HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-23 Board of Health Minutes w' x c Town of Reading
IsMeeting Minutes RECEIVED
I ,. ter° TOWN CLERK
"' ^°°° READING, MA.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: $019 JUN 20 FN 4Y 16
Board of Health
Date: 2019-04-23 Time: 6:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Conference Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Business Version: Draft
Attendees: Members - Present:
Kevin M. Sexton - Chair
Emmy Dove - Member
Eleanor Tate Shonkoff - Member
Heidi Pfeifer - Associate
Lara Romanowski - Associate
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Andrew Friedmann
4 Laura Vlasuk - Health Agent
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jean Delios
Topics of Discussion:
6:30 p.m. Sexton opened the meeting. No one was in attendance from the public so no
public discussion
Chair Report
Sexton noted his report would be very brief. Wants to have discussion at a future date
about the devices (e.g., juul) that are raising concerns based on recent data showing that
there are youth risks related to addiction and withdrawal related to high nicotine. Flavored
products are not allowed. Not sure what products are being used? Get someone to discuss
with the BOH the implications of this trend. Sexton noted that he could get someone in to
provide the update on this topic and have discussion about policies or other things the BOH
should be considering.
Shonkoff noted that she had some contact in North Reading. Sexton indicated that in his
role as liaison to RCASA he would like to research this more and thanks Shonkoff for her
input.
4W Health Agent Report
Food Ins- 38 (insp & reinsp) * Animal Complaints - 5 * Dumpster Issues - 2 (corrected)
Page I 1
Tobacco - Compliance Checks and Inspections have been completed and a full report will be
provided in April
Pesticides
SB Chair talked to BOH Chair and BOH Chair will follow up with Town Counsel to explore
further the nature of the policy and intent. Sexton wanted to make sure we were informing
the public and only get into fines thereafter. Town Counsel wanted to make sure we
weren't actively pursuing enforcement (which we don't have the resources for). Complaint
based protocol. Town Counsel is looking for intent. Sexton will convey to Town Counsel
what the intent was.
Inspection Tracking Spreadsheet
Dove sent some links via email to the board members. Dove wasn't looking for comparable
communities she wanted to show a range of options for how to share the data. Lots of
resources go into this kind of reporting, including software, but probably not feasible
financially for Reading. Newton and Cambridge tablet based and then uploaded. East
Longmeadow upload summary inspections by date that you just click on so it's a pdf of the
actual report. Milford is a much smaller community that provides summary reports and
then included it in the local paper. Sexton noted that Newton collaborated with the
businesses, complex scoring system, worked with the business to allow them to correct and
made it business friendly at the rollout stage. Dove noted that she thought there were
ways to work with businesses on that. Sexton wondered if an outside consultant could
assist with something like this.
Romanowski noted that she wanted to better understand what is our goal with this?
Shonkoff looked up what is required to have for information per MGL and noted it was
vague, just inspections. Dove began to search on the meeting room laptop and projected
this on the screen (and is also a live feed to RCN recording of the meeting) and pulled up
examples of a form used in Vermont. Sexton noted that he has some concerns about the
impact of complaints that may not be legitimate and could potentially hurt a business. Dove
noted that she was thinking that this would be based on routine inspections. Who will do
this was discussed, do we have the resources? Sexton felt having a third party suggest
some ideas would be a good idea.
Shonkoff noted that maybe we should be working with the business owners? Delios noted
that there were over 150 food establishments that we would need to reach out to.
Discussion ensued about bringing outside help in to handle this.
Dove thought keeping it simple would be a good approach. Eastlongmeadow lists the food
establishment and you click on it and get to a summary report.
Romanowski reiterated that she is questioning what is the problem we are trying to solve?
Is there a problem with the quality of the food? Dove stated that she was looking for the
information and that got here thinking that having the data centralized on the website could
be very useful.
Friedmann stated that the way the information was reported by the Health Agent some
years ago when he was on the BOH showed the board the number of inspections and any
critical violations. He also stated that the inspection reports were public information and
recommended distilling what the BOH wants might be a good next step. Shonkoff noted
that Newton has a nice map. The question was raised on how much information would be
available. Discussion ensued of some of the other communities and how they handled this.
Dove noted that she wasn't sure if they listed just violations. Dove described ideally how
she would like the tracking spreadsheet built with data fields showing critical and non-
critical violations and date of reinspection and if violations were corrected. Shonkoff
provided input on format as part of the discussion.
Page 12
Friedmann noted that the mission is to protect public health, not focus on being business
friendly. Friedmann continued with concerns over transparency. Sexton stated that the
transparency is in the Health Agent Repot that's in their roll. If there is an issue the
violation is already being corrected.
Shonkoff"But I do think more transparency could happen with like that kind of example you
sent around and bringing to the point I think bringing the two together business and Board
of Public Health allows us to have a conversation where the Board that says our primary
goal is protect public health but we're also interested in working with you collaboratively
and they say we definitely want our food to be safe but ya know our primary goal is to be
sustainable as a business though to the extent that we could do that. I think it makes
almost a stronger voice for protecting public health. If we can have a clear priority stated
with working with the businesses rather than surprising them."
Food grades were discussed and the merits of how it works was debated. Vlasuk indicated
that there is some question as to the usefulness of the grading system.
Sexton summed up the BOH's position that more data points would be the goal. Bringing in
the public including businesses that could be affected would be a good idea Sexton stated.
Delios offered to do some research on a consultant and possibility of funds to support that
effort. Sexton suggested that maybe we invite the Master Plan consultant to the next
meeting (Peg Saladie).
What data, how to present the data, and how to collaborate with the businesses was the
goal as stated by Shonkoff and as the BOH concurred.
Review of Minutes
Minutes were discussed and corrections noted. Motion by Dove, 2"d by Shonkoff to accept
minutes 3-0-0 the minutes were approved.
Friedmann reminded any members up for re-appointment to get their application into the
Town (interviews in May, appointments in lune). Shonkoff already re-applied.
Motion to adjourn by Dove, 2"d by Shonkoff 7:35 p.m.
64.1
Page 1 3
caw
SECTION I — Intent
The Board of Health does hereby find that:
All pesticides are toxic to some degree and the commonplace, widespread use of
pesticides is both a major environmental problem and a public health issue.
All citizens, and in particular children, as well as other inhabitants of our natural
environment, have a right to protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals
and pesticides in particular.
A balanced and healthy ecosystem is vital to the health of the town and its
citizens; and as such is also in need of protection from exposure to hazardous
chemicals and pesticides. When an activity raises threats of harm to the
environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if
some cause and effect relationships are not yet fully established; and It is in the
best interest of public health to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides on Town
owned land, ponds and waterways; to encourage the reduction and elimination of
the use of toxic pesticides on private property; and to introduce and promote
natural, organic cultural and management practices to prevent and, when
necessary, control pest problems on Town-owned land.
Accordingly, the Board of Health finds and declares that the purposes of these
Pest Management Regulations are (1) to protect the public health by restricting
the use of hazardous chemicals and pesticides on Town-owned land (2) to
guarantee the right of the residents of the town of Reading the safe use of public
land, (3) to encourage the reduction and elimination of the use of toxic pesticides
on private property.
SECTION 11 —AUTHORITY
These Pest Management Regulations are promulgated under the authority
granted to the Reading Board of Health under Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 111, Section 31 providing that Boards of Health may make reasonable
health regulations and under the authority granted to the Reading Board of
Health under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, Section 122 to make
regulations for the public health and safety relative nuisances and causes of
sickness.
SECTION III — DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases, whenever used in these Pest Management
Regulations, shall be construed as defined in this section:
The town owned land that these regulations pertain to are the sidewalks and tree
lawns.
Pests are and may be known as undesirable plants, insects, fungi, bacteria, and
rodents, birds and other animals. Common examples in turf grass and the
landscape can be, but are not limited to, crabgrass, knotweed, poison ivy, chinch
bugs, grubs, and a variety of plant pathogens.
Pesticides are defined by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
Pesticide Bureau as "substances or mixtures of substances that prevent, destroy,
repel, or mitigate pests, or defoliate, desiccate, or regulate plants."
Pesticides are poisonous substances that can have an adverse effect on the
environment or impair human health.
Herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, miticides, avicides and rodenticides are all
considered pesticides. Pesticides that are classified as known, likely, or probable
human carcinogens or probable endocrine disruptors, or those pesticides that
meet the criteria for Toxicity Category I or Toxicity Category 11, as defined by the
United States Environmental Protection Act (EPA) in section 156.10 of Part 156
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, are subject to these Regulations.
SECTION IV— PROHIBITION
The use and application of toxic chemical pesticides, by private contractors,
[and/or by citizens or others] is prohibited on all Town-owned lands.
SECTION V— CONTROL OF POTENTIAL PEST PROBLEMS
Organic Pest Management practices, i.e. natural, organic turf and landscape
cultural practices and maintenance, shall be the method of choice to understand,
prevent, and control potential pest problems;
Control products used under the terms of this Regulation shall be those products
on the approved list of NOFA/Mass. (Northeast Organic Farmers'
Association/Mass.) and/or the Organic Materials Review Institute of Eugene,
Oregon, or such other lists or products as may be approved by the Director or by
the Board of Health from time to time.
SECTION VI — EXEMPTIONS
All outdoor pest management activities taking place on Town of Reading owned
land shall be subject to these Regulations, except as follows:
1. Pesticides otherwise lawfully used for the purpose of maintaining a safe
drinking water supply.
k
2. Pesticides in contained baits or traps for the purpose of rodent control.
3. Pesticides classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
as exempt materials under 40CRF 152.25, or those pesticides of a character not
requiring FIFRA regulation.
4. The use of chemical controls as approved in advance and in writing by the
Health Agent or by the Board of Health in the event of a public emergency as
determined by the Health Agent or by the Board of Health; provided, however,
that such authority to grant a temporary waiver shall be limited to a period of
thirty days. Any waiver in excess of thirty days as to any one emergency may be
extended for an additional period not to exceed six months but only by a vote of
the Board of Health.
5. Pesticide use on school property as governed by MGL c.1326
Any Town department or contractor granted a waiver hereunder shall comply
with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts including, but not limited to those requiring notification to site
users, abutters, and the proper method for storage, application, and posting.
SECTION VII: COMPLAINTS
A. Upon first written complaints received about any practices or acts that may
violate any provision of these Regulations, the Health Agent shall document the
complaint and shall issue a copy of this regulation to the property owner.
B. Upon second and subsequent written complaints:
I. If theHealth Agent finds that an investigation is not required because the
alleged act or practice is not in violation of these Regulations, the Health Agent
shall notify the complainant of such finding and the reasons upon which it is
based. The Health Agent shall provide a report to the Board of Health of all such
complaints and findings.
. ii. If the Health Agent finds that an investigation is warranted, the Health
Agent shall investigate and if the Health Agent finds that there has been a
violation of these Regulations, then the Health Agent and/or Board of Health shall
be authorized to take such action and institute such proceedings as are provided
by law.
SECTION VIII —VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or apply any toxic chemical
pesticides on any town owned land except as specifically authorized in these
Regulations.
0 B. Any person who violates any provision of these Pest Management
Regulations shall be subject to a fine of(50.00) dollars for a first offense and
(100.00) dollars for second and subsequent offenses.
C. Each application of a prohibited product shall be deemed to be a separate
offense.
D. Citations for violations of these Pest Management Regulations may be in
such form as the Board of Health may determine.
E. In addition to the penalties provided for hereunder, the Board of Health shall
have the authority to file a civil suit for damages to compensate the Town for all
costs incurred as a result of violations of these regulations.
SECTION X - OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS
These Pest Management Regulations shall not be interpreted or construed to
permit the application or use of pesticides or other hazardous materials where
such use or application is restricted by other applicable health, environmental,
safety or fire codes, regulations or statutes.
SECTION XI — SEVERABILITY
If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of these Pest Management
Regulations or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions of these Pest
Management Regulations that can be given effect without the invalid provision,
clause, sentence, or paragraph, and to this end the provisions are declared to be
severable.
SECTION XII: EFFECTIVE DATE
These regulations shall be effective upon publication.
Adopted:
By the Board of Health etc.
`r
4V This proposed policy came by way of two former members of the BOH and I believe it was
initiated by public comment? It was a copied version from the Marblehead BOH who has had
their policy in place since the 80's I believe. The intent is to stop the use of harmful pesticides on
all town owned land, specifically targeting Uee lawns along the road ways. As the SB holds
ownership over those lands, your board needs to decide if they want to adopt this policy or not. If
you adopt it you would be agreeing to have the Health Department oversee it.
There have been many discussions at the BOH on this proposed policy,mostly the enforcement
of it, but also the usefulness of it. We had a public hearing on it in the fall of 2017, but we have
since revised the "Complaints" and "Violations and penalties" section of it. So there could be the
need to have another public hearing on it at the SB level. At one of the BOH meetings this year
we voted to present the version you have tonight. The intent of the BOH was to use this policy
more in an educational manner, that is why we changed the first offense to a warning
accompanied by the policy, rather than a fine. The BOH struggled with this aspect of the policy,
but in the end we determined that there isn't sufficient staffing to be pro-active and we also felt
that if we are to fine someone, we would need to prove they violated the policy by sending a
sample to be tested at a lab. We looked into the cost associate with such testing and found that it
wasn't something that we could easily accomplish.
We ultimately decided that enforcement would come by way of complaints from the public or
otherwise. Upon receiving a complaint,the Health Agent is instructed to send a letter to the
household or business owner making them aware that Reading has a new policy (a copy of the
policy will be included)and that someone has lodged a complaint against them using a banned
pesticide. It will read that the first offense is only a warning of the use, but the continued use of
banned pesticides would be met with fines. Since instituting it in Marblehead, they have never
fined anyone. I spoke directly to their Health Agent and he told me that they haven't had one
complaint during his term, therefore, no one has been fined. So my hope is that with education
from the BOH on this policy if adopted,we can offer acceptable pesticides as replacements and
not have to fine as well.
Again,the intent is to remove certain pesticides from the environment, but we can't regulate over
private property if the use is allowed by the state. So this policy was to do what we can with
Town owned property,for the public good.
OIHW360 consulting
supporting leadership and transformation
DRAFT SCOPE
To: Jean Dallas
Re: Consultation to Reading Health Division and Board of Health
Date: May 16, 2019
CONTEXT
Per my recent conversation with Jean Delios, Assistant Town Manager, the Town of
Reading's Board of Health and Health Division seek a consultant's support to develop
shared priorities for what they are trying to accomplish as they enter the final year of their
strategic plan, and to consider possible approaches to clarified roles, responsibilities, and
improved information sharing between staff and the Board.
The Health Division, as well as the three-member Board of Health, has experienced
significant turnover over the past ten years, and the Health Division has been staffed using
a variety of different staffing models. These changes, along with the varied interests of
different stakeholders, have led to the Town considering an external consultant to figure out
how to best move forward.
CONSULTANT'S APPROACH
As an organizational development consultant, I hold each client as a unique partner, with a
shared commitment to reaching the desired outcomes and a focus on advancing learning
and capacity building throughout a co-designed process. I take an appreciative approach to
our work together and recognize the significance of people's histories and experiences as
key to present-day perspectives. I also value the importance of starting with the end in mind
and strive to help clients understand and navigate the gap between a desired future and
current reality. I maintain a flexible approach to planning that supports each client in
advancing our process while navigating the dynamic realities of daily organizational life. I
appreciate the significant investment of time and money a process like this entails and want
to make sure we identify the right desired outcomes and reach them both effectively and
efficiently.
CONSULTANT'S BACKGROUND
Daniel Michaud Weinstock is an organizational development consultant, facilitator and
coach that works with individuals, teams, organizations, and systems to enhance leadership
and advance mission clarity and impact. He has over 20 years of experience working with
staff, management, boards, funders and other key stakeholders in the social sector—
including nonprofit organizations, schools and school districts, and municipal agencies. He
has been a teacher, initiated and managed programs, and serves on the Board of Trustees
of various nonprofit organizations. He received his MBA from the Heller School at Brandeis
University. He is a proud husband and father of two children.
Daniel Michaud Weinstock 1
p: 617-359-9634 • e: dmw360@yahoo.com
dtnw36tl consulting
supporting leadership and transformation
PROPOSED PROCESS
Please note that this represents a potential approach based on my current understanding of
the Town's context and needs. 1 work with clients to adapt and arrive at a final agreed upon
process as we go through the initial contracting.
Possible ProcopS Ste#" Process Details
Ti nell6e
• Finalized scope of • Meeting with Assistant Town Manager and
work and signed Board of Health members to identify desired
May— contract between outcomes and process considerations for
June 2019 Town of Reading and Partnership between Town and dmw360
dmw360 consulting consulting
• Develop shared timeline and process
• Review relevant existing materials related to
the roles, responsibilities, and priorities for the
June— Health Division and Board of Health
August Assessment of current • Develop and finalize list of key stakeholders
2019 reality and stakeholder interview questions
• Conduct interviews
• Synthesize interview data
Development of • Facilitate convening of stakeholders to review
(, August— • shared articulation of and make meaning interview data and
\�I September current reality and identify key issues and priorities
2019 priorities for moving • Meeting with Assistant Town Manager and
forward Board of Health members to determine next
steps
NOTES ON PROPOSED PROCESS & COST
• In complex situations like this that include multiple stakeholders with different
perspectives, I find it important to start with an assessment phase to help develop a
shared picture of how key stakeholders understand the current situation — i.e., what are
the factors that are causing things to feel stuck
• This assessment phase helps surface opportunities and priorities for moving forward,
and we would then consider what a next phase of work could entail and whether I could
be a partner in advancing it
• The Possible Timeline is provided as an example—we would work to develop a final
timeline together
• My typical day rate is $1200/day. Depending on the number of stakeholders to be
interviewed and the duration of the stakeholder convening, I anticipate that a scope like
this could require 5—8 days of my time, with the total cost not to exceed $10,000.
Daniel Michaud Weinstock 2
p: 617-359-9634 • e: dmw360Cyahoo.com