Yeah, I can have the pocket.

I just have the meeting is being recorded and summarized.

We don't have the system.

No committee report just saw one page.

Okay, we're on.

We're live.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to legislation part two today.

Um I will uh call a roll for legislation.

Um I am here.

Committee vice chair and memorial here.

Uh board by uh board vice chair clemence.

Uh minority leader cunzla.

Legislator barr?

Yeah.

Legislator no one?

Yeah.

Legislator Puja.

Here.

Legislator Uli.

And Chairman Gashi.

Yeah.

Okay.

We are uh we have started at 125 p.m.

And we're going to open up health.

And um I will call the role Chair Willis Johnson.

Um I'm here.

Legislator Ignamora.

Here Pierce.

Yeah.

Right.

And we are open at when you 25.

All right.

So um we have for today um two items or same item on for discussion.

And one is the uh setting a public hearing and one is the local law.

This is item number 2026 212 and 213.

Um setting uh a public hearing for local law, which would amend the laws of Westchester County to establish a rebuttable presumption in regards to the possession of flavored nicotine vapor products in the town of Westchester, and uh with us today to to talk about this uh public this local law.

We have uh law department you'd like to join us at the uh table and just say your name and uh office would uh record just me, assistant chief deputy county attorney.

Thank you for joining us, and I'll note that uh we're also joined uh by chairwoman um committee Jewel Williams Johnson online and so you I open the floor to uh the law department.

So we were here last time um on this and the camouflage um fate law discussion that the committees wanted to add to the rebuttable presumption, um possession of the camouflage vape products as well, uh similar to what we were already what we're already before the board for flavor vape products, so we did um provide and you should have in front of you um revisions to the local law.

Uh the substantive revisions are highlighted.

There are some commas and other little minor myths that we also fixed in that um but we want to run through those, make sure the committees were good with these changes, and then there we all have to tweak if so we'll have to tweak the resolution for public hearing as well to reflect in the name of the law um since this is no longer just labor vape.

So one of the changes is changing the title agency highlighted to possession of certain vapor products because it's now two different categories.

Um then we've added in uh that language.

Now there was also discussion last time about whether to use packages or packets to refer to the flavored vape products.

Um we figured the easy we just voice to refer to both, so we have that change in here.

Um possession of four or more individual packages or packets.

Uh we added in the last sentence on the rebuttable presumption for the camouflage e-cigarette um or vaping products.

Uh we did in here mirror the same possession of four or more.

Um we feel that you know just maybe it makes sense.

You know, if somebody has one, it's not necessary presumption that they're trying to sell that, they make that maybe their own personal, which we thought that that seemed to make sense line up with the presumption in the other and we just added in the rest of the language necessary to apply the presumption situation.

with a camouflage e-cigarette um or vaping products uh we did in here mirror the same possession of four or more uh we we feel that you know just maybe it makes sense you know if somebody has one it's not necessarily presumption that they're trying to sell that they make that you may be their own personal so we thought that that seemed to make sense line up with the presumption and the other we just added in the rest of the language necessary to apply the presumption situation any uh any legislators members that want to comment or any questions thank you um so it doesn't say anything about uh what is the enforcement mechanism on this this is the department of health enforcers so this would be so um when they because I know and and I know that uh this derived from the fact that they go in and inspect and they couldn't go into say the back room and see what was in stock they could only see what was on the shelf it doesn't change any as we discussed last time the extent you know there was a discussion about potentially a license or something that gives some broader enforcement powers that's uh uh bigger fish to fry so this is just in these two situations um it creates the rebuttable presumption so they don't have to prove it's being off for sale here the possessor has to prove that they're trying to solve it online so that still doesn't give them access to other than the front it doesn't give them access to anymore to anything that they would not otherwise have access to okay so that's the next step if you want to do that that's a separate you would do that separately yes and that would come through licensing the shops or funding the sale or something like that.

That would require more research and discussion as to what the options are okay um that's okay.

Thank you Mr.

Chairman uh so taking Nancy's question about enforcement to the next step right so is is it the department health that does enforcement yes and then reviewable is by article 78 yeah okay all right thank you the department the department slash the board of health right yeah okay the board of health makes the ultimate decision right the department staff obviously okay okay but it's yeah there's no no local law enforcement you know unless it's entirely this is yeah department yeah no no thank Ms.

Jones no so just the way it would play out so if they the department of health were doing a um listing whatever they call those operations where they send in you know well in this case it's not even underage it's somebody to purchase this item and they sell it to them obviously that's a problem but if they walk in and they just see it on the shelf there they see four packets or four of these things out in the open they can give a ticket and then the vendor has to prove by preponderance of the evidence that it's only there for purposes of selling out of state around your correct okay okay all right I almost feel like oh Williams Johnson uh thank you Mr.

Chair and thank you legislative bar for um sharing a former in person um can you please uh expand a little bit on what how you came up with the quantity of four or more is there a precedent for that and other legislation other municipalities we got the um number four from other laws um new york cities um presumption has four there's a lot of I saw california that uh has four and a number of other um presumptions and other jurisdictions um yes okay thank you all right thank you uh almost feel like we gotta drag it out yeah well we have to have multiple motions at this Mr.

Chairman I just want to congratulate my colleague uh Leslie Williams Johnson for you know putting this together I know this is long road um and uh you know I I know you're literally uh not here but thank you so much but thank you so much for all of your efforts on this and I'm very proud to be supporting this today.

But thank you so much for all of your efforts on this, and I'm very proud to be supporting this today.

Thank you.