My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011.01.12 Parks Packet
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Parks
>
Parks Commission
>
Parks Commission Agenda/Packets
>
2011
>
2011.01.12 Parks Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2016 8:48:29 AM
Creation date
6/23/2016 8:15:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
1/12/2011
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Commission Name
Parks
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In discussions of a ban, the Parks Commission did a roll call vote on each of the parts. <br />Commissioner Derek Larsen abstained. Larsen is employed by the Tobacco Free Youth <br />Recreation Program. <br />In a 4 to 3 vote, the Parks Commission recommended a policy verses an ordinance. One <br />Commissioner voted to have neither a policy nor an ordinance. Discussion included peer <br />enforcement, enforcement by the Washington County Sheriffs Office and signage. <br />In a 6 to 2 vote, the Parks Commission recommended a ban on the entire park property. <br />The issues listed with using a distance (i.e. 25 feet from children, etc.) included <br />enforcement and clarity to park goers. The option of having an area designated to smoke <br />was also discussed. <br />In a 5 to 3 vote, the Parks Commission recommended that the ban include the entire <br />park system (active and passive parks), rather than only in active parks. <br />In a 4 to 4 vote, the Parks Commission was tied on whether to ban all tobacco use or just <br />smoking. A ban on all tobacco use would include spit tobacco use and smoking. <br />The reasons given for a smoking -only ban include: <br />■ Role -modeling is not enough of a reason to also ban spit tobacco. <br />■ Second hand smoke is hazardous to park -goers health, but it is hard to <br />recognize the second-hand effects of spit tobacco. <br />■ Enforcement of spit tobacco use may be difficult. <br />■ Regulation of a lifestyle choice is outside the government's role to protect <br />civil liberties. <br />The reasons given for a ban on use of all tobacco products include: <br />■ Role -modeling is important for youth -prevention. <br />■ Spit tobacco also produces litter. <br />■ A total ban is black/white, making it clear to park goers. <br />■ Role -modeling for all youth trumps the civil liberties of 18% of people. <br />(Percentage of smokers given by McFadden) <br />3. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: <br />At their November 15, 2010 meeting, the City Council heard a presentation summarizing <br />discussions and the four votes on the four variations on the regulation. Chair Jim Taylor <br />was present and stated his opinion that all parks should be tobacco free, and the Council <br />discussed whether it needed to be addressed at this time and whether government needed <br />to be regulating life style choices by ordinance. <br />The City Council also discussed that tobacco would be allowed at events in parks through <br />a Special Event Permit. For example, the Hugo Lions Club applies annually for a Special <br />Event Permit for Good Neighbor Days to allow for alcohol to be served, amplified music <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.