Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17.b. Committee Minutes - Administration 07-21-20 Page 1 of 10 Item 17.b. CENTRAL SAN adfAhmm CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT August 6, 2020 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT SUBJECT: JULY 21, 2020 -ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE - CHAIR WILLIAMS AND PRESIDENT MCGILL Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of 07-21-20 meeting August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 90 of 107 Page 2 of 10 Arlai CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9,4553-A392 REGULAR 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, July 21, 2020 www.centr-alvan.org 8:30 a.m. Executive Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California (All attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Chair David Williams Member Mike McGill Guest: Michael Pattinson, Interior Design Principal — HDR (left after Item 5.a.) Staff.- Roger S. Bailey, General Manager 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 Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager John Huie, Information Technology Manager Melody LaBella, Resource Recovery Program Manager Teji O'Malley, Human Resources Manager Shari Deutsch, Risk Management Administrator Donna Anderson, Assistant to the Secretary of the District 1. Public Notice 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 August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 91 of 107 Page 3 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 2 March 17, 2020 that allowed Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate in and conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, 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 8:37 a.m. Mr. Bailey requested to hear Items 5.a. and 5.b. before Item 4.a. 3. Public Comments None. 4. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board a. Review draft Position Paper to reclassify the Human Resources Manager position and current incumbent Teji O'Malley to the Human Resources and Organizational Development Manager and adopt the salary range of U24 ($15,285.99 to $18,580.28 per month) Mr. Bailey summarized the rationale for recommending reclassification of the Human Resources Manager position as outlined in the draft Position Paper, after which both Committee Members expressed their full support. Chair Williams suggested incorporating the highest salary associated with the new pay range in the fiscal impacts section of the Position Paper. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval and the above- described addition to the Position Paper. b. Review draft Position Paper approving proposed revisions to Board Policy No. BP 004 - Integrated Pest Management Ms. LaBella briefly summarized the recommended revisions to BP 004. Both Committee Members were pleased with the proposed revisions. Chair Williams recommended a minor wording change, which Ms. LaBella will include when the item is presented to the full Board. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with minor wording change to the policy. August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 92 of 107 Page 4 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 3 C. Review draft Position Paper approving proposed revisions to Board Policy No. BP 013 - Standing Committee Protocols, Guidelines, and Charters Ms. Young briefly summarized the recommended revisions to BP 013. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval. d. Review draft Position Paper approving proposed revisions to Board Policy No. BP 014 - Mobile Computing Devices for Board Members Member McGill suggested that the policy be broadened to include laptops and possibly desktop computers since some Board Members have needed a second device to be able to participate remotely in virtual meetings more easily during the ongoing pandemic. Ms. Young said she would review the policy to broaden the language. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval with broader language as suggested. e. Conduct biennial review of the following Board Policies: 1) BP 015 - Asset Management 2) BP 023 - Board Ethics and Conduct 3) BP 024 - Occupational Health and Safety COMMITTEE ACTION: Agreed with the staff that no changes were needed to any of the above policies. 5. Other Items a. Receive report on COVID-19 Return to Office Facilities Plan and Recommendations Mr. Bailey said it was critical to consider a plan for bringing employees back on site while keeping them safe during the pandemic. For that reason, an expert in workplace design, HDR, was retained to help develop short- and long-term solutions for physical changes at the District's facilities to help prevent exposure to COVID-19. Ms. Gemmell said staff was seeking feedback from the Committee on the overall presentation, but most specifically about the options for the Board Room. She introduced Mr. Pattinson of HDR, who reviewed the presentation included with the agenda materials. Mr. Pattinson showed how the current physical space at Central San could be altered to assure staff's safe return. He said the options presented were typical solutions with general recommendations and guidelines that August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 93 of 107 Page 5 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 4 would rely on training and initiating protocols with staff. It was noted that all the options would involve behavioral changes for employees to help keep them safe during the pandemic. While most of the recommendations could be implemented immediately, he also presented suggestions for more long-term measures. For example, all restrooms would become single-occupant restrooms with "occupied"or "vacant"signage on the outer door. In the near term, barrier tape would be used to cordon off all but one stall and one sink. The protocol would be that employees wash their hands and use a paper towel to push open the door. A sanitizing station would be placed outside the entrance to each restroom. There would be striping on the walkways to assure safe passage along the corridors and to maintain social distancing while awaiting use of the restroom. In the long term, bathroom fixtures could be replaced with automatic versions to minimize contact. Conference rooms throughout the District would have various chairs removed in the near term to allow for social distancing, with sanitizing stations at the doors. Markers/erasers and anything that is routinely touched should be removed from the conference rooms. Mr. Pattinson concluded his presentation by reviewing the four options for socially distanced use of the Board Room, Caucus Room, and Multi- Purpose Room for Board meetings. In response to a question from Member McGill, Ms. Gemmell said the facilities plan was aimed at getting as many people back on site as quickly as possible. If the pandemic were to continue for another year-and-a-half, staff may need to look at creating new office space to accommodate everyone safely. The following issues were discussed: 1) Efficiency: Member McGill said some other organizations have noticed an increase in efficiency among employees who have been teleworking during the pandemic. He asked if there was any information available on how the limitations that would be imposed on employee movement within the altered workspaces might impact efficiency. Mr. Pattinson spoke of experience with his company's San Francisco office, which has been retrofitted for social distancing. While some employees are still teleworking, those who have returned to the office have adapted to the new behaviors and protocols. He acknowledged that it takes a little longer to navigate spaces and said he could not speak with any specificity on the issue of efficiency. His sense, however, was that it would not be very impactful in that respect. August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 94 of 107 Page 6 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 5 2) Partition height: Member McGill asked why the recommended partitions were only 5'6"tall. Mr. Pattinson explained that 5'6"is the standard, and the highest a divider can be before it is considered a furniture "wall." The standard height serves as a barrier for people at most eye levels, providing essentially the same protection as a mask. 3) HVAC system filters: Member McGill acknowledged that the District's HVAC system already has been upgraded with new filters. He inquired about additional upgrades, including incorporating high- intensity ultraviolet (UV) light as part of the air circulation system. Ms. Gemmell said the entire plan would include technical memos that relate to those types of issues, including further upgrades to the HVAC system. She said staff would consider high-intensity UV light as they address long-term solutions. 4) Ergonomics for teleworkers: Member McGill said his work with other entities had revealed the need to address ergonomic issues for teleworkers to avoid potential workers'compensation claims. He asked if the if efforts had been made to remind teleworkers of the importance of proper ergonomics as well as standing up and moving around regularly. Ms. O'Malley said the District's teleworking contract includes language about ergonomics. Mr. Pattinson said one option that could supplement existing efforts would be to engage an ergonomic consultant to guide teleworkers on how to adjust equipment and take regular breaks. He said he would suggest that as part of the behavioral training. 5) Essential workers aged 65 and older. Member McGill said that State Senator Steve Glazer reminded everyone at a recent session that the shelter-in-place order remains in effect for anyone 65 and older. Therefore, any discussions about opening the Board Room should take that into consideration. Chair Williams said he would be interested in an updated opinion from District Counsel as to whether Board Members have the option, as essential workers, to attend meetings in person at the District offices if wearing masks and adhering to social distancing measures. 6) Board Room options: In terms of Ms. Gemmell's request for feedback on the options presented for changes to the Board Room, Chair Williams said he favored Option 1 (depicted on slides 54-46), which uses the current Board Room setup with proper social distancing. He added that Central San does not typically see many members of the public at its meetings, and he had no reason to think August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 95 of 107 Page 7 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 6 that would change in the near term. Member McGill said he was inclined to recommend Option 1 as well. Chair Williams thanked Mr. Pattinson for HDR's efforts, stating he found the presentation to be very informative and a good assessment of how to move forward. He was comfortable with the short-term recommendations, which would be the minimum of what could be done to bring most employees back to the office while recognizing that it would still make sense for some employees to continue teleworking. With respect to the longer-term options, he expressed interest in the costs, explaining that at some point there will be a vaccine for COVID-19 and life should begin to return to a more normal state. It was his understanding that the short-term measures and the associated constraints would be adjusted at that time. Mr. Bailey said he appreciated the policy discussion that had taken place. While the goal is to keep employees safe, he acknowledged that no one has all the answers. He agreed with Chair Williams as to the importance of having a good understanding of the costs and effectiveness of any long- term recommendations. Chair Williams said the research and science related to COVID-19 changes almost daily, any long-term response by the District should consider the latest information to be most effective. Member McGill agreed, stating the need for flexibility as the pandemic evolves. Ms. Gemmell said staff is gathering cost estimates for the various approaches in the Return to Office Plan and will be presenting those to the Executive Management Team. Member McGill asked how employees are being engaged in terms of the Return to Office Plan. Ms. Gemmell said the process began with the managers, after which it was presented to this Committee. The next step will be to roll it out to employees. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the report and provided input to staff, including a request for an updated opinion from District Counsel as to how the current shelter-in-place order for those 65 and older affects those who are also considered essential workers. b. Receive mid-year update on Strategic Risk Inventory / Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Program Mr. Leiber and Ms. Deutsch reviewed the presentation included with the agenda material. Mr. Leiber said there is a lot of content behind the 28 identified risk areas, more of which will be shared with the Committee and Board in the fall, but the focus of this presentation was an update on the top ten risk areas for Central San. He explained the four components that make up the composite score for each risk area: probability, severity, mitigation, and speed of onset. Each component is scored by staff on a August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 96 of 107 Page 8 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 7 scale of 1-10. Those scores are added together to arrive at a total risk score, after which each risk area is ranked according to its total risk score. Mr. Bailey added that if there is a long list of things to address regarding the mitigation component, the score will be higher. He also acknowledged that there is a certain degree of subjectivity to the numerical assignments, but staff has discussed the scoring as a group, and is committed to revisiting the methodology as may be necessary. Mr. Bailey went on to say that as he has thought about the risk areas in relation to the pandemic and regulatory compliance issues, he concluded that public safety is the highest priority, and that includes employee safety. There is a greater sense of urgency when one considers the potential loss of an employee due to COVID-19. In response to a question from Member McGill as to whether staff has assessed how such an event would impact the overall risk inventory, Mr. Leiber said it had been the basis for some discussion. Owners have been assigned for all the identified risks, and there was a lot of movement in the various elements behind each risk area since they were last presented to the Board. He added that this exercise had provided a valuable opportunity for managerial input and assessment of risks. Mr. Leiber confirmed Chair Williams'understanding that the four risk- related factors that are scored are not weighted, although a different approach could be developed. Ms. Deutsch remarked that one of the values of having a supplemental mitigation plan is that while the scoring may be limited to 40 points, costs are considered one step lower down in the process. The question becomes where to spend money to eliminate the worst consequence of any particular risk. As to the ranking of the "Loss of Life"risk, she reminded the Committee that Central San's safety program is very strong and has an excellent track record, which goes a long way toward reducing the chance of injury or death. In terms of assessing risk mitigation, cost is a factor, but not a separate category. Chair Williams brought up who "owns"the top four strategic risks. For a natural disaster, major spill, environmental damage, or loss of a major asset, he imagined Central San would fully own them because it would be unable to operate properly to protect public health. But despite best efforts to provide a safe working environment, if an employee were to contract COVID-19, it would be difficult to know the source of the exposure, whether on site or elsewhere. Mr. Bailey said that issue gets back to what factors go into the risk assessment. The purpose of this effort has been to develop an inventory August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 97 of 107 Page 9 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 8 of Central San's highest risk areas and determine ways to mitigate them. It could be asked whether the four components currently used to achieve composite scores for each of the risk areas are sufficient, or whether they should be modified to take into consideration other factors, such as the concept of ownership. With respect to ownership, he recognized the distinction between a risk that is clearly under the purview of Central San (such as responsibility for spills) versus one that may originate elsewhere (such as COVID-19) but might still result in direct or indirect adverse consequences. Regardless of whether the risk originated in an area of specific responsibility of Central San, or outside, the potential ultimate impact of risks could be significant (such as the indirect consequence of COVID-19 on Central San's ability to meet its responsibilities, or a direct impact if an employee were to pass away from the virus). He also noted that presently the four risk scoring factors are weighted the same. He pondered whether different weightings might yield a different overall risk ranking. Chair Williams stated that when the Strategic Risk Inventory was first presented to the Board, he liked it very much, and that has not changed. He noted that the original approach was to focus on the items identified in the mitigation component of the score and asked Mr. Bailey if he saw this changing. Mr. Bailey said it is important to prioritize the things that can be done to mitigate risks. However, staff's efforts to mitigate the identified risks were impacted by the ongoing pandemic, which has vaulted to the top ten of the overall risk listing. Member McGill said he very much appreciated the information and the opportunity to discuss the risk assessment tool as a means to remain focused on important issues. In conclusion, Mr. Leiber listed several concrete things the risk analysis provides for Central San: 1) It helps avoid risks that might otherwise fall through the cracks because each risk is assigned an owner; 2) It can help with resource allocation if the risks are tied to the budget process; and August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 98 of 107 Page 10 of 10 Administration Committee Minutes July 21, 2020 Page 9 3) Given the Board's interest in all employees having both a performance plan and performance review, identified risk mitigation tasks could become part of employee performance plans and subsequent reviews. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update. 6. Announcements None. 7. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any other future agenda items 1) Member McGill requested more frequent updates on cybersecurity due to the constantly evolving information technology landscape. 2) Member McGill also asked if the Board had adopted a policy on training related to IT security. If not, he suggested agendizing a future discussion on the topic. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list and provided input to staff. 8. Future Scheduled Meetings Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. 9. Adjournment— at 10:34 a.m. August 6, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 99 of 107