Board of Health

No Meeting in February or March 2015 April 02, 2015 An organizational meeting of the Board of Health was held at 5:00 P.M. Present were: Ian Murray, Chairman; John Bogdasarian, M.D. Member; Sandra Knipe, RN, BSN, Member; Stephen D. Curry, Director; Minutes of Last Meeting: Minutes of January 08, 2015 meeting were accepted as presented. The Unattended Donation Box Regulation fee of $35 has passed through Council, effective March 01, 2015. 65 Minneapolis Avenue will be included in the City’s demolition plans as an update to the last BOH meeting due to the owners’ lack of response to bring the property into compliance. Staff Reports: Nurse’s reports for January and February 2015 were submitted. The inspectors’ reports were submitted for 2014 but were tabled so our Director could clarify the Recycle Coordinator’s figures. He would like to change the reporting format to coincide with what is submitted to the DEP. Ian Murray made a motion to accept the Nurse’s reports for January & February 2015. Sandra Knipe seconded the motion. FY’16 Budget: Our Director was asked by the Mayor to submit a budget not more than a 2% increase over the FY’15 Budget. Mr. Curry was not able to meet this requirement due to grants running out and employees still on staff. The budget also includes $10,000 sick leave pay for a retiring BOH staff member. The only changes to Health, Personal Services is the percentage increase in salaries to the unions as well changes in the grant totals. A portion of staff time is charged against the various grants. Our Director has also tried to push certificates and licenses and education and training for the inspectors as well as the nurse. He was allowed to put stipends on some of the specific certificates as part of the recent agreement with the Inspectors Union. Mr. Curry asked for $3,000 in Personal Services for certifications and licenses stipends. Sandra Knipe asked about an Assistant Director. Mr. Curry responded that he was the previous Assistant Director/Senior Sanitary Inspector but the position was never filled after Mr. Curry was promoted. Our Director could absolutely use an assistant and has placed a request with the Mayor in past budget requests. Ian Murray asked what could be done as a Board. Mr. Curry responded that they could go on record with the minutes and forward the concern to the Mayor and City Council. The Mayor did express that she was not interested in cutting salaries but would like to cut the budget by $100,000, particularly through the Rubbish Removal and Disposal accounts. Our Director was able to cut about $33,000 from FY’16 Budget through decreased yard waste collections. Disposal costs were also cut to $465,000. Disposal costs currently are $39.74 per ton of trash which is a cost to the city as a result of the residential curbside collection and Landfill drop off disposal. Since the inception of the cart system in 2012, disposal costs have decreased nearly $170,000 annually. Every year the costs of disposal changes according to the Consumer Price Index which means the increase in costs is not necessarily an increase in trash production. Contract fees for trash is what it cost to collect at curbside which includes yard waste collections, schools and a few other collections such as cleanups. Contract services for the Landfill is the cost to dispose of what is picked up at curbside and disposed of at the city landfill drop off. Contract services also includes disposal of trash for nine schools as well as what the DPW removed from the streets. Health expenses include Landfill supplies which is mostly used for the recycle calendar which is mailed annually to the residents. The Nurse’s budget includes the Public Health Nurse, two school nurses that cover the Parochial Schools and a regional nurse covered by the Public Health Incentive Grant (PHDIG). The budget has been submitted to the Mayor for approval. The budget hearing for the BOH goes before Council Thursday, May 28, 2015 at Memorial School from 6-9 p.m. Ian Murray made a motion to approve FY’16 budget with the addition of an Assistant Director position added. Dr. Bogdasarian seconded the motion. Tobacco 21: Joan Hamlett, Tobacco Control is here to answer questions about the Tobacco 21 Initiative. Two doctors have gone to most Boards in Massachusetts about raising the purchasing age to 21. Joan has a 4 page summary that was read at a state wide meeting as well as recommendations of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. DJ Wilson and Cheryl Sbarra put into the draft a new definition of Mass Legal Age (MSLA). No one in the central region has changed the age to 21 but 28 communities have changed the age to 21. There are many issues that come along with it. Most of the Boards have no interest in it because Tobacco Control is not funded to enforce it. There would be no compliance checks and communities would have to pay out of there budget to check out complaints. Bolton raised the age to 21 while Maynard raised the age to 19. The Police Departments for both communities have taken the responsibility of compliance checks. Tobacco Control still does the education aspect including any changes. For Tobacco Control to come to the table and support a Board to raise the age to 21, they have to be willing to pass other components such as the blunt wrap ban and cigar pricing. The report from Tobacco Control is encouraged by raising the age to 21 but there is no assessment that raising the age to 21 has a positive impact. Many kids under the age of 18 are using tobacco and are able to access it in stores. Raising the age to 21 on its own and in itself really isn’t doing anything other than give a false perception. Raising prices, banning flavors, restricting access and requiring permits is what works to limit access. Fitchburg has done everything except for removing the flavor ban. The flavor ban came out after Fitchburg, Gardner and Leominster did their Tri City effort. Rhode Island banned flavors; menthol is the only flavor allowed in that state. There are 52 communities in Massachusetts that ban flavors which includes metro communities and western Massachusetts communities. No one in the central MA region has banned flavors. Gardner has expressed interest in a Tri City effort which includes Fitchburg and Leominster to include the new definitions and the flavor ban component. This would be the time to have a discussion to include the 21 initiative and the issues that go along with it. The biggest issue is if it’s not done in multiple communities people will go to the next town. Joan’s recommendation is to have a discussion at a future meeting if the three cities want to be the lead in the central region on the flavor component. Data shows that once flavors were taken out of cigarettes use went down; when flavors were put into cigar products, use went up. DPH is working with Boards to move forward to see what works for each community. Mr. Curry asked if Joan was proposing a draft for the May meeting. She responded that a draft already exists and will send it to the Board members for their review. Adding the flavor component will expand our statement of purpose and give specifically defined definitions of what is a tobacco product and what is a vaping product. With this flavor component vaping devices are also included in the ban even for no nicotine vaping liquids. This is important because people are liquefying drugs as well as nicotine through the vaping devices. According to Joan the flavor ban brings out retailers as well as the tobacco industry. She would like to tread lightly and do more work in retail education with store owners to start a conversation about the flavor products. Joan will start laying down the ground work and hopefully have something in place for late Fall. Sandra Knipe made a motion to adjourn. Dr. Bogdasarian seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned a 6:05p.m. Respectfully, Tina M. Kreidler Principal Clerk/Stenographer