with e-cigarettes using data from readily available studies on the efficacy as harm reduction tools. Oh, yeah, here's another report talking about how the stuff that we breathe out is actually pretty safe for people. I mean, I could do these all day long. But in conclusion, as I wrap this up, 443,000 people die a year from smoking. Over 544 deaths have been attributed to Chantix, which is an FDA-approved smoke cessation device. By the way, e-cigarettes, according to a study of over 5,000 individuals over three years overseas, 60% more effective than the patch, Nicorette gum, any of that stuff. It's a far more effective smoke cessation tool. You know, 544 deaths from Chantex, FDA approved. Here's a magic trick. How many people in the last 10 years, active vapers, who died because of vaping? The answer is zero. None of them. So look it up. Do some research that's actually backed by science and not backed by Google searching random studies promoted by Big Tobacco or Big Pharma. The math is out there to support e-cigs as a positive smoke cessation tool. and I can generate these studies all day long. I invite all of you to come to a vapor store, 723 Vapor, Alt Smoke. We're all over the place. Sit down and talk to one of the owners. Sit down and talk to the hundreds of patrons that we have who will tell you their success stories about how they have kicked the smoking habit and added years to their life. There's over 6,000 of us in Lexington and we're growing. We're not that hard to find where the vapors are. So come talk to us if you want to see the other side of this discussion. Thank you. Thanks. Council members, comments, questions? Vice Mayor, do you want to? Nobody else. Right now, you're it. All right. All right, thank you. Well, I'm really, where's Tony? I'm really happy to know about all the smokers who have quit with cigarettes. I think that that's terrific. What we're talking about here, council members, is what we want our indoor air to be for the public. Okay? And smokers, when we passed our smoking ban, we heard all of, Council Member Lane, you'll remember this, all of the negatives. Places would go out of business. People would quit coming. It has turned out to be the opposite. Our public loves clean indoor air. They love it. If we tried to take it back, we would probably be mobbed. And for me, this is a matter of clean indoor air. And it's a matter of not making it illegal to sell or buy or use the e-cigarettes. It's just don't use them inside where everybody else breathes the air. That, to me, is what we're talking about. I cannot believe that all the communities across the country who've studied this and looked at the data are wrong. those who have enacted the e-cigarette ordinances or included them in their clean indoor air. It just makes no sense to me that we would not consider including e-cigarettes inside. We're not banning anything. We're just saying take it outside. And, I mean, I personally don't like strong cologne either, and it can knock you out. And if I could say take it outside, I would. But, you know, I don't, I think in this case, the vapors, which people do breathe in. And when we talked about the smoking ordinance, the thing that got me was thinking about you, not any of you, but you, the other person, inhaling and then exhaling and then I breathe it back in. To me, that's just not something I want our public to be doing. So those are my comments. Thank you. I've been handed a sheet. I've got nobody else signed up to speak. I've been handed a sheet. There are two people from the public who also wish to speak. I'm giving them a chance at this time. Anthony Landrum. Again, if you would state your name and your address, you'll have three minutes. My name is Anthony Landrum, 3236 Bowie Drive, Lexington, Kentucky, 40509. I'm a former smoker. For about two months I've been vaping. I feel a thousand times better than I did before. I know that that's not the topic that we're bringing up here, is whether it's a cessation tool or not. But what I can say is my significant other who hated the cigarette smoke doesn't mind the vapor. It is nowhere near as abrasive. Nine times out of ten, you can't even smell the aroma in the vapor when it's exhaled. To back up Tony's statements of it's healthier, there's no way that it's not. I mean, neither is going to be healthy because when you inhale something aside from oxygen and carbon dioxide, what's in our air, it's going to have detrimental effects. be it I go out here and walk through downtown, the carbon monoxide from the exhaust pipes. I'm inhaling that. That's not healthy. What I can say is that the e-cigarettes are a lot like having a lifeboat. And if you're on a boat and it's sinking, if you're on a ship and it's sinking, are you going to wait for the FDA to approve the lifeboat that you need to survive? I've tried patches I've tried Chantix I've tried cold turkey I've tried the Nicorette gum None of that works This allows the smoker to also keep the oral fixation And the hand movement While getting us off the nicotine addiction And Tony I've been doing business with you for Two months maybe And the first two weeks I had stepped down completely To no nicotine in the juice that I'm using I use it as a hobby now There's a lot of studies to back up both sides, but at the end of the day, why would you try to strip a lifeboat away from the people who are needing it? And to piggyback on that, why is it not up to the business owner? Why do we have to regulate what we can do? It's just as simple for the business owner to say, I don't want this in here. The Kentucky concealed carry permit, I have one of those. If the building on the outside says that I can't carry a firearm inside, I can't do it. It's against the law at that point. It should be up to the business owner. The city has no business, in my opinion, stating that I can or can't do something when the owner of the property, the one who pays the rent and pays the taxes on the business and pays salaries for people that are employed by the city, should be the ones that are able to make the decisions of how they govern their own business. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Harold Hensley. you'd state your name and your address you'll have three minutes Harold Hensley 271 Preston Avenue Lexington Kentucky 40502 my personal experience is I haven't smoked a cigarette for the better part of 42 weeks now and I feel a lot better now I understand my my individual health is not what's at stake here but from my experience since I started vaping. My mother was a smoker for the better part of 50 years. And she got to the point to where she got really sick from it and she quit. So she allows me to vape in the house, but she will not allow my sister to smoke in the house because the smoke from the cigarette makes her sick. My vaping does not. Another thing I noticed about vaping, I've watched what I let out of my lungs, it doesn't cloud into the air. It falls because it's a vapor. It's not an aerosol. It falls to the ground. So I don't think it's as adverse as what a lot of people are putting it out to be. I myself am in a 12-step recovery program and I started vaping. I started going to Tony's shop and we are a community and we do care about each other. We love each other and we support each other and that's what this deal's about. And I'll second what Tony said. I don't think that city government has any right to take this away from us. And that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you. Council members, if you have comments or questions, Vice Mayor Gorton. Did any other council members want to speak? I have just a comment, and then I'm going to make a motion. Our government is the authority which grants people the right to open businesses, okay? and when we discussed all of this with the smoking ordinance in 2003, we talked about these very same things. Businesses which open in our community don't have the right to do whatever they want. They're given the right to be a business, but then with that come certain responsibilities and they have to follow certain rules. You can't just do anything. And this is where our authority and our rights come in as elected officials. It is up to us to determine, given all the information we can gather, what is best for our citizens and our community at large. We're talking about our community at large here. And we're not talking about taking out or taking away anyone's right to do something. We are talking about our belief that people who go into workplaces should be able to breathe the cleanest air they possibly can. And so with that, I want to go ahead and move to approve the draft ordinance to send to the full council. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further comments, questions, Councilmembers? Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Vice Mayor Gordon, for the motion. Councilmembers, I serve as our designate to the Board of Health, and I want to thank Dr. Leach, who's here present this morning, and the Board of Health for the leadership in bringing this forward. I just want to make, and I support the motion. I think this is an important issue of public health. And again, as Vice Mayor mentioned, it's not intended to infringe on the individual rights of our citizens, but more so in balance to protect the overall health of our community. One thing I did ask at our Board of Health meeting when we passed this resolution to bring the council unanimously was, and maybe we can go back on the slide, was the cities since our indoor ban that have adopted bans that include e-cigarettes. And as was explained to me then is that had that technology been present at the time that we passed it, surely it would have been included in the original ban. So this is just an attempt for us to go back and modify. It's very important that Lexington was a leader statewide in bringing this forward. Also, I think our governor, Governor Beshear, took a very important step just a few weeks ago with his executive order on the indoor ban and statewide buildings that include e-cigarettes. I just think that there is so much basis from other governments who've taken this important step. and I'll support it in going to council as well. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I just, I want to say to the people who spoke against an ordinance prohibiting this form of nicotine delivery, I want to say that I have been impressed by your comments, and I think it's a very good sign that we have a device like this that's helping in many ways. And I certainly appreciate your attitude about this, and frankly, I'm glad to know more about e-cigarettes and what they can deliver. And so I want to say that on a positive note because I think you deserve credit for your stand here and how you've used the e-cigarettes to get off regular cigarettes. And I think it shows some real courage on your part, and I appreciate that. I want to say that, on the other hand, it is very important for this government to be absolutely correct in making sure that the air that we breathe is as clean as it can possibly be. There's enough evidence, and I think it's early, even though we see reports of all kinds. I think it's still early to know exactly what the effects are. I think there's enough evidence, though, that says to us that this ban would be appropriate in public spaces. On the other hand, nothing we're doing here prevents most of the use of e-cigarettes in private establishments, in open air, in cars, in lots and lots of places where you can indulge. So I don't think an ordinance that prohibits it would do anything really to upset the routine, the process of getting off a regular cigarette. So I will support the motion. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I see no other speakers lined up at this point. I'm sorry. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Sharon. Thank you. I read somewhere that there were 60 some odd different e-cigarettes on the market. Is it bigger than that? Bigger than that. There has to be some type of delineation within that group as to what might be more harmful than others and some that might be not harmful at all, depending upon how they're constructed and with what type of materials and things like that. And if you wouldn't mind answering that, I'm very curious about that, and I think it plays to this. I'm sorry. Come to the microphone, please. Council Member Beard, what is your question? My question is if there's been any statistical delineation between this group over here of e-cigarettes versus this group over here of e-cigarettes in relationship to the dangers that might be attended to. I see. Is there anybody who feels competent to answer that question? Carol? I think it is early in the science, as Councilman Clark mentioned, and there's a lot to learn. One of the problems is from the get-go, instead of encouraging the FDA to let it be a nicotine delivery device, the e-cigarette company sued. I'm sorry. I'm going to intervene. I think the question is do we know if there's differentiation? I don't want to get back into the pros and cons. No, word no, because the science isn't there. The studies have studied, you know, so many brands. Some of the FDA actually found that some that contained nicotine that was not on their label. So you really do not know what you're getting. Okay, thank you very much. I'll take one more. You have a comment? I'm sorry. Do you have information about studies that differentiate amongst the kinds of products? If not, I'm going to – do you have – I'm sorry. The nicotine delivery system via an e-cigarette is a pretty simple process. It's a battery, heats an element, vaporizes the juice. They all fundamentally work the exact same way. You're taking a juice with some bit of flavoring, propylene glycol, et cetera, and a certain level of nicotine, be it zero or more, and you're vaporizing it into a vapor and putting it in your body. Big tobacco, they have their own, like you see at the gas station. I'm sorry. Again, I'm going to intervene. Well, that's a differentiation of what big tobacco is doing. There's two different types. I'm not asking. The question is not what big tobacco is doing. And I think the... Okay, but what I gather is that there's no data at this point that distinguishes between different kinds of e-cigarettes. Is that fair to say? No, like I said, they're fundamentally the same device. Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Beard, more comments? Actually, no. At some point, I think some entity may go ahead and make a differentiation themselves because we aren't going to be the only people that are doing this, but there are also going to be others that will not do it. So as it stands right now, of course, I don't favor the e-cigarettes per se from what I know, but I was wondering if there was some answer out there otherwise. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Carol, I believe that you said that three states have banned e-cigarettes altogether. I think this was the right numbers. And then 11 have enacted laws to ban them only in government facilities or hospitals and the like. Can you tell me, if you know, what the basis was in, I guess, differentiating between government facilities, hospitals, and just the general public in those 11 states that chose only to ban them in those facilities? It's just according to what... I'm sorry. Please come to the mic so we get it on tape. Thank you. It was just what that state is interested in doing. And that's, you know, whatever came to their attention first. So it's kind of a we're doing baby steps, I think, for states. And out of the 226 cities, most of them, the vast majority of them, restrict e-cigarette use in workplaces. Okay. Does that help at all? Yeah, I'm a little bit torn on this. I appreciate those who have tried to quit smoking and use them. And I've seen them in use in public and not noticed any smells or odors or whatever. But I was at a medical facility once at a hospital and saw a nurse sitting at the nurse's station smoking one, and I thought that was odd. And so I'm just trying to, I'm just thinking through all of this. I think our hospitals are making policies about them. Our UK has a policy already. Right. Okay, thank you. Yes, thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. May I ask one more? Carol, could you tell me, I was interested in whether University of Kentucky Hospital and other hospitals and other facilities beside the Lexington Center have policies already. They do. I did not look that up for this meeting, though, to tell you how many. Mostly hospitals and health care, or do you know, have some businesses already banned them, or how's that? Oh, surely there's been voluntary policies in businesses already, of big companies even. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I see nobody else to sign up. We have a motion and a second on the floor to move the proposed ordinance onto the council docket. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, say no. That's everybody. That motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming to talk to us about this issue today. That allows us to go back to the question of facilities. the security position, if council members have had a chance to look at that email from Councilmember Farmer. It raised a couple questions, I believe. Commissioner Reed, would you like to speak to those issues? I don't have the email, so tell me the issues and I'll speak to them. I'm sorry. The first ones that I identified were that the position that exists should be filled because the ranks are thin and we need as much kind of frontline direction as possible. I think Councilman Farmer raises a legitimate issue. In my mind, we will provide better service and better oversight if we do create the supervisory position and abolish the existing vacant position. I think we need more oversight, and the job at the top have become increasingly involved with some of the security measures that we've implemented, the increased cameras, we're adding additional buildings. I certainly appreciate that argument. In our budget request, we did ask for this position without abolishing any positions and didn't receive it. So really this is just a call as to what you think would provide the best level of security. This person would also be involved in providing security services as well. So I think it's a legitimate request, and I think the position should be abolished in lieu of so we can create this new one. Thank you. Do council members wish to speak to this issue at this time? I see nobody signed up. And I believe procedurally the motion that put it back in this committee, would we need a motion to put it back on the agenda? Is that what would happen? I need guidance from, yes. so I have a motion to place this back on it was ready for second read so this would go back on the council docket for second read I have a motion to place it back on the docket is there a second I have a motion and a second anybody wish to speak to this motion seeing nobody signed up I'm sorry council member Ford Mr. Chair if you could the original motion to put the item into committee. I support the motion. I support the motion to send it back to the docket. I think that we've had the opportunity to bring it in committee. We've discussed it. Once on the docket, we can either vote it up or vote it down. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak to the motion? Nobody else signed up. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Everybody opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. I believe that brings us to items referred to committee. And we have that list in a slightly modified form. Craig, will you basically say a word or two about that, and then I'll see if people have changes to make. Sure. There's a couple of items on there to bring to your attention. The coroner's staff salaries and classification, that ordinance was attached to your minutes today, and it may make sense to remove that from committee at this point. And also, too, above that, the impact of vacant positions on parks, maintenance, and programming. Mr. Chambers came before the committee a couple of months ago and presented that information. So unless there's other information that the committee wants, that's another item that I had identified for your consideration today to remove. I'll entertain a motion to remove those two. Motion is second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. And now I've got people signed up. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to remove the grant review process. We did have this presented to us. I know it will be an ongoing thing that we can bring back, but I think for this time we can remove it. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple, I think today with our action to move the e-cigarette ordinance forward, I move to remove that item from committee. A motion? I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Council Member Clark. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I had one more. The other one I had is I believe that maybe Craig can answer, are we finished with the procedure for underwriting or sponsoring, or is it coming back again in parks? That came before the committee as well a couple of months ago with the CAO policies. I believe that's probably complete as well. I think so. So I move to remove procedure for underwriting or sponsoring facilities and parks. It's a CAO policy, and I think the committee gave its input at the last meeting. I have a motion. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. I think the corporate branding, we have had that discussion, and I think it would be appropriate to take that off the referrals. And also, I move to take that off of the list and second it. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Yeah, we have. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Chair, I have another one. I think the explore sharing of artistic direction was made when we were talking about Lyric and the Downtown Arts Center combining their facilities. I think that idea is now passé with the movement of Downtown Arts Center to parks and a successful season ongoing. And I think that can be removed as well. I have a motion and a second comment. Vice Mayor Gordon. I would ask your indulgence to, you know, the whole idea of, well, let me go back. The Downtown Arts Center is a one-year pilot program, right? So the idea of this item was to see if there were opportunities to share any of the services between the Lyric and the Downtown Arts Center, and I think that that might still be appropriate to be looked at. Even though there's a pilot going on with the Downtown Arts Center, we might find there's some efficiency still could be gained by partnering with either Lyric or, now that we're doing Moondance, they all have different technical and box office and artistic items. So I don't know. I feel a little like it's early to remove that. Council Member Akers? But I do notice we have three on here regarding the Downtown Arts Center. So maybe we could combine, merge the three at the top, the third one down in the DAC pilot project, then just below it, the DAC utilization, and then four or five down, the one that Council Member Clark mentioned, exploring the artistic direction, sharing of artistic direction. So could we merge those three somehow or reword them or merge the two? Vice Mayor Gordon? Well, the pilot project is in here, and it's very different, I think, from the sharing idea. The sharing idea had more to do with could a box office sell tickets for the Lyric, the Downtown Arts Center, and maybe even Moondance? could technical services be shared among the three? And, I mean, I think the downtown arts center utilization is even different. That's about all the floors being utilized. I think it kind of goes with the pilot in a way. I see. I just hate to throw this out until we've looked into whether there could be efficiencies gained just because of the pilot project. Other comments? Do we expect at the end of the pilot project or at some point in time a report back on the sharing and utilization and technical services, box office? I mean, is that part of the pilot project and then we'll get a report back in November or October of the? Craig, comment? I've asked for all three of those items to be reported on during the next committee meeting in November. So each of those three items should be incorporated into the presentation. Okay. Okay. Council Member Clark, are you willing to? Yes, I would. Just let me explain a little further. Parks has taken over the operation of the Downtown Arts Center. Parks has taken over the operation of Moondance. And those are going very well. Lyric has a completely different organizational structure with their own leadership. with our own staff. And I think at this point, because we've been so successful in doing that, there is no reason to look for an opportunity to merge. Having said that, I certainly would agree with the vice mayor that we can certainly wait another month and to see how things go. And so I would withdraw my motion. Does the seconder agree to withdraw? Yes, so we'll withdraw that motion. Thank you. Are there any other comments, any other suggestions for changes? If not, I guess just one point to make, and that is I asked Craig to take everything that was on this list and put it into categories. So if you look on the right, typically when you come into these meetings and you see the items referred, it's by the date that it's been referred. I thought it might be helpful to put them in categories categories so that it's a little easier to see where we are with each one of these. And I don't know if people notice that or if they think it's helpful or not. We could do it. We could leave it that way. We could put it back the old way. I see heads nodding. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then I thought somebody else was signed up. Yes, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The one item that I have a question on is the relationship with the Bluegrass ad. It was referred in by Council Member Myers back in the spring of 2012. In social services, there are two items that we're dealing with that related to the ad. One, of course, is workforce investment, a standalone item. The second one is, and hopefully we'll discuss it soon, is the due structure. We remit about $75,000, which we've since learned through the link process this last budget. About $45,000 of that is our home care match in social services. And there's been a great deal of activity and reform and scrutiny over there, as we all know. I think we're in a position to remove. That's a general relationship, so I'll make that motion to remove. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And if there's no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. What have I missed? Councilmember Akers, sorry. That's okay. Thank you, Chair. Since we just made the motion or earlier made the motion to move the first one, the security officer position back to the docket, should we remove it from committee as well? Yes. Okay. Motion to remove. I have a motion and a second. Remove that item. Further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And now, if there's no further business, a motion to adjourn? I have a motion. Second. Motion to adjourn. Without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you.