♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ The other... Sorry, I keep going the wrong way. I just wanted to also mention to you that we have just completed a study of revenues, because I know some of you are concerned about, you know, if we would enforce the law in our bingo halls, would the revenues go down? And what this chart shows is we looked at smoke-free communities, 13 of them in Kentucky now, that had, at this point in time anyway, over a seven-year period, and we got data from every county in Kentucky and asked what their bingo revenues were, and you can see there was a huge spike in revenue way before this line. This line indicates the first law in Kentucky, which is Lexington, and this is also reflecting total revenues from charitable gaming, which is primarily bingo. So you can see for some reason, no one can tell us why, there was this huge spike in 2002, and the Gaming Commission can't even tell us why. For whatever reason there was. So there's been a decline, but that was way before there was any smoke-free law, and then you can see that the revenues have just pretty much stayed the way they were at baseline, maybe down a little before, but not really too much. So we really don't have any scientific evidence anyway to show that by making our bingos smoke-free, that we'll have a reduction in revenue. And then in terms of the hookah lounge, and I know that's been discussed already, we have gone into our hookah, and as far as I know there's just one over by campus, and we have measured the air pollution in those places, and you can see this slide shows you that we went in two days in the hookah lounges, and the levels of particulate matter air pollution were quite a bit higher again than the outdoor air pollution standard. You can see how it compares to all the other venues, primarily restaurants and bars. So the hookah lounge is, again, a pretty dangerous place for workers and patrons. And then I guess just to summarize, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions, is that the air is cleaner inside most Lexington public venues, and you should be applauded for that. Our smoke-free law has improved health and not harmed business. Some workers are protected from secondhand smoke, but many still are exposed, and these are the places primarily that we find workplaces not open to the public, bingo halls and the hookah lounge, and I think these are the things that the amendments are directed to affect. So that's all I have, unless you have any questions. Thank you, Helen. You're welcome. Questions? Mr. McCord. Thank you, and thank you for your report and all the work that you've been doing. And, you know, as I've chatted over the last couple of years as a coach in the high schools here in Lexington and being someone that was, you know, very reliant upon bingo revenues, I think that I guess one question I have is have you all as a group had the opportunity to reach out to the booster clubs and some of these organizations that completely rely or very heavily rely on the revenues from bingo halls? Have you had a chance to sit down with them and show them the changes and so forth? Have you had any kind of meetings with them at all? No, I have not. I would encourage you, as anybody, I think that's a gaping hole in what you're doing, in that I understand why and I understand the numbers, but I also know from being one of those coaches and being one of those people on the ground that what you have is you have a lot of overburdened coaches, kids, and parents. And back in the day when you could sell cheese and, you know, and raise enough money to go and do what you needed to do, that was a whole different ballgame. But the landscape that we operate under now is completely different. And what I would say is that, you know, the folks have you can show studies all the time, but what the folks experienced when the smoking ban came in was a decrease in their revenues. We saw it on our team. And, again, it's one of those things where you can't really explain what the spike and all that was about and so forth. And that's people in Lexington's perceived reality. And so I would say that as you all move forward, I would encourage you to post haste to go and sit down with those booster clubs and with those coaches so that you can bridge that gap because that's a coming fight, and it's an awful tough thing to sit there and look at them and say, oh, no, no, look at this study we've got, when they saw this go down. And the other piece of the equation that I would encourage you is you really need to walk hand in glove with these folks on where, if it did go down, if for some reason there was a blip and they get skittish and so forth, how can we all work together and help maybe ease that pain financially? Because I understand where you're coming from, and I think we certainly appreciate the landscape that we have now in bars and restaurants and so forth and the hard fight that everybody here had before I got on to council. But, again, as someone who has been in that role for a number of years and someone who's friends coach and whose friends are the parents of these kids, I'm telling you that to do something that has the perceived effect of potentially cutting into them and what they're trying to do without talking with them is going to be a very difficult fight. They don't need to be there. They can be your staunchest allies, because I can tell you right now, none of these parents want to put their kids in that environment, nor do they want to be in that environment. And so I think there's a way that we can do this to where everybody wins. And I find it ironic that those are the kids that are probably the most healthy in our community because they're the athletes of our community. So I would just say as a recommendation from up here, please go and make direct overtures, and I will ask you that question as we go further. Have you contacted them? So I'm just telling you, for my sake, I'm going to hold you all to an account of just trying to reach out to those folks. I'll be happy to be at those meetings or be involved in that personally, but I do think that's a group that's going to be affected and needs to be at the table. Thank you. Ms. Crosby? I would agree with Councilmember McCord. And also, as a supporter of the smoking ban, we ask these questions so that we can make the best possible decisions when it comes to making things more restrictive. And I would like to see – I tried to get this information yesterday. I sent an e-mail. I got, I think, out of a few questions, a couple responses. And one of my questions specifically was geared towards the impact of – the economic impact of bingo halls. And what I was asking is if we could take out, or if you have any type of information regarding taking out Fayette County and just looking at those other counties, if we could please get that information, removing Fayette County from the mix, because I think the studies that we have seen includes Fayette County. And as we all know, Fayette County had the injunction to where people were smoking in bingo halls. And, of course, that could have influenced the economic impact and skewed the numbers a little bit to show maybe a higher economic benefit to the fundraising activities. So I think what I would like to see as a Councilmember trying to make a decision on this is truly what happened in counties that were completely smoke-free and the economic impact it had in those counties. And if you could please provide us with that information, removing Fayette County from the mix, because I believe the study that I was shown may be a little skewed because there was the injunction, and truly it was not smoke-free because Fayette County was included in that mix. So if we could please get that information, I know I would be most appreciative of that. Thank you. Can I just speak to that? Certainly. We did run the analysis that way, and that's a great question because that's the first question I had. You know, we were not complying anyway, you know, because we were in court. So we took Fayette County out of the mix, and we did do that. We have charts, actually, for all of the other 12 counties of the 13, and they all look, the lines are all the same. I mean, it didn't matter is what I'm telling you. Well, that's great. There still was no economic effect. That would be great for us to be able to see. and be able to see it for ourselves because I don't think I can send you receive that information. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank You Mr. Lane. How you doing? Good afternoon. I wanted to go over to another area that was of interest to me and that has to do with public transportation areas like cabs, taxis, limos, vans that are rented for profit. Do you have any regulations proposed for prohibited smoking in those types of vehicles? That's a great question. A lot of laws do cover those, you know, all of the public transportation. I guess I'll have to defer to the attorneys whether our law does. I don't think it does speak to vehicles, does it? But a lot of the model ordinances around the country do and that certainly could be added because I know myself this is totally anecdotal but not too long ago I was on New Circle Road behind a cab and there were people in it and people were smoking and so I wondered myself, you know, about that. So I guess that would have to be added. I don't know. Well I would, I think that would be a good idea because if you're a cab driver and you have patrons that are smoking obviously that's not good and if you're a cab driver who smokes and you have patrons that are non-smokers that's bad. You're in a very enclosed environment and I think if you're going to bring something to us I like to have it all-encompassing and try to clean up all the loose ends at one time so we don't have to go through it, you know, again and again and again. The other question I've got on the on the bingo matter. When you propose this legislation have you actually compiled a list of the bingo games that are in Fayette County, where they're located, how many people go? I mean do you have sort of an idea so we can get a report from you of how many, you know, bingo games are impacted and how many organizations are affected by the change in the ordinance. I think it'd be helpful for us to be able to see that information. Yeah and that's I think readily available through the Charitable Gaming Commission. I mean that's how we got the numbers. We asked for the numbers in terms of we have, I know we have five bingo halls in terms of how many fraternal, you know, organizations raise money in those halls. I don't know off the top of my head but that is readily available by county. So that can be. I would like for you to get that information and present it to us because here again we're making an ordinance. I think we ought to have an idea of, you know, how many people are impacted and also provide an opportunity. I think we're planning to have a couple of sessions to review this ordinance and maybe have people that are impacted by that be able to come in and speak to the issue so we can see the other side of the issue when we're at it. Okay, those are the only questions I've got. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chairman. Could you possibly, I know it's not a slide, I don't know exactly what you call it, the one that shows the revenue with the spike? There. There we go. I'm having trouble seeing. I might be better luck over here. These are, this is even better. I guess I don't understand the spike at all. It's for two periods. It's not just one period. So it's not an error on somebody's part. No, actually we've had many conversations with the Charitable Gaming Commission about that. And this is quarterly data. So every quarter since 2000. See the 2001, 2004, I can't see it either. Sorry. But since 2000, the first quarter of 2000. So this reflects the trend line by quarter since 2000. Does that help? And it's revenues. So this is total revenues from charitable gaming in all counties, well actually all counties of Kentucky. And it's comparing the communities with smoke-free laws. That's the dark line. And those without smoke-free laws. So one of the things you can get from this chart is that those counties that have smoke-free laws are also the ones that have more bingo. Because they have consistently higher, regardless even looking at the spike, higher revenues from bingo than the ones that don't. It's probably because of population. A lot of the communities that have smoke-free laws are larger communities. Yes, but that's probably not, I'm not answering what your question is. The question is, is that if nobody can explain that spike for two periods, it, the whole chart is flawed. And as far as I'm concerned, you don't go 5x or 6x times what you've been normally experiencing and not know why. I just cannot imagine that. No business on earth would look around and say, you know, I've been doing a million dollars worth of business. I did five million last year and I don't know why. Yeah, some people have said, and this is totally speculative, right? But some people have said it was after 9-11. It's the year 2002. For whatever reason, it could be that people were gambling more. Help me, I don't know. I mean, I don't have the answer. I wish I did. But we've been assured from the Gaming Commission that it's not a mistake. In this kind of data, in this kind of research, you can only rely on the data they give us. So we're reporting just what they've given us and it's over a seven-year period. So the longer, you know, the more data points you have, the more time that goes by, you know, the more comfortable you can be with the analysis. But I'm like you, you know, having a spike here is concerning because we don't really know what it's about. But I think what's important to keep in mind is that happened way before there was any smoke-free law anywhere in Kentucky. This line represents, you know, Lexington's law. And since then, we've had, you know, 12 other communities in this study that have gone smoke-free. So you see that the revenues on either line stay about the same. They really haven't changed. I understand that. I just, I'm just saying that their whole, their whole technique for sampling or however they do this is flawed if they allow something like that and then shrug their shoulders and say, I can't tell you. You know, you would think that they would, somebody would go out and start doing a little bit more in-depth investigation. I might just say, sir, that if you, if you just don't even look at this part of the graph, you know, where the spike is and start merely at the first quarter 2003, then we have about a year and a half's worth of data prior to any smoke-free law. And it just, that line doesn't really change all that much. I would suggest you start at 2003, one quarter and cut off, cut off the spike. We can do that. In fact, I think Dr. Pyles has done that, to be honest with you, because we were concerned about that and we did look at it. And again, there was no significant difference pre-post laws. Okay. Thank you. Great question. I think Mr. McCord had just a little follow up to that. I mean, it totally makes sense that it is 9-11 because if you look at blood donation, if you look at people signing up for the military and you take that exact same, those, those quarters right there, I guarantee you that it will, those things look exactly the same way. And it's not that people are gambling more. It was people, there were more charitable organizations raising money for, for things. And so, you know, and that's who really fuels bingo halls right now is our people that are, you know, doing that to raise money. So I would say that in all, a logical hypothesis would be that it was that surge of volunteerism, that surge of giving money. And like I say, I think you can just sort of take that piece out of it and you're seeing the trend, the trend line. But yeah, it makes complete sense that that would be the case. Mr. Beard. Council Member McCord, my question would be, why would not the gambling folks know that though? You know what, maybe I know, why would they not be able to know what, if they're, if that's their charge is to follow things like that, you'd think that they would have investigated that and been able to answer the question. Exactly. Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to tag on to Council Member Lane's comments from a few minutes ago. I've been in touch with David Lord over the tourism board regarding the taxi cab and public transportation idea. And we've made some preliminary inquiries with one of the larger taxi cab companies and met favorable, favorable thoughts on extending the ban to taxi cabs. I won't say that we're all the way there because they would want to see the actual language and so forth. But I believe that an overture in that direction might be received more positively than you might have thought. I would like to agree with Council Member Lane that I think we ought to extend our own ban to taxi cabs and public transportation, ideally before the World Equestrian Games, because I think it'll prevent, present a much better image of Lexington if you arrive and take a cab and you don't have the smell of cigarettes in your clothes before you get to your hotel. So I want to share that. I will differ a little bit with Council Member Lane. I'm content to go ahead and progress this legislation and work on this on the side and bring it at a future date as soon as we can get something together. I have to imagine that there's another community somewhere that we can borrow their text and get pretty quick something we could bring before the council. So I throw my two cents on that one as well. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Yeah, I had another follow-up question for you. Under Section 3, I guess subparagraph 1 on the building, could you explain why you changed the current ordinance to this ordinance? What was the rationale for that? Why I changed, I didn't change it. I was on the committee that worked with Dr. Stephens, but you're asking me to speak on behalf of the committee? Yes, ma'am. Okay. On which again? The definition of establishment? Definition of the building, right. The definition of building? Is that what you're asking? Yes. On page 2? Right. What was the rationale for just changing the definition? I'm trying to figure out why you didn't leave it the way it was. What was the reason for changing? Well, again, I'm not an attorney and I did not draft this piece of legislation, but I'll take a stab at that. Our center works with the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium in Minnesota, University of Minnesota, and they review these laws all over the country. And so we had sent this up to them for their review. And so they've made several recommendations on clearing up some of the language so that it would be more clearly understood and interpreted and enforced. So that's kind of a general answer to your question. And I think that was the nature, right, Peggy? That was the nature of this particular change and actually several, a lot of the changes in here, actually, other than the substantive ones that Mike and Peggy mentioned earlier. That's the best I can do on that one. Ms. Miller, would you like to add anything to that? Just come to the microphone, please. Dr. Hahn is correct. There were some suggestions made by the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. The current ordinance uses the word structure, and the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium thought that the word structure could be problematic because it is susceptible to more than one meaning. And then the second sentence of the existing ordinance, if a person leases or possesses only a portion of a building, the term building applies to the leasehold or possessory interest as well. I can tell you that is a, that sentence is not very clear. That's it. So we took the suggestion of the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium to change the definition of building to any area. And that would, again, that included the enclosed area. So we use the word area rather than structure based upon their suggestion. Mr. Lange. Yeah, can I ask another question on that? Because at the end it says, or open or closed, referring to any materials, permanent or temporary, windows or doors. So could you address that, what that means exactly? You are, I'm sorry, whether open or closed? Right. That has to do with the percentage that is relating to the 40% requirement. And that simply says that if you have a window or you have a patio door or something, a sliding window, and it can open or close, the 40% doesn't change when you open that window. That perhaps if you open a window or a sliding door and so there may be the argument that now it's more than 60% open because of this. It doesn't matter whether the window is open or closed when you calculate the 40%. Would that also apply to a tent if you had some type of a drop down covering on the side of the tent? And even though it was, I mean, that seems like that might be hard to enforce. I'm just trying to figure out where you were coming from on that. What about how many existing, I mean, a number of restaurateurs have added outside areas for smoking because of the new ordinance that we passed and they've spent quite a bit of money on it. How many of those restaurateurs do you feel would be impacted by this change in the definition? Have you done a study on that yet? Do you know if it will affect anybody at all or are you just changing it because somebody said it would be a good idea to change it? Council Member Lane, we're not changing the requirements. The 40% is in the existing ordinance. We've just combined those two sections for clarification. It shouldn't have any impact on existing restaurants that are already in compliance with the law. It was a, it was a clarification. Would you be willing to add that to the the ordinance that any restaurants at the time of this ordinance would be that have already made new structures that were complying with the previous ordinance would not be impacted by this ordinance? I mean, can you see any, I mean, I'm just concerned about people who may have spent a half a million dollars, you know, to build a structure to accommodate the new law and now we change it and it might impact them in the future. You don't see that there would be any impact on them whatsoever? No, sir, because it's the same requirement. It was, the effort was clarification and simplification. Because having building and enclosed area defined separately, according to the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, and I agree with them, was confusing because an enclosed area is in essence a building. And that was the intent of putting the two together. All right. And then the other follow up question is on section one, that any place that uses a workplace. So, would that mean that you had pointed out earlier that maybe 15 or 16 percent of the manufacturing company employees are not working in a smoke-free environment? So, if you change the ordinance and add or use those workplaces, that would protect those people from smoking? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. And may I add, excuse me while I'm here? Certainly. Thank you. I have reviewed based upon Council Member McCord's comments and it does look like you can read a couple of sections together to get to where I was going with the dwellings, but you have a very good point. It needs some clarification. Needs what? It needs some clarification. It's, I believe it's there, but it might as well be clarified because that's one of the purposes of why we're doing this. Certainly. If I may just make one more comment on perhaps the definition needs to be what is the definition of public? I think that's, I haven't seen that in there. Maybe there, but that might be helpful because, you know, if you have a home place business and somebody comes in, you know, if they're not working for you or they're not in your family, it was at the public. So, I think maybe that would be another area that could be touched on. But overall, I think you all have made some good improvements here and I would really like to see the transportation issue addressed for cabs, limos, taxis, things like that. May I make a brief comment on that? Of course. Thank you. And we have, as Dr. Hahn said, there are other municipalities that have addressed that issue. We have not in our ordinance, in the proposed ordinance or in the existing ordinance. But I do want to raise the issue that there might, that's an enforcement concern. The citation officers from the health department are enforcing the ordinance and if someone is smoking in a cab, it might be difficult to get someone there to issue a citation under those circumstances. But we'll definitely see what other municipalities have done. But I do just want to raise the issue that it might be difficult from an enforcement point of view to issue a citation under those circumstances. Thank you. Ms. Crosby. Just going along with what Councilmember Lane says, I think it's the holdup under Building Section 3.1 with the open or closed is where some of the confusion is coming in, probably with some of our businesses who have become compliant, which gets to the root of my questioning earlier is because that is, by definition, a material change to our old ordinance. I guess where I'm confused is you keep saying it's just combining. But I guess where I don't see is, I see permanent and temporary and all that. But open or closed is where I'm hooked up or held up because I don't see that under the current ordinance. And so I guess my question is, that is, by definition, a new restriction to the ordinance. Correct? Ms. Miller, or I think Dr. Stephenson, did you want to elaborate on this? The ordinance has not been changed as far as the consideration for outdoor patios and things. But this is not included in the old, this is not included in the old ordinance, am I correct? That wording is not in the old, in the current ordinance as it stands. Yes, it is. In the open and closed? Okay. And a lot of these changes have been done because in the wording, for example, the better definition of building or any area, as it's now called, because of information from around the country in which various lawsuits have been filed. And these words have been changed to some to try and protect against that kind of thing. Ms. Miller, can you please tell me where that's combined from? I understand that the perimeter, 40% perimeter, is coming from Section 3B. You're correct. The words open or closed. Are not under the current ordinance. Are in the current ordinance. That was a. That is a material change to this, that will be a material change to the ordinance. Is that correct? I'm not sure I agree with that because the way that it's been interpreted by the health department, a window was a window whether it was open or closed. It was treated as closed, whether or not it was open or closed. So as a matter of interpretation, it's not a change, but I now see where you're coming from. Okay, thank you. I didn't understand that earlier. Okay, thank you. Okay. And so I guess by definition, if that could be considered a change, taking a step further, if we have, since we do not know if that could be enforced down the road, as Council Member Lane said, would we, we do not know currently how many businesses that could affect or may not affect. We're not really sure at this point. And then would we be willing to grandfather those businesses who are currently compliant under the ordinance as it stands today? Would we be willing to grandfather them in or not? I guess I didn't quite understand the answer to Council Member Lane's question. Because if this is a material change, then I would see that that would be unfair to businesses who became compliant under the current ordinance as it stands. Does that make sense? Yes, ma'am. I do see your point. I, but again, as a matter of interpretation and enforcement, and enforcement, the citation officers haven't made a distinction between open or closed. Maybe the solution is we do not include the words open or closed. And that might be what we need to do. Thank you. Thank you. And I would not, I would, I think I would be very, I think that would probably be the easiest way to make this. Sure. Go away. Thank you. Dr. Stevens, did you have anything you want to follow up with that? I just said on page three, under three, under B, it shows what it was in the old ordinance and it's crossed through and changed into the definition of an area. But I think that if a Council Member Crosby would feel better about it by having something in the ordinance that would say that people now compliant as far as the 40% opening is concerned would still be considered to be compliant under the new or the amended ordinance, that would be fine. And I might say if Mr. Lane wants to include those public transportation, so he can make a motion to the effect that we do the research on that and bring back the wording to include that in subsequent changes. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I definitely would like to see that in there. And I think Council Member Blevins does too. And I would say probably a large number of our Council would be in favor of that also. Are you making a motion at this point? Or I've got a kind of a laundry list of things I've been writing down. We've gone on things that we need to look at. And there's about four things right now that I think we'd like to look at between now and probably the next meeting. And we could ask you all to come back, if you would, and present that with us. One being the vehicle, the taxis, and then also, obviously, the issue of enforcement is going to be there. The clarification on dwelling, that was an issue that was brought up. And then you'd asked about the public and the definition of what public is. And then finally, the issue of removing open and closed. So I think those are the four things that at this point, I know I've jotted down. Is there anything else that we'd like to have addressed? Yeah, I would like very much for anybody who might be impacted by the new ordinance to be able to speak to our committee. And we could get their comments on that. And I think it might also be helpful if we could get someone from the health department who actually does the smoking inspections, maybe come and speak to us so we could ask them some questions about some of the problems they may be having and, you know, compliance and enforcement. Dr. Rowe is here today and she can answer those questions for you, Commissioner of Health. Okay. If you want to ask them today. Dr. Hahn, is there any other information you'd like to give us at this point? I guess the only other thing that's been crossing my mind is about the bingo issue that Mr. McCord brought up. I have Carol Riker here with me, who's on my team, and she could speak to that better than I could. I don't know if you want to take a minute and let her do that in terms of conversations with bingo families that are affected by bingo. Would that be all right? Certainly. Thank you. I'm Carol Riker and I've been a, I was a band booster for six years, so I have a special place in my heart for boosters that try to help kids' lives be enriched. And I think we do have to acknowledge that there could be a great deal of concern in the community about revenues that would support kids. I want to also acknowledge that some of the, some of the, some of that fear may be kind of anecdotal, what people are afraid will happen. Because when our law went into effect, some bingo halls obeyed the law, some did not. Some individual booster clubs obeyed the law. And then when they saw others were not getting away with it, then they allowed smoking. So I don't think we have a great deal of evidence for that. So I don't think we have a great deal of evidence from Lexington about what indeed would happen if that law were enforced on a level playing field as it should be. I do know personally boosters who have solutions about other fundraising things. That's certainly not our expertise. We have some data from Georgetown who passed a law early on too. And in their bingo hall, they initially violated the law. And in fact, their air pollution went up. At the same time we measured that air pollution, we also saw that their participants were down. This was, what, one or two weeks after their law. And then when that information was brought to light to their city and they decided to really enforce the law there, we went back about six months later. The air pollution was, like, way, way, way down. And the participant level was exactly what it had been at baseline. So I think what we're going for here is a level playing field. Some other information I found out several years ago by calling the Gaming Commission is that pull tabs may be sold outside at the address of the bingo hall. They may not be sold to passersby. You can't stop people in cars going by. You can't go across the street and sell them. But if people go out on smoke breaks, pull tabs can be sold there. And my understanding is that's where a good deal of money is made. So that's encouraging. Finally, I want to say I'm worried about my fellow boosters because they're primarily people, middle-aged people, who are at risk for heart disease. The Centers for Disease Control have warned that people at risk for heart disease not be in secondhand smoke. And you yourself saw the levels in bingo halls. There are other concerns for the young people that may be working there. Young women, there's a link with breast cancer and premenopausal breast cancer and secondhand smoke. There are numerous reasons why our boosters shouldn't be having to work in a smoky environment. So that's, as a nurse, that's my concern. Thank you. Mr. McCord? And I think that if you pull any boosters or any kids, as I said earlier, I don't think anybody really wants to work in that environment. And I think what we have is a golden opportunity that I don't want you to miss. And just recognize you will miss it if this goes forward without that discussion. There is a very real fear that may be perception, but it's real amongst this community. And I think that very easily what you had mentioned I would encourage you to do is go ahead and inventory some of the alternatives for revenue opportunities. Bring in the experts to sit down with these folks. Because I think what, at the end of the day, it really boils down to as a coach or as a booster, it's about revenue. It's not about being loyal to bingo halls. If they could replace that income from somewhere else with that kind of energy output, they are going to certainly look for that. But if you can show them, here are some alternatives, or we've brought some folks to the table because we want to see the health of your kids and the health of you all improve and you not be subjected to this and there's other ways to do it, I really do believe that's a very valuable thing for these folks because they don't have any ideas themselves and they're not the experts either. And they're trying to do the work that they're tasked to do and trying to be the best athletes or best teams or clubs. And the other piece of the equation is that I always found ironic were the health organizations that are raising money in bingo halls. That the people raising money for kidney dialysis, which is directly affecting and keeping someone alive and taking that away from them because of a long-term threat. And again, it's just sort of the irony of the situation. And what I would say is you all have such a fine group of bright minds and very compassionate and passionate people on this issue. I would just encourage you to expand your group a little further to look at solution providers for these people so that there isn't any perceived harm. In fact, they will go with you on this. So I appreciate you saying what your experience was and I just want to encourage you to make sure that that opportunity happens in the next few weeks. And I think you'll find that they're extremely receptive. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, I wanted to mention that the airport, Blue Grass Airport is in my 12th district area. And some of the legislation here will have an impact on the operations at the airport. Specifically, you know, I think they have a smoking room or something for connecting passengers. And there's also maybe an airport security issue. So I would like at our next hearing to make sure that we try to get someone from the airport board that could speak to that, whether they were happy with this ordinance or if they want, if they have a different change in mind. Thank you. As a member of the airport board, I've shared this information with the board and some managers at the airport are not too happy with the prospect of closing their smoking lounges, but they have done so in Louisville with their ordinance and they get along fine. They still smoke in Cincinnati, but not in Louisville. And I don't believe this would have a measurable or significant impact on our airport. We've also done some studies, which I don't know the results of yet, on the effectiveness of their efficiencies of their smoking lounges. Commissioner Rowe, would you like to make some comments? I know there were some issues on enforceability and we used to get our monthly updates, but I haven't got that in a while. Is that a good thing? First, let me thank you all. This group in July of 2003 passed the first smoking ordinance in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. You made history. You blazed trails for the health of this entire Commonwealth. And I want to thank you for that. I also want to thank the folks here today who are trying to work to strengthen it. I appreciate Dr. Stevens' trust and faith in me from the enforcement standpoint. I have been out with our enforcement officers, but I am not a sworn citation officer. So if you ask me some questions I need to get them here for, we'll get them here to the next meeting and I'll make a list of the kind of things you want. But what kind of questions have you got? Mr. Lane? I think it would be interesting to have some of the, I don't know who does the inspections from the health department, but whoever goes out, to have them come and talk about any problems they're having in enforcement and some of the successes they've had, some of the problems they've had, so we could just get a picture of what that's like. Because we can pass all the ordinances in the world, but if we can't enforce them. And I mean, I hear, I had somebody call me the other day and said that somebody was smoking in one of the office buildings and they wanted to know what to do. You know, there may be some educational program about, you know, how to ask for enforcement, how it can be done without creating embarrassment for the person complaining. It can be done anonymously, for example. But things like that, those are the kind of questions I like to ask. We do try to handle those complaints as anonymously as possible. Sometimes in some of the places, especially some of the workplaces, some of the people who are bothered by the smoke and have asked that their workplace be smoke-free, and some of them have sent you all letters and done letters to the editors and sent you emails and calls. When they do that, they kind of say who they are. So hopefully they've not had any retaliation against them. But we do try to go out. Again, sometimes what happens is we get stopped at the door. They want us to come in the back door. Some of these are manufacturing, and from an OSHA standpoint, we can't come in the back door and just surprise them. We have to go through the safety type things. And they know we're there. They know we've got our ID badges. We've also got some places who have taken the smoking ordinance as a cost of doing business. And they have repeatedly been violators. But those have gotten fewer as the times have gone on. But we've still got some that do that. But like they're talking about, sometimes they will stop the environmentalist at the front door with the bouncer while they send the message. And then some of them are all connected, and they know we're out that night, so they call the next bar down or whatever. But a lot of it, a lot of the things that my folks have been frustrated with, they're trying to solve with the strengthening of the ordinance. So hence, smoke-free workplaces. And then there's no question that these folks, because sometimes, and Peggy knows this because we'll talk to the Board of Health Legal Counsel, sometimes they will say, we're not open to the public. And so that means that we're private and we don't have to abide by it. So some of those kinds of things are addressed in trying to strengthen the ordinance. Are there any other further questions here? We can bring a citation officer. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment. At this point, is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this issue that hasn't been addressed? Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Tabb would like to speak. Certainly. If you would give your name and your association and your address for the record. We'd appreciate it. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. My name is Kathy Tabb, and I am a volunteer with the American Cancer Society. So I come from a different place than a lot of the other people that you've heard talking but I still feel very passionate about this. And the information that I'm handing out to you today is to show you that there is great support in the community for strengthening this ordinance. We have several resolutions that have been passed by different organizations and businesses and health organizations in Lexington. I attached a copy of what our resolution says, as well as a list of all the people and organizations who have signed the resolution. And they are people like the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington Fayette Urban County Board of Health, Lexington Mayor's Alliance on Substance Abuse, and Kentucky Agency for Substance Abuse Policy, Fayette County Local Board, the Lexington Medical Society, New Horizons Computer Learning Center, phototherapy, St. Joseph Healthcare, UK Healthcare, and I don't have an exact number but these organizations and businesses combined represent over 20,000 employees. So you can see that there really is huge, huge support for strengthening this ordinance. These people care about their employees. They care about the health of their employees. And secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. That as a cancer survivor myself, I had a cancer that there was no way that I knew that I was going to get this or that I could have done anything different to keep from having it. So I suppose my passion comes from trying to save people from being exposed to something and possibly getting a disease that they had no control over just because they happen to work in a place that isn't completely covered by a smoking ordinance, which I think was the original intent when this ordinance was passed back in 2004, which I also was proud to be working on. And again, as has been said many times this afternoon, you all are just an amazing group to have taken that first step as my part of my role with the American Cancer Society. I am the Kentucky advocate representative for the whole of the American Cancer Society. So I frequently go to Washington, D.C., and it's amazing. We, of course, are working on tobacco issues there. But frequently people look at me and go, oh, you're from Kentucky. They don't want me on their breakout sessions because I'm always the difficult one to deal with. But it is so wonderful when I say I'm from Lexington because nationally this city is known for having gone out and taking that first dramatic step. And as Dr. Hahn showed in some of her presentation today, we are no longer the gold standard. And hopefully by strengthening this ordinance, we will once again bring Lexington up to the top. And I thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Is there any questions? Mr. Beard? One quick one. I noticed, of course, you've got all the hospitals involved here. And at one time while visiting UK Hospital and parking in their old garage, which is now gone, and you would walk to the front door along that walkway, there'd be 15, 20, 25 people in wheelchairs with morphine pumps and IVs or whatever. Smoking with both hands. And has that been curtailed by the UK folks? I'm not a smoker. And they were polluting my air just to get to the hospital. I understand completely. And I know that many of the hospitals, and I believe UK Healthcare is one of the hospitals that is doing this. Their entire campus and hospital area is going to be smoke-free. Is that correct? That's true of all three hospitals. The UK system, which includes Good Samaritan now, St. Joe, and Central Baptist, will be smoke-free on their campus. Not just in the building, but on their campus. So that will be taken care of. And I agree, having gone to my chemotherapy treatments, I was forced to go through that as well. So hopefully we will be addressing that with the responsible healthcare systems that we have here in Lexington. Again, it goes to show how great our city really is. I also neglected to mention that we also have on file petitions that individuals have signed at different events and venues that we've had in the local area. And there are over 100 people who have signed those. So if anybody would care to see them, I do have them on file. Thank you. Any other further questions, Mr. Tam? Well, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to? Oh, Mr. Beard? I'd like to ask Council Member Lane a question. On the public transportation front that you were talking about, what about private hire vehicles? Are you including those, the limousines, the party buses, things of that sort? Yes, sir, I was. You would include those. Okay. Because you talk about something that's going to be hard to enforce. That's going to be a tough one. I guess, Commissioner Rowe, could you address that? Or could you put that down as your list if we look at this as vehicles and enforcement and how we would go about doing that? Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in the audience? At this point, I think what I'd like to do is, if you have any further issues you would like to address about this, send them to Mr. Shoniger or myself, and we will pass them on. I think we'd like to have the attorneys, Peggy and Mike, if you all would address the issues that have been raised here, and I'll reemphasize those. The one with the vehicle and the taxi issue and the enforcement, the clarification on a dwelling, the definition of public, looking at removing the open and closed, the airport issue, and then we're going to also deal with the enforcement issues next service meeting also. And then also, we've allowed the opponents to speak. And if there's anybody next time that's opposed to that, we allow them an opportunity to come speak too. And is it, of this council, some people mentioned about having a public meeting to allow, maybe an evening meeting to give everybody an opportunity if they want to comment. Would that be something that you all would want to do or not? Mr. Chairman, do you feel that we could have an open meeting during one of our, in other words, maybe have a special meeting and maybe do it both at one time just to make it more efficient? Do it during the services meeting are you talking about? Yes, sir. Either have a special meeting at a later date. But I think most of the people that would be impacted by this are going to be people that are in business because it doesn't really apply that much to private homes. However, some of the not-for-profit groups that might be impacted might. But I'm thinking we could have those people come in and also meet with our, you know, have a public session. The only problem with that is if we do it, I think we need to do it in the evening and not during when we do our services. So I think we would have to set it at a 6 p.m. We could do either maybe after a work session on a Tuesday after council meeting. If this gets to the docket, we'll have an opportunity during regular sessions to discuss it during public comment. I think probably a public meeting would give everybody an opportunity just to talk about this. I think it would be probably more appropriate. And I looked at a date that possibly we could, before we have our next services committee, but maybe we might want to wait till now until we get the new information back and have it after that. And we only have after our next services committee, which would meet on October 6th, there is not a November one. We only have a December one. I'd like to get this wrapped up in the next two meetings so we can get it done by this calendar year. So we might have to have an additional services committee to probably wrap this up maybe in November. So I think if you bring that back to us next meeting, for the October meeting, then we could have a public meeting in the interim. And then we can look at it and have a special meeting just about this in November. And then we can move it towards the full council. That is all right with the committee members. Do I have any opposition to that? With that, we will bring this back up again first on the agenda in the October meeting. Mr. Kemp, could you give us an update of what's going on with the downtown and with the The news rack? The news rack, yes, sir. As I said in council meeting, I bring this up again at the services committee. As I explained then that at a meeting after we had passed the ordinance, we had a meeting with the publishers and they had asked that they be given some time to self-impose regulations and enforcement. The committee agreed with that. So I've come back with a motion for this meeting to table that ordinance regarding news racks, which this committee passed until it's determined whether the self-imposed regulations and enforcement by the publishers is successful. If not, we have the ability to bring the ordinance off the table. Therefore, we will keep this issue on our committee list. Thank you. Are there any other issues before this committee? Do you have a motion to adjourn? I think that was in the form of a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you repeat that motion? I'm sorry. That we just table the ordinance regarding the news rack until such time as it's determined that the publisher's self-imposed regulation and enforcement is successful. If not, we can bring it back off the table. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. We'll table that now. Chairman, I'd like to recuse myself on this vote. Okay, noted. And all those in favor of adjourning say aye. All those opposed. We are adjourned.