community services advisory...

Community Services Advisory Commission December 13, 2016

Minutes

Commission Members: Present: Ann Bohman, Thomas Strup, Mindy Carr Marilyn Baker, Stephanie Hall, Vladmir Kapustin – via conference call

Absent: Christine Gawronski

Staff Members Present: Michelle Crandall, Asst. City Manager Megan O’Callaghan, Public Works Director Beth Lozier, Operations Administrator, Public Works Guests: Katelyn Neil, 8411 Greenside Drive – Dublin Resident

Ashlie Mohar, 7220 Hopewell Street – Dublin Resident Charlie Broschart, Franklin County Public Health Mitzi Kline, Franklin County Public Health Ryan Sullivan, Shaker Heights Science Team Committee Dr. Philip Stoddard – via conference call

I. Call to Order Ms. Bohman established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. CSAC member Vladimir Kapustin was out of town and attended the meeting via conference call. II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. III. Approval of Meeting Minutes Minutes from the November 15, 2016 CSAC meeting had been previously distributed via email for review. Ms. Bohman asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, Mr. Strup moved for approval, seconded by Ms. Hall. All in favor, the minutes were approved. IV. Mosquito Management Ms. Megan O’Callaghan, Director of Public Works, greeted the CSAC members and introduced Charlie Broschart and Mitzi Kline from Franklin County Public Health (FCPH) and Beth Lozier, who handles the mosquito management program for the City and serves as the liaison with Franklin County Public Health as the program is administered. She commented that she would briefly provide a recap of the program, since it was discussed last month and there have been discussions as a part of the commission process. She will then turn it over to Mr. Broschart so he can discuss his highlights from his presentation at the last meeting in regards to the research and background behind the program. Then we will discuss staff’s recommendation regarding the future of the program and follow‐up with next steps.

DRAFT

CSAC Minutes 12/13/16 of 14

Ms. O’Callaghan began her PowerPoint presentation, included herein, stating that she was providing a recap of the content discussed at the October 11, 2016 and November 15, 2016 CSAC meeting, Follow‐up documents were also provided by email to CSAC.


Ms. O’Callaghan stated that during this CSAC process staff provided a program overview at the October 16, 2016 meeting. At the November 15, 2016 we had a more in depth discussion and FCPH presented and we discussed all of the components and tools that are a part of the program. Mr. Broschart was able to answer any questions that the commission members had. We also had a couple of residents participate at that meeting, so CSAC had the opportunity to hear their concerns and thoughts about the program. Following that meeting the commission had requested information from staff and FCPH as follow‐up, so we performed additional research and worked with FCPH and provided follow up to the commission on November 28, 2016. All along the way we have received citizen input via email, meetings and through CSAC. We’ve done a lot of benchmarking with various communities and data gathering. This evening we are providing a recap and providing staff’s recommendation. The plan will then be to have commission discussion and have the commission make a recommendation to City Council on the future of the mosquito management program. With that being said, Ms. O’Callaghan asked Mr. Broschart to touch highlights from his presentation from the last meeting. One of the reason’s we are doing this again is because we have a couple of interested parties that might be interested in this and we thought it would be a good idea to touch on the highlights again before the commission. Mr. Broschart, Franklin County Public Health, introduced himself and began his PowerPoint presentation, included herein, providing a recap of the information discussed in detail at the November 15, 2016 meeting.


Ms. O’Callaghan said now that staff and FCPH have both provided a recap of information, along with all of the information supplied over the last few months, she would like to proceed with the staff recommendations as follows.

Continue to contract with FCPH to participate in their Integrated Mosquito Control and Management services including all elements of the program. o The City contracts with FCPH for a number of services, mosquito management being just one of

them. o FCPH is well situated to administer this program for the region because their agency’s mission is

to improve the health of the community by preventing disease, promoting healthy living, and protecting against public health threats through education, policies, programs and partnerships.

o FCPH has the resources and the expertise and they are able to stay up‐to‐date on the research and the available tools. They are able to do this for the entire region, so staff believes it’s an efficient and effective process. We have had success with the program over the past several years that we have been contracting with them.

o For the entire region, it is a cost effective tool that is available to the jurisdictions in the region to participate in.

o In benchmarking and research, we were not able to find any other program with more comprehensive tools that would be more effective than those used by FCPH.

Increase communication and education about the integrated program and it’s components o We will take a fresh look at our communication tools and the education efforts to make sure we

are doing everything we can utilizing all the tools that are available to us to increase and


expand those tools about the entire integrated program, instead of just communicating about spraying efforts and mosquito population.

Ms. O’Callaghan noted the next steps include the commission to discuss the topic this evening. There are residents in attendance that are interested in speaking. Then the commission will make a recommendation for City Council. The next City Council meeting is January 10, 2017. There will need to be a recommendation drafted in preparation for that meeting, then it would be presented to City Council at that meeting.


Ms. Bohman opened to meeting to input from the public. She asked that as public come up to speak that they introduce themselves. Ashie Mohan, Dublin resident, invited two guests to speak on behalf of mosquito control. She introduced Ryan Sullivan, PhD co‐chaired the Chemical Intervention Committee of the West Nile Virus Community Task Force of Shaker Heights She also introduced Dr. Philip Stoddard, who is joining the meeting via conference call. She said Dr. Philip Stoddard would discuss mosquito control in South Miami. Mr. Sullivan discussed his experience with mosquito control in Shaker Heights, Ohio. Some of the main points are as follows:

Shaker Heights created a committee to research West Nile Virus and mosquito control

Conducted an information campaign on how to reduce standing water

Discussed the differences between larviciding and adulticiding practices Success due to larviciding and education on eliminating standing water in the community

Ms. Carr asked how many years Shaker Heights has been utilizing this type of program and who administers the larvicide. Mr. Sullivan replied the community has been participating since 2002 and the City administers the program. Katelyn Neil, Dublin resident, asked Mr. Sullivan if he could use his background in organic chemistry to explain if Pyrethroids and Permethrin are toxic. She has found in her research that it is toxic, but is being told it is not. Mr. Sullivan commented there does not seem to be a very good answer for that. They are some toxicity, but of low concentrations. There is some reference to this topic on the EPA


website. Ms. Neil then asked if we should assume it is safe until proven that it’s not safe. Mr. Sullivan replied that we should assume it is not safe until it’s deemed to be safe. Mr. Broschart said FCPH has never gone on record saying they are not toxic. If you read the label, they are toxic to fish and can be toxic to bees; and under a certain level of exposure to Pyrethroids can effect a nervous system. The amount on the label that we apply is what the EPA is saying is not toxic and at this level when it is applied and does get on the playground equipment it breaks down. We try to do more at a minimal risk to humans and to the environment in the attempt of controlling mosquitos. Ms. O’Callaghan asked Mr. Broschart if he would talk about the larviciding procedures. Mr. Broschart said that FCPH has cataloged through GPS all the catch basin locations in Dublin. We know at this point which ones collect water on a routine basis and we study the inventory every year and treat those catch basins. We time the treatment when it is appropriate based on dryness. There are numerous tools used with larviciding to make sure it’s working properly. Mr. Stoddard commented that his community has been much more effective in using larvicide than they have been spraying. The spraying has only proven a 9% reduction. (Mr. Stoddard left the conference call) Ms. Neil said there are two categories of concern: toxicity and effectiveness. She said in Dublin and Franklin County larviciding is not enough so, FCPH also does spraying. Ms. Lozier commented that spraying is an action that is taken if disease is detected. Ms. Neil’s concern is that if West Nile virus is detected then FCPH sprays. If the virus is still active and FCPH keeps spraying then she didn’t feel the spraying was effective. They sprayed seven times in the same area. There is no proof that spraying actually reduces the West Nile virus cases. Dublin has the same amount of people that have been contracted with West Nile virus as Cuyahoga and Hamilton Counties and those areas don’t spray. Mr. Broschart commented that the West Nile virus typically gets detected in the dry months of July, August and into September. Traditionally that’s how the disease functions through the year. As we start to see the population increase FCPH will increase the larviciding efforts. The mosquito population regenerates within a two week time‐frame so while spraying targets some of the adult mosquitoes, there is yet another hatch of mosquitos that need controlled and this is why FCPH continues to provide surveillance and treat as necessary. Ms. Baker commented that in the documentation there were applications of spraying repeated in one area and then spraying in different areas, there is not documentation of seven applications in one area. Ms. Neil thanked the commission for the clarification, as it was seven applications in Dublin overall. Ms. Neil asked why the larviciding is showing effective in Shaker Heights, but not in Dublin. Mr. Strup commented that it could have something to do with the fact that the geographic size of the two communities are not comparable. Ms. Carr also commented that not all areas of Dublin were sprayed. Some areas were sprayed more than others and some areas were not sprayed. Ms. Baker added that some areas of Dublin have more natural geographic areas, such as streams and ponds and that could also be a determining factor.


Mr. Broschart commented that surveillance is a factor also. FCPH is one of the better health departments in the state that do surveillance. FCPH set traps weekly and collect mosquitos from May until early October, to constantly sample. In doing a search of the statewide health departments, Mr. Broschart could only locate four occurrences of Shaker Heights submitting samples to the State health department. Mr. Sullivan commented that Shaker Heights monitors it in the early stages. Mr. Broschart stated that it is important to monitor it at the adult stages and surveillance is so important because the virus activity varies from year to year. Ms. Neil stated that she hopes that her efforts will somehow effect the program and reduce the amount of spraying occurs and that the City will use a more natural approach to mosquito control. Ms. Mohan requested to see the reports on larviciding, because she wasn’t even aware that the City was using larvicide. She assumed the City was only spraying. Ms. O’Callaghan stated that there are numerous reports submitted by the vendor that is contracted through FCPH, so the City can share any of these reports. Ms. O’Callaghan also stated that as a part of the recommendation the City will provide more information on all components of the program instead of just information on the spraying to the residents. Ms. Bohman thanked the guests for providing their feedback in regards to the mosquito management program. Ms. Bohman then asked the commission members if there were any further comments regarding staff recommendations. Ms. Baker made a motion to accept the recommendations that staff has made for City Council, seconded by Mr. Strup. Ms. Bohman commented that she would just like to make sure that staff expands the communication and education to the residents regarding the mosquito management program. Ms. Carr agreed. Ms. Bohman also commented that she would like to see more information via the website and door hangers distributed to all Dublin residents. Ms. Crandall commented that based on the number of residents, the city probably would not use door hangers for every residents. The City does send out a healthy guide brochure and staff can include information in the brochure which does go to all City residents. Ms. O’Callaghan said door hangers could always be considered in the event a trend is noted in a particular area. Mr. Kapustin also suggested providing communication through the homeowner associations. There being no further discussion, the commission voted on the motion made by Ms. Baker to accept the recommendations that staff has made for City Council and to emphasize the increased communication and education, seconded by Mr. Strup. VOTE: Ms. Carr – yes, Ms. Hall – yes, Mr. Strup – yes, Ms. Baker – yes, Ms. Bohman, Mr. Kapustin – yes. MOTION APPROVED V. Next Meeting – January 2017 Ms. Crandall stated there is a conflict with the CSAC meeting and City Council meeting on January 10th. Council typically meets on Monday, but the Council meeting has been switched to Tuesday, January


10th which is the same night this commission meets. Due to the use of the sound system, Council Chambers is the only option to have the CSAC meeting. January 17th seemed to work for most, so the CSAC meeting can be rescheduled for that date or the January meeting can be canceled and the commission can wait until February to meet. The next three to four meetings will be on Aging in Place and there will be series of speakers for the next three meetings to provide additional input regarding the topic. Ms. Baker suggested the commission meet on January 17th since there were so many meetings canceled in 2016. The other commission members agreed with Ms. Baker. The next meeting with be Tuesday, January 17th at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Baker asked if the meeting in February is on Valentine’s Day. She thought it might be a good idea to reschedule the February date if possible. Ms. Crandall said she would look into a few different options in February to find a different date for the meeting. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted by:

_________________________________ Marja Keplar, Administrative Support III Attachments: Sign‐in Sheet Resident Handouts

community services advisory...

Documents