Travis County Commissioners Court
January 24, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 1
Item 1 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed changes to chapter 57, Travis County smoking policy, of the Travis County code. I move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners, sherri phlegm, county executive for health and human services and veterans service.
thank you for this opportunity today.
we have a brief presentation to give you a time line that have resulted in this public hearing today.
back in March of 2010, Austin-Travis County health and human services department was awarded $7.4 million for two years for tobacco prevention and control initiatives.
part of that funding was made available to the community in order to promote policy which will result in tobacco cessation at work sites, faith based organizations, the community at large and in health care organizations.
the remaining balance of the total award was meant to be used to facilitate systems, policy and environmental changes in multiple city and county departments.
the community is putting prevention to work grant focuses on policy systems and environmental changes to reduce the burden of chronic disease.
we have two staff as a result of the award of this grant who have been working over the last 12 months or so and part of their work resulted in a survey of county employees.
71%, 71.6% of respondents supported a transition to a tobacco free work site for Travis County.
28.4% did not support the transition of a tobacco-free work site.
if you are looking at the slide, you'll see the red represents responses from people who indicated that they do not use tobacco.
blue represents responses from people who indicated they do use tobacco.
so most people who use tobacco are not supportive of the policy, but about with one quarter of tobacco users or 24% are supportive of a tobacco-free policy.
and people who are not supportive of the policy are about half use to be and half tobacco andhave do not.
along with the wellness clinic at Travis County we have identified free resources for people who are interested in reducing or eliminating their tobacco use.
certainly our employee wellness clinic, if you are insured through Travis County, can obtain nicotine replacement therapy as well as participate in smoking cessation group classes.
the Texas quit line is there.
and seton hogs provisions setons classes and they are available through March of 2013.
the current Travis County smoking policy was adopted October 21, 1986.
it basically says no smoking in county buildings or city vehicles.
it's important to note that Austin has a smoking in public places ordinance that applies to Travis County buildings inside the city limits, but does not apply to county buildings in the unincorporated areas.
and as we discussed with you previously, that policy requires that people be at least 15 feet from a -- from an entrance of a building in order to smoke, but we have also discussed that the policy cannot regulate activity on a public sidewalk.
the proposed policy before you is that tobacco use is not permitted by anyone at any time on Travis County property including employees, visitors, contractors, vendors, volunteers and interns.
that would include indoor and outdoor spaces, parking lots, garages and driveways.
vehicles owned or leased by Travis County including personal vehicles on Travis County's property.
appropriate signage will be posted.
it would also include a no littering provision.
it would be self-enforced and encouraged and employees would be encouraged to comply.
and a proposed implementation pending your approval would be approximately April 2 of 2012.
some of the frequently asked questions that have come up through our work with your employees on this policy, where we'll smoke or smoke, designated smoking areas are not encouraged when a policy of this nature is implemented since the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke have been documented.
how will the policy be enforced?
in an effort to promote health, we recommend no punitive action associated with if policy, however, employees are ethically obligated to comply with policies that are part of the Travis County code.
will elected officials have to comply?
this policy is thought of as a facilities policy that affects Travis County owned properties.
much like the city ordinance already in effect for public buildings in Austin city limits, the proposed policy will affect the property regardless of who uses the building as long as it is a Travis County property.
>> that opinion comes to us from legal staff, miss fleming?
>> [inaudible] thank you.
>> thank you.
who is tobacco free?
and you see there a long list of partners in our community.
active life incorporated, african-american boys and men harvest foundation, Austin community college, Austin recovery, Austin volunteer health clinic, Austin-Travis County health and human services department, Austin-Travis County integral care, capital metro, central health and community care facilities, huston-tillotson university, the mexican consulate, peoples community clinic, seton family of hospitals and st.
david's health care.
and any questions related to the work around this policy or any questions you see before you list of staff contacts that we certainly can answer any questions that staff or the public might have regarding this work and the policy that's under consideration.
>> court members, any questions for staff?
I have two.
do we know how many buildings the county owns in unincorporated areas of Travis County?
about?
>>
>> [inaudible] the opportunity incorporated areas --
>> [inaudible].
>> this is lindsay poll lick, planner with the cppw program.
>> I don't have any list with me right now, but I think there are about 25 or so in the unincorporated areas, but I couldn't tell you an exact number right now.
>> okay.
thank you.
yesterday I had a conversation with a county employee who was not aware of the fact that chewing tobacco is covered.
right?
>> yes, sir.
>> cigarettes and if you choose skoal and any other brand you are covered.
>> yes.
>> do we think we've done a pretty good job of getting out the word that chewing tobacco?
>> we've talked about any substance that delivers nicotine into the blood system including e-cigarettes to dip and cigarettes.
>> I think my response in terms of our doing a good job, we -- we went to each department or work group where we were invited.
we did not indicate that this presentation was mandatory.
we did put information out in a variety of different formats.
so there were in-person presentations, of course.
there were employee surveys.
there was various information sent out through the public announcements.
staff have also participated in a variety of events where they were clearly identified as Travis County employees and providing materials that indicated Travis County -- that we were working toward proposing a Travis County tobacco cessation policy.
you can always do a better job of communication, but we do feel like our communication plan was implemented, you know, in a highly effective manner.
>> I think for future communication, I think we ought to make it clear what's covered.
and I would state chewing tobacco among the list of things covered.
that way you clear it up.
>> okay.
>> now, I understand the language regarding designated smoking areas and why that's discouraged.
but for the employee who says I understand there's no dedicated smoking area, but where can I smoke, what's the answer?
that's the way the question will come, won't it?
>> yes.
and the answer will be at anyplace that is not a part of Travis County property.
so, for example, if you were in this building, the sidewalk is not considered Travis County's property.
so while the city ordinance does cover 15 feet from any open window or open -- you know, any door, we have been told repeatedly that, you know, there's not enforcement of the policy on the public sidewalks.
so an employee in this building could theoretically smoke on the public sidewalk.
>> I think you still need to -- the directive is in the city ordinance and I think when we talked about not regulating a sidewalk, the initial policy talked about the whole sidewalk and, say, to the middle of the street around every building and I think that's where we said you are going to get enforcement issues.
when you said 15 feet of the doorway, you haven't got the sidewalk that still applies.
that if you are going outside the building on to the sidewalk, you would still need to follow the city ordinance.
which I think the assumption would have to be most or a lot of doorways open on to a public sidewalk or right-of-way.
so I think the city ordinance was written with that limitation on it.
we're only taking 15 feet.
you have to walk that far away so that people coming in and out are not walking through smoke.
so I think we still would need -- if we're saying where can I smoke, I would not advise people to assume that the 15 feet doesn't apply.
>> whatever the answer is, needs to be in the information on the material.
those are the two or three questions that I've been hit with so far.
and I have been coy enough not to answer.
but after we approve a policy, then it seems to me that we ought to know the impact and know how it should be implemented.
I feel duty bound to address that and we may as well put it in the written materials that we distribute and I guess put up in county buildings.
that's my view.
now, mr. Reeferseed, the public will have an opportunity soon.
any more questions from the court?
>> I have a question.
>> okay.
>> have -- do we have -- I'm a little concerned about stating in our materials where -- identifying for individuals where they could smoke.
it could be as simple as saying you could smoke anywhere it's not prohibited.
>> we ought to approve the materials.
I'm not suggesting they go ahead and just write it, that they write a draft and present it to the court for to us approve.
>> okay.
my concern is that if we state in the policy where it's not prohibited in areas that are not under our control, the policy will become stale.
so if we just say here's clearly where it is prohibited by Travis County, but you are welcome to smoke anywhere it's not prohibited.
in general, people smoke in their cars.
they get in their car and light up and smoke.
I'm a ex-smoker.
there's no prohibition against that.
>> but if you are in your car on county property, you are not supposed to smoke.
>> right.
and that policy -- I think the policy needs to stay.
but I don't think the policy needs to state you can drive off property and smoke because that's opposite what we're trying to do which is discourage the introduction of nicotine into people's bodies which we have ample evidence is extremely damaging to their health.
>> we would certainly collaborate with legal on that response because it is likely that if our policy is approved and it says you can't smoke on Travis County property, adjacent to us maybe someone else's property, and so I would require legal to tell me what my recommendation could be that would, you know, face a legal test.
>> I think the county ought to -- the Commissioners court ought to address it and act on it.
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Gomez.
>> I think we need to address what was the general purpose of the whole idea of coming up with a policy.
you kind of have to go back to that, and what was the purpose of all of this -- this work that was done and what was the original intention of this policy.
it's to I think what Commissioner Eckhardt just said, it's to try to get people to use less, you know, to get off the nicotine, get off the cigarettes.
>> I don't have a strong position one way or the other except we ought to be legal and truthful.
and there's no way to look over questions that will be asked because they are being asked already.
it's just that I'm not able to answer them.
and we -- in the written materials that we distribute, then we ought to address that.
>> we're happy to do that, judge.
thank you.
>> any other questions from court members?
any comments from staff?
>> I wanted to make the court aware that the health authority is here, dr. Phil wong and I didn't know if the court wanted to hear from him first.
>> if he has something to say we certainly want to hear it right now.
doctor, do you have any comments?
nurse pena?
anybody else?
are you county staff?
then please come forth.
doctor.
>> appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about this important public health issue.
again, from my vantage point as health authority and medical director with Austin-Travis County health department, we look at the data and the leading killers in Travis County are cancer, heart disease are number 1 and number 2.
number 4 is stroke.
number 5 is chronic lung disease.
all of those are related to tobacco.
again, it's about 11 Travis County residents every week that die of tobacco related diseases and it's the number 1 preventable cause of death and disability and it's entirely preventable.
we say it kills more than aids, crack, suicides, car accidents combined.
that's why this is so important an issue.
because the policies you enact really have an important impact and there's a lot of experience with these -- we've been working with dell computer, for instance.
they went entirely tobacco free campus policy similar to what you've talked b they've shared with our mayor's fitness county and telling the other employers you can expect they will be noisy the first couple of months.
what surprised them they started getting emails from some of the employees that had been most vocally opposed to the policy and said you know what, I wound up quitting and it changed my life.
there's smoking rate among dell employees went down from 13% to 3%.
through are very few interventions that have that big of an impact.
the other thing is the economic impact.
we've estimated in Travis County it costs our county over $460 million every year tobacco use.
that's including $305 million in direct health care costs and about $155 million in lost productivity.
and as employers, employers, the county, the city, we're the ones having to pay some of the health care costs and also the health of or workforce is one of the most important things we can do.
so we know that we estimated for Austin, the city of Austin as an employer that is costing the city about $7.35 million every year, that includes 1.85 million in direct health care costs and another 5.5 million in lost productivity.
we as a city, health and human services department has adopted this policy, and again, it's not saying that people can't smoke, but it really is saying that we don't want you to use tobacco on our property.
we'll give you assistance with helping to quit.
and it's been very effective.
many of you might know linda terry, one of our employees.
she used to be david lowery's assistant.
and she was 40 plus years smoker and tells her story.
she has it on our website because all these people, 11 people every week that die are real people, your relatives, my relatives.
linda tells her story that she smoked for over 40 years.
she said she never thought about quitting.
her father died of lung cancer.
her husband developed emphysema, she not thought about quitting.
her husband was diagnosed with lung cancer and she was having to spend six to eight hours a day at seton hospital to take care of her husband.
seton had -- has a smoke-free, 100% smoke-free policy and they've upgraded to tobacco-free campus policy.
she will say it was that inconvenience of her having to walk to la meadowlands every time she wanted to smoke in a got her to first thinking bit.
she got on chantix, she quit, she showed us the diamond earrings she bought with the money saved, the opal ring she saved.
and she credits that it was that policy that helped her and gave her that extra push to quit.
this is truly a policy that changes people's lives like none other that you can almost imagine.
I hear all the time from people who say they never even realized the impact that quitting smoking would have on them.
one guy was telling me it changes the way he goes to the gas station.
now you can pay at the pump.
he said he used to have to go inside, buy cigarettes and a bunch of junk food and other stuff and now he pays at the pump.
the ripple effect of how this truly impacts real people's lives is tremendous and we hear the stories every day.
>> based on what I've heard we will do a policy.
but if we rely on volunteer compliance, we ought to make sure that we provide as much information to assist compliance as possible.
that's my concern.
my goal would be that not a single county employee would smoke.
I've never smoked myself so to me it's easy, but it won't happen overnight.
and if we adopt the policy, we need to provide information to assist those expected to comply so they can do so.
>> and I can tell you our own experience and experience we've seen with others that have implemented these sort of policies.
again, there's a compliance increases and it becomes very well come plied with and you think back, even on every policy that we've adopted, even 1990 when they first implemented the ban on airplanes, you know.
I think everyone here remembers when smoking section was one row away from the nonsmoking section in an airplane.
and when they implemented that, they said how are they going to enforce, people are going to be smoking in the bathrooms, the planes are going to be catching on fire and crashing and it got implemented and people can't imagine going back.
there was always that question how is this going to be implemented.
even when we adopted the restaurant ban in Austin in 1995 and they said -- compliance is going to be hard, no one is going to enforce it and people aren't going to like this and it's really -- you know, again, bars and music venues seemed way out there at the time and -- but the past, the restaurants didn't go out of business like they were saying they would.
we get to 2005 and we get to music venues and bars and, again, they said how are we going to enforce this stuff.
people aren't going to like it.
we're going to go out of business.
it passes, it becomes accepted and people can't imagine going back.
but every time with every one of these policies, I'll just say there's always been a question of compliance and it becomes the norm and people self-enforce, people who are nonsmokers, if there's adequate signage, people say you might not know this, this is the policy, please comply and they are actually all of them become very good compliant.
>> any questions for the doctor?
doctor, you mentioned 11 people die a week from smoke-related illnesses.
is there any statistics that can tell us how many of these persons that are passing on from smoke, smoking, how many of these persons have been attributed to secondhand smoke where they really don't smoke, but they have to inhale the smoke from others?
>> there are some estimates about that.
it's about -- I think it's one out of every nine that die of primary smoking are --
>> I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> -- are related to passive smoking, to secondhand smoke.
these those are some of the epidemiologic estimates out there.
>> any other questions?
>> that's all.
thank you, doctor.
>> yes.
your name, please.
>> my name and what?
>> any comments.
>> I'm denise mcbride.
I wanted to put a plug in for the e-cigarettes.
personally I do find it offensive to be anywhere near a billow of smoke in my person or in my face and I work with a handful of colleagues who are addicted.
I don't have an addictive personality.
I use self-control pretty much about anything, but when I do want to smoke, I use the e-cigarette.
I have two here to show you.
it's virtually water vapor.
it's not offensive.
to anyone.
so if you guys could just consider putting a spot because in the garage where we now smoke or I'm surrounded by my smokers who do, in my department or on the fourth floor of the granger building there was about ten of us.
nine addicted smokers.
I mean one after the other.
and we all bought e-cigarettes.
because I visit with them when I take my break?
>> you get those at a regular convenience store?
>> this one we bought about four years ago when they first came out online.
this one another one online.
it's a newer model, it doesn't light up so you don't get a bouncer telling you to put it out.
I think you can get them at a cigar shop.
but they are not offensive.
you take less breaks.
or the smokers take less breaks.
they are actually using them.
I encourage my smoker friends where they still hold on to a cigarette, pull this out first.
have your crutch with you.
as long as you have your crutch, and it's been working.
in the same department we are bringing down the level of how many real cigarettes are being smoked.
>> and what's your position on the proposed policy?
or do you have one?
>> well, I think e-cigarettes should be allowed because it's not offensive.
I think what the clinic here has provided with the patches and being hypnotized and there's a couple of other gimmicks that all of my -- most of my colleagues have tried and they don't work.
I think it gives them more -- I'm observing these people.
they are more angst, they are eating more.
the diet that the cafeteria serves is I think a lot more unhealthy than probably tobacco is because the amount of stress and anxiety and whatnot that everybody goes through working here or just working is what's dragging them out.
every -- probably about a half hour every hour outside.
so this can be not smoked but blowing bubbles, water vapor at your desk.
as far as the proposed policy, I think e-cigarettes, something that's not offensive.
>> thank you very much.
now, if you want to participate in this public hearing, you do not have to sign in.
you can simply come forth at this time.
and so we have four more chairs available.
please come forth and when it's your turn give us your name and we would be happy to get your comments.
two more chairs are available.
come forth.
one more.
okay.
yes, sir.
>> I was going to let him go first.
you go ahead.
>> thank you, mr. Commissioners, ma'am, Commissioners.
my name is steven dending and I'm against this new proposal.
I'm almost 51 years old.
I've been dipping tobacco for 40 years.
I started when I was about 10 years old.
I'm not going to quit.
but some of our questions is what are you going to consider Travis County property since this proposal is saying no tobacco use on Travis County property.
myself, my partner here, partner here, we do road reconstruct.
we're out in the field rebuilding our county roads.
and from what we're hearing, they are saying that that is now considered travis property, or work site, they are telling us already no tobacco on the work site.
we're out there 8 to 10 hours a day in all weather.
is that going to be considered part of the proposal, the county work sites?
or is this the county buildings?
y'all are saying two different things.
>> do we address that?
it says county work sites.
>> so a county road would be a county work site?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> we need to clarify that is what you are saying.
>> yes.
>> and you would like to see county roads not included.
>> right.
when we're out there, it's like we're putting up -- it's the stress on the road.
we're putting up with traffic, even though we have all of our safety signs up, our barricades, traffic is supposed to be stopped.
we have vehicles running through.
you know, speed limit might be 30, most of our cars are doing 50 to 55 through work zones.
myself, I've been dipping for 40 years.
craig here, he's been dipping for 30.
>> around that.
>> and it's like you going to tell us, boom, okay, you all can't have your nicotine that your body is used to, that's going to put us into a more stressed environment.
is what this proposal is coming down to.
now, I respect not using tobacco inside, inside a county building.
I'm chewing a piece of gum right now.
but as soon as I walk out this door, I'm putting in a dip of tobacco because I can't put up with with it much longer.
usually I would have a stiff bottle with me right now.
but I'm showing the respect to the Commissioners.
first thing I do in the mornings when I wake up I put a dip in.
the last thing I do before I go to bed each night I take it out.
I've got a dip in the entire day.
>> there's a difference between chewing tobacco and dipping snuff, right?
>> same thing.
dip is finer than chewing tobacco.
>> both are covered.
>> it's still considered tobacco.
cigarettes, cigars, pipe, chewing tobacco, snuff, powdered snuff.
>> okay.
>> that's what we're trying to say.
is our -- out in the middle of no place on some of our roads, now it's going to be considered -- that's going to be Travis County job site, y'all are saying no tobacco?
>> okay.
yes, sir.
>> we can just add on to his.
>> what's your name?
>> oh, craig mottage.
>> okay.
>> what some of our job sites are outside the city limits on top of that.
but with, you know, telling people they can't smoke on the job site is -- the morale is going to be crazy out there and tempers are going to flare.
you never know.
I mean, depends how bad tobacco addicts are.
two, also I was wondering when they are doing this -- seton is helping everybody, do we have to drive from our county property to wherever they are going to establish this class, or will they be able to hold whoever wants to quit coming to our town hall, then have the class there.
>> they will do work site cessation and at the clinic system.
we have like a del valle clinic site.
>> we'll try to facilitate that as much as we can.
>> because some of us live further out of town than others.
that would be like an extra 20 miles round trip, which is kind of hard to do when the gas prices are going up too now.
they are going to take our rights away doing what we've been doing, at least we have the right for them to come to us and help us.
>> okay.
we understand.
>> appreciate it.
>> who else wants to give comments during this public hearing?
hands?
okay.
one, two more.
we will need those two chairs.
come forth at this time.
>> thanks so much.
>> we've got three chairs left.
we had three chairs left.
mr. Reeferseed.
>> pardon me.
thank you, sir.
yes, I'm ronnie reeferseed and I'm in favor of the commonsensical improvements of these regulations that have been mentioned so far, but two little questions is how much money out of that 7.4 for two years, how much money is left and how much -- is it after every couple of years we've get 7.4, is it a one-time deal?
and the one statement I had worked up here while I was -- I wanted to thank, ironically, thank dr. Wong who spoke wisely about the health benefits of tobacco use cessation policies, but obviously that's very comparable to the ripple effects from all the benefits, health benefits inherent to all people with no more toxic fluoridation, sludge water for babies.
it's so ironic, dr. Wong was the one champion from poisoning the children with this fluoride.
I praise him for being here today speaking the truth so everybody can -- we're not all bad.
I want to thank him for speaking up so wisely and thank you for letting me speak on this issue.
very important.
>> thank you.
>> my name is felicia simms. Good morning to everybody on the panel.
I'm totally for the nonsmoking at the work sites or whatever.
me personally I don't smoke or dip, and the guys that I work with, they dip and smoke also, but I just think it's gross to see a spit bottle laying around in the morning time the first thing you see all day long, you get in and especially when they are dipping and have it without a lid on it.
I mean to each his own if you are going to dip, at least have it in a v-8 juice bottle or something I can't see through the bottle.
it's just like gross all day long just laying around.
I mean like I don't care that they do it because you can't make somebody stop doing what they've been doing for like all their life, but if it's a policy it's a policy and you have to stick by it.
but at least have consideration for others around you not to just have a clear water bottle full of this disgusting dip that you've just been spitting in all day long.
it's like gross.
and that's all I have to say.
I mean like I'm against -- I'm for the smoking -- I mean like I don't know how they feel about smoking in cars on Travis County policy, but if it's a policy, you have to abide by the policy however you have to do it and that's all have I to say.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir, bob barnes, I live out of webberville.
talking about abiding by policies, I was told that I could not take my trail wagon in the park no more and pick up cans because it's not street legal.
which I have been doing for years.
but they said that it's a rule that everybody has to abide by regardless.
right after that they had a reunion, they had a dirt bike, four-wheeler and they acted like that park was their own private obstacle course and nobody enforced that rule to them.
I asked one of the employees why and they said because Commissioner Davis said do not say nothing to these people.
I know some of the lamones.
but they need to abide by the same rules and I was curious why the employees was told that.
not to mess with these people.
let them do whatever they want to.
>> let me correct.
what actually happened in that particular situation is t.n.r., the
>> [indiscernible] person investigated and they made those comments.
Commissioner Davis didn't say anything.
>> you told me on the phone yourself, sir.
you yourself told me on the phone when we talked that everybody had to abide by that rule.
>> that's true.
everybody do have to abide.
>> then why do they tell me that you told them yourself not to mess with these other people.
>> no, I said everybody has to abide by the rules, enemy.
>> that's not what they told me.
>> hold on.
when I go out to the park, I have to abide by the rules even though I'm the Commissioner, I'm just like anybody else.
the rules are the rules are the rules.
and I remember when you did call, but I also had the parks department investigate this situation and, of course, after that investigation everybody must abide by the rules including me and everyone else in this room when it comes to park regulations.
thank you.
>> well, I understand that.
>> so I guess I'm trying to figure out so this is a smoking senator.
issue?
>> it doesn't have anything to do with smoking.
>> then we can't discuss it during this public hearing.
>> then I'm wasting my time.
>> yes, sir.
anybody else?
item number 1, the public hearing.
yes.
>> diane blank evenship, h.r.
director.
I'm here on behalf of my son neal.
we call him buddy.
I wanted to bring him and others like him to your attention.
he was born 15 weeks practice prematurely and he has chronic lung capacity issues and he will have that the rest of his life.
for the first year his life he was on oxygen, but because he's grown some now he does not have to be on oxygen.
he will always have lung issues.
he's been to the pulmonologist and I've been told there's no safe level of smoke for him to be around what with severe.
I think that's really important to bring to the court because even walking on the sidewalks to come up here and we were ready to jay walk, anybody who knows me knows I'm against jay walking but we were ready to jay walk so I would not have to bring him through the smoke.
there are lots of people in Travis County who have chronic respiratory issues where they are asthma, bronco pulmonary dysplasia and they have to do business with with the county and I think it's important we are contract ate of those people.
just walking through the parking lot to get to the tax office or the district court build, it endangers their lives to do that.
I wanted to make sure I brought him and others like him to the court's attention because it is a danger for them, a more significant danger and not just a nuisance.
also I want to commend dr. Wong and echo what he said happened at dell.
through two different employers I helped to implement tobacco-free premises policies.
one was back in the 90s and it was totally unheard of back then.
the other was in 2004 at the methodist hospital.
and both of those instances I had employees who were adamantly against the tobacco-free policies come and talk to me later that inside, having those policies was the impetus for them to quit.
because one of their big triggers, the coffee, smoke break, was basically not allowed anymore.
they always would come and talk to me about those triggers.
two triggers, one was happy hour and one was the coffee break.
when those triggers got removed it was much easier for them to quit.
two different employers, I've seen the exact same thing happen so I echo that and think it would be helpful for our employees who are trying to quit to implement this policy.
thank you for allowing me to speak.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe and Travis County Commissioners.
my name is jiovana, I'm a Travis County retiree and Travis County taxpayer.
I'm here today before you to express my support for the proposed tobacco-free policy for county-owned and leased property for Travis County.
I feel this is a positive step in the right direction and the care and concern Travis County has shown its employees.
where I work they also have a tobacco-free policy.
but they also have designated smoking areas away from the buildings for the folks that do smoke.
I would like to show you some of the signs that we have at the state department so if you all have an idea to be fair for the people that smoke.
away from the building.
as you can see in this picture, behind the sign is the designated area and it's away from our covered garage parking so they do have an area where they can smoke.
and it does have a sign.
it says tobacco-free property.
>> [speaking in foreign language] in regards to parking they have a small sign that says smoking in this area only.
no smoking.
this is their smoking area.
as you can see they have tables and it's away from on the right side of the covered garage parking.
and we have the tobacco-free property signs.
and also the trash cans have nonsmoking so people will not throw their tobacco products inside the trash cans.
and that's-that's pretty much what I wanted to say.
I don't smoke.
my wife and my daughter unfortunately are smokers, but they do respect that I've had pneumonia before, walking pneumonia and therefore I had bronchitis so they smoke outside in the patio so they do not smoke in our cars or inside our house.
having to be a democratic party they respect my
>> [indiscernible] we have a greenbelt so they don't bother anybody.
by the way, I just wanted to congratulate you all on your combined charity figures.
I know the figures went out, so good job.
good work for you guys.
and I'm going to leave these pictures here and you can see them.
thank you very much for listening to me.
>> anybody else?
last call.
I have two or three questions, miss fleming and staff.
first one is what's the answer to mr. Reeferseed's question about the grant?
one-time grant?
multiple years?
what happens to the rest of the money?
et cetera.
>> the $7.4 million was awarded to the city of Austin.
we are a subgrantee to the tune of about $200,000.
and so as far as we are concerned, once we finish this project at the end of February, we do not anticipate any additional funding for this purpose.
and I think dr. Wong can speak to the uses at the city level.
>> dr. Wong.
>> yes, it was a two-year grant.
it's concluding at the end of March.
all of the funds will be extended.
it was, again, promoting policy system environmental change throughout the community.
you saw in sherry's presentation, many of the other organizations that have already adopted some of these similar policies and we've been working with many of them.
huston-tillotson university, Austin-Travis County integral fair, acc, many others that have been partners with this effort.
seton hospital, again, we've been funding the cessation efforts in their cessation program that they've been working on.
we've been funding all of the indigent care providers through the icc that they've been implementing clinical system changes where they've modified their electronic medical records so every patient coming through all of their systems are assessed for tobacco use and referred to some of these cessation services.
all of those sites also have adopted tobacco-free campus policies.
central health, community care, lone star circle of care, people's community clinic.
again, those are just some of the things that have been implemented with this.
>> so does the -- does the city policy cover construction sites on city roads and away from buildings but still on city property?
>> right now the city -- our health and human services department policy covers all of our work sites campuses.
we do not have -- we are working on expanding it throughout other departments.
as you might have heard our parks and rec went entirely smoke free, I think it was passed in developments our public libraries are going tobacco-free campus policies in February.
we're sort of moving forward with with the other departments and we do not have one right now that includes the construction sites.
>> the city's is a phased implementation with -- we have that option as well to do a phased implementation.
if the court has interest in that, staff can provide that.
>> so at this point -- I'm sorry, judge.
>> go ahead.
>> at this point we do not have a policy that covers what the gentleman described earlier as far as the dippers and on road sites, there's no -- nothing exists to cover that.
and I guess or sit contingent on what the city does and then we do it later.
>> you currently have a smoking policy.
it does not cover dip or any other form or use of tobacco.
it's a smoking policy.
it says no smoking in certain places.
>> our frequently asked questions we deal with smokers.
we need to broaden that language.
>> judge, I have one more, and I used to be an avid smoker.
I used to smoke pipes and cigarettes and cigars and I haven't smoked in, goodness, over a decade.
and, of course, it was a situation where when I did smoke, it was a situation where the -- the remnants of that, the odors from the -- from what I was smoking was in my clothes and when I got around people, you could really tell they didn't appreciate that smell that I was carrying.
it would even -- it would even come through the pores of my skin that is correct odor.
skin, that odor of tobacco.
and I asked a question earlier, and I quit cold turkey.
I just stopped.
one day I looked in the mirror and said I don't want to do that anymore and I haven't since.
but what I'm saying is this, I'm concerned about those that are smokers.
of course, I wish no one did that, but -- but the encroachment of the passive situation, the passive exposure to that -- to that tobacco use is what immoral I'my concerned about.
and I asked some statistical questions earlier about the number of deaths that's been realized in Travis County on a daily basis and that's unfortunate really sad news.
but at the end of the day, has there been any, any measurement available anywhere in this country, anybody that's implementing such a program that has showed after policies such as this has been initiated and forth going the evidence of a reduction health-wise, a reduction in persons cutting back, a reduction on related deaths from passive tobacco smoke?
has there been any evidence to suggest that at this point?
>> there have been studies.
the first was in helena, montana, looking at the implementation of -- that was an indoor smoke-free policy and they did show reductions in hospitalizations for acute heart attacks.
those have been replicated in other communities so there's certainly evidence for the positive impact of these policies that restrict exposure to ?ekd.
secondhand smoke.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> the backup suggests an April 2nd implement nation date?
>> yes, sir.
>> when do you expect to bring the policy back to court for further consideration?
>> we could bring it back as soon as next week or at the court's suggestion.
just as a reminder and for the benefit of those who are listening, the acceptance of this grant required us to propose and recommend to you a policy.
it does not dictate your action.
and so therefore it is the court's prerogative as to where you want to go next.
but staff is prepared to answer the questions to provide you with either a 100% implementation plan or a phased implementation plan if that's your direction, but we could certainly the depth, the breadth of your direction may impact when we can bring it back to you, but we are ready with some of those pieces to be back next week if that's your direction.
>> we have the city's current policy and I guess through the news we've learned of sort of suggested additional action.
so can we get in writing what the city is considering doing, I guess instead of considering what the city will probably do?
I mean it seems to me that if we ought to very closely the same policy to the extent possible.
because county buildings that are located within the city must comply with the city ordinance anyway, right?
>> yes.
>> unless ours is deeper.
>> more restrictive.
>> your request would be that the county go in the same process as the city has as far as the code and the policy language?
yeah, I'm not thinking about process as much as the language itself.
that may be the reason why we don't want to follow their lead, but if they are doing it and it makes sense, I think we ought to at least consider it.
>> we definitely have model policy, the policy hhsd has implemented that we can share with you.
Williamson county has already adopted a similar policy.
>> I think that our list of frequently asked questions should be supplemented.
>> we're happy to do so.
>> there are four or five other questions that ought to be on the business and we ought to provide the best answers we can.
>> yes.
and I believe we have a longer list.
we sort of picked out what we felt might be the most salient points for the presentation, but I think we have at least five or six questions on the other list.
>> I'm not the smoking guru but some county employees think I am so I've got four or five questions we ought to at least consider adding.
>> be happy to.
>> court members, anything else?
two weeks?
>> two weeks works.
>> that will keep us on the April 2nd time line.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you, judge.
>> always a pleasure to interact with you.
move that we close the public hearing an item number 1.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
2 we take up at 1:45 this afternoon.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Subscribe for updates