Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.b. Committee Minutes-Administration 05-12-2020 Page 1 of 18 Item 15.b. k�*k CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT May 21, 2020 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT SUBJECT: MAY 12, 2020 -ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE - CHAIR WILLIAMS AND PRESIDENT MCGILL Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1.ADMI N Committee Minutes 05-12-20 2. (Handout) Item 4.a. Productivity Analysis Presentation May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 476 of 505 Page 2 of 18 Arlai CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9,4553-A392 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: MICHAEL R.MCGILL CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA President SANITARY DISTRICT TAD JPILECKI President Pro Tem ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE PAUL CAUSEY JAMES A.NEJEDLY DAVID R, WILLIAMS MINUTES PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX. (925)372-0192 Tuesday, May 12, 2020 www.centr-alvan.org 8:30 a.m. Executive Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California (A11 attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Chair David Williams Member Mike McGill Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Kenton L. Alm, District Counsel Katie Young, Secretary of the District Ann Sasaki, Deputy General Manager Phil Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Emily Barnett, Communications and Intergovernmental Relations Manager Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager John Huie, Information Technology Manager Stephanie King, Purchasing and Materials Manager Melody LaBella, Program Manager for Resource Recovery Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager Neil Meyer, Plant Maintenance Division Manager Kevin Mizuno, Finance Manager Teji O'Malley, Human Resources Manager Lori Schectel, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Division Manager Paul Seitz, Collection System Operations Division Manager Alan Weer, Plant Operations Division Manager Tim Potter, Environmental Compliance Superintendent Donna Anderson, Assistant to the Secretary of the District Angela Taliani, Administrative Services Supervisor May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 477 of 505 Page 3 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 2 1. Public Message Regarding COVID-19 This meeting was held in accordance with the Brown Act as in effect under the State Emergency Services Act, the Governor's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19, and the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 that allowed attendance by Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference, video- conference, or both. The agenda included instructions for options in which the public could participate in the meeting. 2. Call Meeting to Order Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. 3. Public Comments None. 4. Agenda Items a.* Receive report on impacts to productivity from teleworking and other work schedule changes due to Central San's COVID-19 responses Mr. Bailey said the report was the culmination of an effort by management staff to quantify the financial impacts on Central San of efficiency losses resulting from staggered work schedules and teleworking implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and shelter-in-place orders that began in mid-March. He said the Board had given him the authority to determine those employees who needed to remain on site and those who could productively telework. The objective has been to provide a comparable level of service to customers while keeping employees and customers safe. At the same time, Mr. Bailey said it was important for us to be accountable for any reductions in efficiency and effectiveness during the modified working arrangements because staff continues to be paid 100% of their salaries. Mr. Bailey said there is room for tightening up the definitions and scope in certain areas of the report. Still, he wanted it presented to the Committee to highlight some of the ways employees who are working remotely have been utilizing their time and to assess the success of that effort. He urged the Committee to ask tough questions to enable him and the management team to understand where there may be weaknesses. He said the entire management team had helped with the assessment, and all were present at this meeting to respond to questions. May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 478 of 505 Page 4 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 3 Mr. Leiber reviewed the presentation that had been distributed before the meeting (attached), which offered a high-level overview of how the report was developed and summarized the conclusions to date. Member McGill said he was amazed at how efficient and effective staff has remained during the pandemic. He also appreciated Mr. Leiber's presentation, stating that it helped pull together all the various data points. In terms of planning for the future, Member McGill opined that the work environment modifications could be necessary for perhaps 18-36 more months. A one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work for Central San, given that it is a unique organization with a plant operation, collection system operation, a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection facility, and a laboratory. He said it is important to be careful about measuring efficiency going forward relative to pre-CO VID-19 conditions. There will be a "new normal"in which efficiency will drop somewhat due to the increased need for social distancing, additional hand washing, and cleaning of workspaces. He said that must be the baseline if comparisons are to be made. Employees need to be safe, and feel safe, yet still be able to get the work of the District accomplished. He asked how work could be restructured so more of it can be done remotely over an extended period, adding that he was anxious to hear suggestions from staff as to how they could do their jobs going forward without so many having to be in cubicles at the District. Chair Williams said he held a slightly different view from Member McGill. While acknowledging that these are challenging times due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, he questioned Member McGill's projection of an 18- to 36- month period during which work modifications might be needed. He said the Board needs information to make informed policy decisions and those decisions should be based on the following three goals: 1. Keeping employees as safe as reasonably possible; 2. Keeping the public as safe as reasonably possible; and 3. Delivering the essential public services in the best way possible. Before sharing his comments on the report, Chair Williams wanted to be sure he was accurately interpreting the report's conclusions. In looking at the summary table, and taking a very high-level view, the report concluded that during the current period (May 4-June 30, 2020) Central San employees are essentially performing at a 96% productivity level. He said he was struggling with that figure, particularly in terms of the services that the public is used to receiving. Chair Williams acknowledged that in recent decades, technology has allowed many of society's functions to be conducted electronically, such as bill paying. Fundamentally, however, he said society functions based May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 479 of 505 Page 5 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 4 on human interactions. Central San has spent nearly 75 years developing the most efficient and effective model for providing its essential services, which includes round-the-clock human interaction with machinery and other infrastructure, conducting tours, performing inspections, discussing building plans, etc. That human contact touches every workgroup at Central San. For that reason, he said the goal should be getting back in a safe manner, to the most efficient and effective model that existed before COVID-19 as quickly as possible, and he believes the way to do that is by getting everyone back to work as soon as possible. He said his problem with the report is that the data does not appear to support that goal. The data seems to support that staff is remaining busy as opposed to how the individual workgroups should be working toward achieving the most efficient and effective model to provide services to the public at the level that existed before COVID-19. If the Board were to take the data in the report at face value, Chair Williams said it would be making policy decisions based on being a mere 4% away from the most efficient and effective model for providing public services before COVID-19. Perhaps that would result in some minor tweaks to close the 4% gap, but it would largely allow the current situation to continue with more than half of staff working in a non-physically- interactive model. The Board would logically move to reap the cost benefits of not needing some physical facilities (office buildings, HHW, permit counter, etc.) and would also move to reduced work hours to provide the essential services since the data would imply fewer work hours are needed. Chair Williams said the Governor understands the importance of getting the entire state back to the model of human interaction in the most efficient and effective way and has issued guidelines to allow that to occur while still providing reasonable public safety protections. He said the guidelines apply to businesses that were not deemed essential, including restaurants, curbside retail, etc. The Governor knows the state is suffering, and it will get worse if things are not opened. Chair Williams said Mr. Bailey was given the authority by the Board to continue to pay employees but also to get them back to work while taking reasonable safety precautions. In his belief, the pre-COVID-19 work model is the most efficient and effective for providing the public services paid for by the ratepayers. So, absent evidence to the contrary, efforts should focus on moving back to the pre-COVID-19 work model using the state guidelines. In terms of the data provided in the report, Chair Williams said it gives him little meaningful information on what the gap is between the pre- and post- COVID-19 work models. He believes it is significantly larger than 4%. May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 480 of 505 Page 6 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 5 Thus, the data is of little help to him as a Board Member in making policy decisions going forward. The focus should be on the three goals he stated earlier to guide how urgent the situation is and to figure out ways to get employees back to work safely. Member McGill said the world is dealing with an unprecedented situation, making it very difficult to know what is right. He appreciated the multiple points of view and acknowledged that he was a bit concerned that Chair Williams did not believe the data in the report. Chair Williams said his concern was that the data did not address the right question, which is, what is the gap between the most efficient and effective model before COVID-19 and where the District is at today? As stated earlier, he believed the gap is much larger than 4%. Member McGill said he would need something that would illustrate the gap and was unsure as to how that could be measured. Member McGill also expressed concern about returning to pre-COVID-19 life. For example, restaurants will be very different in the future. People will behave differently. He said the pandemic has forced educators, who may have been reluctant in the past to embrace the concept of distance learning, to realize that online instruction can be very efficient and effective. Mr. Bailey said he understood both perspectives expressed by the Committee Members. He acknowledged that these are very unusual times, and the things that trigger people to adjust to change will differ. From his standpoint, it was essential to understand the data, whether it is good, bad, or ugly. It was also important to determine what should be measured and how it should be measured to produce meaningful information. As he was reviewing the information in the report, it struck him that some of the line items were more qualitative than quantitative. For example, when it says 16% of a teleworking employee's time is spent supervising, the question becomes, can an employee effectively supervise from home? If the answer is 100% yes, that is in effect saying there is no difference supervising from home versus the office. Similarly, when someone has a teleconference or videoconference appointment with their doctor versus seeing the doctor in person, it is different. If anything is lost in either of these processes, what is the best way to measure the loss? There needs to be some way to measure the effectiveness of doing things remotely versus on-site. Mr. Bailey said there is room to tighten up the data, especially thinking about the long term. Teleworking is one means to optimize social distancing guidelines, but staff still must be held accountable. He said he will work with staff to perfect the elements of the measure. May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 481 of 505 Page 7 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 6 Mr. Leiber agreed with Chair Williams in that the analysis went only so far because it did not address some of the issues to which he alluded. For example, how long does it take to process an invoice pre- and post- COVID-19. He said the data could be gathered to that level of detail, but the current report was not that granular. Relative to supervision, Member McGill said his, Chair Williams', and Mr. Bailey's generations learned to supervise in person, where visual cues can be beneficial. While he would still prefer to conduct supervisor meetings in person, he has learned over the past month or two that it is possible to hold those sessions just as effectively as was done pre- COVID-19 using videoconferencing. In a very short amount of time, he and others have become comfortable with the technology to the point where it can be, in his opinion, as efficient and effective as meeting in person. Relative to doctor appointments, one driving factor for seeing your doctor in person used to be because it was necessary to be able to be reimbursed. But it is increasingly evident that technology is changing the way people engage with their doctors. Often there is no reason to have more than a teleconferenced appointment with your doctor. Also, there is no reason to see a doctor when submitting routine blood pressure readings, etc., which can be done online. He believes this pandemic will create opportunities to be much more efficient in many respects. Chair Williams agreed, stating that staff(and the Board Members) have done a great job in embracing available technology, and he expects staff will continue to use it to the District's advantage. The point of his earlier comments was that the wastewater business is, by its very nature, largely impacted by human-to-human contact. In recognizing this, some things cannot be done differently, which is why he believes it is important to return to the pre-COVID-19 model. Using the HHW Collection Facility as an example, Chair Williams noted that benefit is not available to the ratepayers for the time being because the facility has been closed since mid-March due to the shelter-in-place order. Perhaps someday it will be possible to allow drop-offs of household hazardous waste remotely, but that is not an option at the moment. He said he believes it is incumbent upon Mr. Bailey to figure out how to bring HHW employees back to work and allow the public to once again avail themselves of the HHW services. Mr. Bailey said technology has provided a set of tools to make certain tasks more efficient and effective, and the past weeks have demonstrated that a lot can be accomplished through telework. He does not, however, like the idea that this is an "either or choice". He believes it is possible to sometimes see your doctor in person and other times have a telephone or videoconference appointment,patients must decide which is most May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 482 of 505 Page 8 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 7 advantageous, but one does not necessarily replace the other over a period of time. He said he was very cautious about telework as a substitute for what is typically done in the office. Mr. Bailey said he and the management team will use this opportunity to understand what has been gained by the recent changes and will try to optimize the arrangement that has been in place. That may require him to bring employees back over some period of time and do things in a somewhat different manner. Member McGill said things will continue to evolve. Using the HHW Collection Facility as an example, he said the way it has operated might have to change. He imagined a scenario in which various areas might be marked for specific categories of items (much like areas at a garden center are marked for different types of bark, soil, and gravel), where customers could drive through and drop off items in the appropriate areas, without the need for assistance from staff. Once the applicable waiting periods for the COVID-19 virus have expired, staff could retrieve, catalog, and process the items. Perhaps the hours would need to be changed. The idea is to begin providing the service while keeping everyone safe without costing much more money. In terms of Source Control, Member McGill said modifications would be difficult during the pandemic. Sometimes adversity requires dramatic change until a new normal is developed. Chair Williams agreed. He also said in some ways he has been talking about taking a higher-level view. Instead of saying, "we are being productive,"there needs to be a way of doing business so Central San's services still can be provided. Staff should come up with their own ideas. For that reason, the 4% figure in the report for time spent on non- productive activities during the May 4-June 30 period feels too complacent in his view. Member McGill acknowledged that if Chair Williams was not feeling comfortable with the figures in the report, data needs to be gathered such that he can feel like the appropriate items are being measured. Mr. Bailey said staff would focus on what has been discussed to develop a template on which to build and perfect over time, leading to a matrix to measure the more qualitative aspects of the things we do. Using his one- on-one meetings with Board Members as an example, he said they are usually done in person over a meal. Since the shelter-in-place order, however, those meetings have taken place via videoconference. He said there are benefits to meeting face-to-face and he was not convinced that meeting with Board Members via videoconference was 100% as effective. He said it is that level of scrutiny that staff will try to sort out. May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 483 of 505 Page 9 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 8 Member McGill said that, in his view, his one-on-one meetings with Mr. Bailey are becoming increasingly more effective, but it has been a process that has evolved over time, which is understandable. He said it is important for everyone to keep their eyes wide open during this process. Member McGill asked if the following questions have been asked of the management team and employees: 1. What is the best way to get everyone back to work and keep them safe? 2. If they do come back, what would the level of efficiency be under the pre-COVID-19 model? 3. What other ways are there to get the work done to best support the ratepayers? Finally, he said he was not sure what staff was being asked to measure. Was it to be the same as before COVID-19? Or was the goal to be as efficient and effective as before COVID-19? Mr. Bailey said the managers have talked with employees about those issues, including how best to provide a safe working environment with additional required handwashing, cleaning of facilities, and social distancing. A draft plan has been put together, which has been sent to the bargaining units. The goal has been to provide a safe working environment so employees can continue to provide the services for which the public is paying. He said he was a big believer in change and taking advantage of technology. He also wanted to assure the Committee that staff is being held accountable. It should not be misinterpreted that staff has not looked at these issues, because they have. Member McGill suggested asking employees and managers how they can perform their jobs as efficiently and effectively without returning to the pre- COVID-19 work model. Mr. Bailey said he had posed this question to his department directors because the solution to a problem often lies with the people who experience it daily. They have been asked to come up with alternatives for coming back to work. HHW staff, for example, has been developing options for reopening. To the extent they make sense, management will select the most efficient and effective option. Mr. Petit said he just received the HHW draft plan, which includes four options. Chair Williams commented to Member McGill that if the pandemic goes on for another 18-36 months and staff figures out a way to provide the HHW services, perhaps that will result in a model that is not as effective as it used to be. The good news is that once the virus is gone, HHW can May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 484 of 505 Page 10 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 9 return to the pre-COVID-19 model. So, it can be a great learning experience. Member McGill commented that, in his view, the new process of conducting Committee meetings through Microsoft Teams has been working out just as well as holding the meetings in person. It has not been working quite so well at the Board meeting level, but that too is improving. Chair Williams agreed. Mr. Bailey said he appreciated the discussion and hearing from the Committee Members, whose comments and suggestions will be incorporated in the report to the extent possible. Additionally, staff will continue to work on the report template. Member McGill suggested that, given the importance of this discussion, more detailed minutes than usual be prepared for this meeting. Chair Williams agreed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the report and provided input to staff. b. Discuss testing for COVID-19 virus Ms. O'Malley stated that two things occurred the past week regarding testing for the COVID-19 virus. First, Contra Costa County began offering free testing for all County residents, whether or not they are symptomatic. Second, staff learned that the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) had begun offering free testing for their infrastructure employees every two weeks. Those two things prompted a lot of questions from employees and bargaining units seeking testing for employees. She said that in April, staff had reached out to the County Department of Public Health to see if Central San employees could be considered as first responders and included in the testing provided by the County.. The request was denied because Central employees were not determined to be "first responders"as defined by the County. The County's order to offer free testing as of this week is only available to County residents, which leaves out 25% of Central San employees. Ms. O'Malley noted that any such testing would be voluntary and the request must be made by the employee, not the District. For that reason, staff is currently seeking other avenues to obtain testing for all employees. Member McGill acknowledged that testing is essential for returning to work, and re-testing must be done periodically. He noted that antibody testing is only marginally reliable. Taking employee's temperatures before coming to work only goes so far, if someone is asymptomatic, taking a May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 485 of 505 Page 11 of 18 Administration Committee Minutes May 12, 2020 Page 10 temperature does not help. He noted that the COVID-19 virus is wily and attacks different people in multiple ways. He said he believes DNA testing is the best option, and until an effective vaccine is available, nobody is fully safe. Chair Williams asked Ms. O'Malley if, to her knowledge, any Central San employees have tested positive for COVID-19. She said no. Member McGill said the discussion about testing was related to employees'physical health. Noting that a pandemic can be very stressful, he asked Ms. O'Malley what has been done for addressing employees' mental health. Ms. O'Malley said several online wellness seminars had been offered, some through John Muir Health. The District's benefits provider for mental health, MHN, has been bombarded with requests which have led to delays of up to six weeks to obtain an appointment. For this reason, she has reached out to another third-party service provider to enter into a one- or two-year contract to bridge the gap. Both Committee Members acknowledged the challenge of taking care of children and loved ones while teleworking, which can be very difficult and stressful. COMMITTEE ACTION: Held discussion and provided input to staff. 5. Announcements None. 6. Future Scheduled Meetings Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. 7. Adjournment— at 10:08 a.m. *Attachment May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 486 of 505 Page 12 of 18 5/11/2020 Item 4.a. (Handout) R PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS 4 Phil Leiber Director of Finance &Administration May 12, 2020 1 INTRODUCTION • Detailed productivity analysis given schedule changes adopted in March 2020 in response to COVID-19. • To balance 3 objectives: • Maintaining workforce safety. • Continuing the essential services provided by Central San. • Ensuring staff remain productive and receive a full paycheck. • Temporary Provisions were Adopted: • Allowing teleworking and providing technology to accommodate teleworking. • Temporary work schedule changes to facilitate social distancing. • Providing administrative leave for those unable to telework and at heightened risk. • Physical and technology changes to reduce risk of spreading virus,facilitate continuation of work during this situation. • Providing Personal Protective Equipment(PPEs)and more frequent workplace cleaning. _ I 2 1 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 487 of 505 Page 13 of 18 5/11/2020 METHODOLOGY Phase 1. Quick-high level assessment Phase 2. Detailed assessment • List normal activities for March to June 2020. • Can activity be performed given the revised work arrangements(teleworking,or revised shifts for Operations)? • Did the normal activities continue as expected, or did staff spend time on other activities such as? • a.COVID-19 responses • b.Other productive activities such as training,catching up on documentation,or other backlogged work. • c.Non-productive time,includes time spent waiting for equipment to be deployed to staff who could telework from home once a laptop was made available;or staff who,given the nature of their jobs in Operations,did not have work to do at home and were available in"reserve"to report onsite if needed. I 3 EXAMPLE: ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT AND GIS* %Mrmespent on Non- Corto'rme on Non-Normal %mrmespenton Nuct on- Costo'r-Prodive Tlme Normal Activities ARivities Prod W Activities (COVID response,.her pmd,dl adiviiandnon- productive time) artme ismn Total-H Grolpiii Inception April 8- Mayo Inception April 8-Ma,May 4-June Inception April&Mayo- Inception April Mayo (Includes through May3 June 30 through (Pedod2)30(Pedod through May3 111130 through May3 June 30 nprin(Perioe3)(Pedod9) Amin 31 April (Period(Perine April (Period z)(Period 3) emps/ (Period (Periotl 1) (Periotl 1) 2) 3) (Period l) erns) 11 Engineering Plannin and 6 $646,829 4Y 3 1 $1,468Development, sset Management • Group of 6, all teleworked • Nature of job allows for high level of productivity teleworking • Developed several Dashboards presented to Committees and the Board *GIS:Geographical Information System 4 2 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 488 of 505 Page 14 of 18 5/11/2020 EXAMPLE: ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION %of Time Spenton Non- Costof Timeon N.n-Normal %.fT, Spent on Non- Cost of Non-Productive Tme Normal ARivities Ani Productive Activities (COVID response,.cher pr.duRive activities and non- praducfive time) D.P.I.— ism. Total Staff Groupsalary Inception Apr118- Mayo Inception Aril 8-May May 4-lune nception April B-Mayo- Inceptlon April B- Mayo (includes through Maya ne 30 through (Pen.dal 30(Pen.d (through May3 l ne 30 through Maya Apnl7(Periotl2l(Pen.d3l April7 3) A p ri l7 (Penotl(Penotl Apni7 (Penotl 2)(Penotl 3) mps/ (Period (Period 11 (Period 11 2) 3) (Period 11 rernsl 11 Engineering Plannin and 5 $613,550 21 42 28 $],540 $18,481 $29,147 D_y merit: onstruction ms__ • Group of five; 69% in office, 31% teleworking • Normal activities more impacted; however spent time on updating Standard Specification Update (10-32%). Going to the Board on July 2, 2020 • Zero "non-productive" time. • Have now all returned to work since May 4, 2020 5 EXAMPLE: ADMINISTRATION SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT %of Tme Spent on — Cost of Tme on Non-Normal %of rme Spent on Non- Cost of Non-Productive Tme Normal ARMties Activities Productive Activities (COVID response,ocher ities produRive activand non- productive time) mens Divizmn Total Stall Groupsalary nception April 8-1 Mayo Incepllon pril6-Ma,May 4-lune Inception April B-MaV4- Inception April B- May4- (includes [hrougM1 Maya lune 30 througM1 (Period 2l 30(Period througM1 Maya June 30 [hrougM1 May3 June30 April)(Period 2l(Penotl 3l April) 31 April) (Penotl(Period April) IPeriotl 2)(Penotl 3) mps/ (Period (Period 11 (Period 11 21 31 (Penotl 11 terns) 1) dmin strata of me 5 $433,702 6 7 7 $1,501 $2,188 $5,207 0 0 0 $- $- $- Diao-i • Group of five; 32% in office, 68% teleworking • Normal activities continued at near regular levels; minimal time on COVID-19 admin and other productive work • No "non-productive" time. 1 6 3 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 489 of 505 Page 15 of 18 5/11/2020 EXAMPLE: ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING %ofrmespenton Non- Cos[ofrme on Non-Normal %ofrmesPenton Non- Co fNon-Productive rme Normal Activities Acdvities Productive Activities (Covin response,other Prod..w a Vi"and non- productive time( art ision Tobi Staff Groopsalary Inception April 8- Mayo Inception ko,il 8-Mat May 41one Inception April&Mayo- Inception April& May (Includes through May3 lune 30 through (Per11d2l 30(Ped1d through May3 Jone 30 through May3 lone 30 Apd12(Pedpd2)(Pedod3l April? 3) April? (Period(Period Apol7 (Pedod 2)(Period 3) emp,/ (Period (Period 1) (Period 1) 2) 3) (Pedod l) erns) aurin Pprcna:in 3 $390,09 30 11 5 1 $6,66 $2,95 $3,512 5 0 0 $1,12 $ $ • Group of three: 3% in office, 97% teleworking • 70-95% of time on normal activities • 30% (Period 1) to 5% (Period 3) on Other activities- - In Period 1, COVID 19 response was 25%and 5%down-time himI EXAMPLE: OPERATIONS CSO MAINTENANCE CREW MEMBERS %ofrmespenton Non- Costofrmeon Non-Normal %of rme spent on Non- Cost of Non-Produaiye Tion,Normal Activities Activities Prod'Gi"Activities (COV,D response,other prpd.1-activities and non- productive time) mens Divismn TotalBbH Group salary n April B- Mayo Incepllon pril6-MaJ May A-lune nceptlon Aprl,&MaV4- In n April& Mayo (includes through May' ne 30 throogM1 (Pedod2l 30(Pedod (through May J ne 30 through Maya April)(Perip )IPedod 3) April? 31 April? (Period(Period April) (Period 2l(Period 3l mus/ (Per,od (Period 1) (Period 1) 2) 31 (Period l) tem,) Aerations lWint Crew 20 $1,578,660 64 64 12 $58,289 $72,804 $32,489 "I 4 54 12 $49,181$61,429$32,489 Member • 20 staff; 33% on shift/reserve, 50% on site; 3% teleworking; 14% at home not working • 36% of time on normal activities until ramp up in Period 3 • 54% non-productive time until Period 3 .1W Mm1 ,� . 8 4 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 490 of 505 Page 16 of 18 5/11/2020 EXAMPLE: OPERATIONS PUMP STATION STAFF %of Time Spenton Non- Costof Timeon Non-Normal %&T,me Spent on Non- Cort of Non-Productive rme Normal Activities Activities Productive Activities (COVIO response,other prod..w a Vitt and non- productive time) nop artme ision Tobi Staff Group salary Inception April 8- Mayo Inception ril g-Ma,May 4-lune Inception April&MaV4- Inception April& Mayo (Includes through Maya lune 30 through (Period 2l 30(Pedod through Maya June 30 through Maya lune 30 Apol�(Period 111 Pedod 3l April7 3) April) (Pedod(Period Apol� (Pedod Zl(Pedod 3) empz/ (Period (Periotl l) (Periotl l) i) 3) (Periotl l) erns) petitions Maint - 6 $694,198 0 0 0 $- $- $- 0 0 0 $- af • 6 staff; 85% on site; 14% teleworking • 100% of time on normal activities • No anticipated down-time ,t EXAMPLE: OPERATIONS PLANT OPERATORS %orrmespent on Non- Costofrmeon Non-Normal %ofrm SPent on Non- Cort of Non-Product T< Normal Activities Activities Productive Activities (COVIO response,other p.d..!.a vibes and non- productive ti—) artme ision Tobi staff IGroup salary I_­ptonj April 8 1 Mayo Inception rilg-Ma,May4-lune Inception April&MaV4- Inception April& Mayo (Includes through Maya lune 30 through (Period 2l 30(Period through Maya June 30 through Maya lune 30 Apol�(Period 311Pedod 3l April) 31 April) (Pedod(Period April) (Pedod 2l(Pedod 3) empz/ (Period (Periotl l) (Periotl l) i) 3) (Period l) terns) 11 Aerations Plan[O erators 22 $2,535,49 24 24 ill$34,81 $43,48 $48,04 24 24 11 $35,10 $43,84 7 • 22 staff; 60% on site; 4% teleworking; 36% on reserve. • 76% of time on normal activities until Period 3; ramp to 89% • 24% downtown drops to 11% in Period 3. 01 ,��ft'l Slid�10 CENTRALSAN10 5 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 491 of 505 Page 17 of 18 5/11/2020 RESULTS: NON-NORMAL ACTIVITIES %&Time SPe oNon-Nermal ARiNties Cort vF Time on Non-NormalArtiv.- IDUYID response,other productive artivaies and nan- produrtivetime) Annual Cost Inception April 8-May3 May 4-June 30 Inception Apri18-May3 May 4-June 30 through April 7 (Period 2) (Period 3) through April7 (Period 2) (Period 3) (Period 1) (Period I) Salaries Only BY DEPARTMENT dmin $6,123,548 22 20 10 $78,91 $86,90 $104,805 Operations $16,890,514 35 35 30 $337,27 $422,273 $302,603 Engineering $12,020,535 15 33 8 $101,873 $112,91 $156,907 TOTAL All Departments $35,034,596 26 25 9 $518,053 $622,09 $564,31 Salaries and Benefits` BY DEPARTMENT dmin $8,817,908 22 20 30 $113,63 $125,1491 $150,919 Operations $24,322,340 35 35 10 $485,66i $608,073 $435,748 Engineering $17,309,570 15 13 8 $146,691 $162,591 $225,946 TOTAL All Departments $50,449,819 26 25 9 $745,99 $895,811 $812,612 11 RESULTS: NON-PRODUCTIVE TIME %&Tme spentnn Non-1.d.R Artivaies I —of Non-Productive Time Annual CostInception A!0618-May3 May 4-June Inception Apri18-May3 May 4-June30 through April (Period 2) 30(Period 3)through April 7 (Period 2) (Period 3) 7(Period 1) (Period 1) laries Only BY DEPARTMENT dmin 1 $6,123,548 3 1 1 $12,3171 $5,177 $9,746 Operations $16,890,514 23 22 8 $228,5321 $272,1071 $218,178 Engineering 1 $12,020,535 2 1 0 $12,3321 $4,566 $-1 TOTAL All Departments $35,034,596 13 11 4 $253,18 $281,8501 $227,923 laries and Benefits* BY DEPARTMENT dmin 1 $8,817,908 3 1 1 $17,7371 $7,455 $14,034 Operations $24,322,340 23 22 8 $329,085 $391,834 $314,176 Engineering $17,309,570 2 1 0 $17,7571 $6,575 $- kAllTO,TAL Departments $50,449,819 13 11 4 $364,58 $405,8641 $328,210 rl 12 6 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 492 of 505 Page 18 of 18 5/11/2020 CONCLUSIONS • Teleworking has been a reasonable temporary measure to continue productivity in light of COVID-19 health orders • Some jobs have to be done on site; as a result, that work has been more impacted. Efforts continue to improve productivity while ensuring safety. • Operations effort to return to work—planned for May 11; now forecast for May 18. _ I 13 QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION NOW 1 14 7 May 21, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 493 of 505