M I N U T E S - media.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org

M I N U T E S

Southern Nevada District Board of Health Meeting 625 Shadow Lane

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Clemens Room

Thursday, January 26, 2012 - 8:30 A.M.

Chair Jones called the meeting of the Southern Nevada District Board of Health to order at 8:32 a.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Lawrence Sands, DO, MPH, executive secretary, confirmed the meeting had been noticed in accordance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law. Chair Jones noted a quorum was present at the start of the meeting with Members Giunchigliani, Litman, Menzel, Noonan, Onyema, Scow, Tarkanian and Vigilante seated. Board Members Present:

Tim Jones Chair, At-Large Member, Regulated Business/Industry Stavros Anthony Vice Chair, Councilman, Las Vegas Jimmy Vigilante Secretary, At-Large Member, Environmental Specialist Jim Christensen, MD At-Large Member, Physician Chris Giunchigliani Commissioner, Clark County Allan Litman Councilman, Mesquite Nancy Menzel, RN At-Large Member, Registered Nurse Bill Noonan At-Large Member, Gaming John Onyema, MD At-Large Member, Physician Mary Beth Scow Commissioner, Clark County Lois Tarkanian Councilwoman, Las Vegas Anita Wood Councilwoman, North Las Vegas Rod Woodbury Councilman, Boulder City

Absent:

Sam Bateman Councilman, Henderson Executive Secretary: Lawrence Sands, DO, MPH Legal Counsel: Annette L. Bradley, Esq. Other SNHD Board of Health Members/Alternates Not Present:

Kam Brian Alternate At-Large Member, Regulated Business/Industry Michael Collins, RN Alternate At-Large Member, Registered Nurse Susan Crowley Alternate At-Large Member, Environmental Specialist Pamela Goynes-Brown Alternate Councilman, North Las Vegas Karl Gustaveson Alternate Councilman, Mesquite

Board of Health Minutes Page 2 of 37 January 26, 2012

Joseph Hardy, MD Alternate At-Large Member, Physician Peggy Leavitt Alternate Councilwoman, Boulder City Frank Nemec, MD Alternate At-Large Member, Physician Steven Ross Alternate Councilman, Las Vegas Stan Smith Alternate At-Large Member, Gaming Lawrence Weekly Alternate Commissioner, Clark County

Staff: Angus MacEachern; John Middaugh; Glenn Savage; Jennifer Sizemore; Bonnie Sorenson; Scott Weiss; Stephanie Bethel; Dennis Campbell; MeeKee Chong-Dao; Ray Chua; Alice Costello; Margarita DeSantos; Arta Faraday; Steve Goode; Mary Ellen Harrell; Rose Henderson; Valerie Hirata; Eddie Larsen; Dante Merriweather; Veronica Morata-Nichols; Patricia O’Rourke-Langston; Mars Patricio; Walter Ross; Ellen Spears; Christine Sylvis; Robert Urzi; Kent Wirtz; Lourdes Yapjoco; Leo Vega; Darris Cole; Jeff Good; Forrest Hasselbauer; Diana Lindquist and recording secretary, Shelli Clark CAP-OM ATTENDANCE: NAME

Tom Axtell VegasPBS

REPRESENTING

Jamey Bailey SEIU 1107 Petya Balova Balova Engineering Jim Barger Pacific Custom Pools Keith Bowen LVR Javier Cabrera SEIU 1107 Susan Cannavo City Auto Pick-A-Part Jack Catt Southern California Edison Elaine Crandell Self George Crandell Self Doug Dobyne Self Carol Downing LKQ Brian Elledge Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino Pat Hamilton Southern California Edison Victoria Harding Self Warren Hardy SA Recycling Phil Johnson SA Recycling Brad Kelly Southern California Edison Jeff Kua Southern California Edison Ann Markle Self Carl Markle Self Erin McMullen Snell & Wilmer Joe Mercado, Jr. LVR Sam Noel SEIU Trent Ogle KLAS-TV Channel 8 Paul Phelan Southern California Edison Todd Phillips Kronos Charles Pollock Self Robin Robinson SA Recycling Laurie E. Sanders AES Larry Singer Grubb & Ellis Vic Skaar Self Brandon Smith SA Recycling Debra Solt VegasPBS Karyn Steenkamp Caesars Entertainment


Lucy Stewart LAS Mike Tabeek Grubb & Ellis Mike Walker NCM Bill Witzel Southern California Edison Mike Ward SEIU 1107 Mark Bergtholdt SNHD / Self Phil Bondurant SNHD / Self Joy Clark SNHD / Self Jane Kopczak SNHD / Self Robert Newton SNHD / Self Rosemary Ensign SNHD / SEIU Lizette Enzenauer SNHD / SEIU Cara Evangelista SNHD / SEIU Gail Gholson SNHD / SEIU Susan LaBay SNHD / SEIU I.

Public comment is a period devoted to comments by the general public on items listed on the Agenda. All comments are limited to five (5) minutes.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Jones asked if anyone wished to address the Board pertaining to items listed on the Agenda. Gail Gholson, employee, addressed the Board. She noted the district’s strengths in responding to crises, yet is concerned about the delay in settling the current labor negotiations. Lizette Enzenour, employee, addressed the Board. She expressed concern about the proposed purchase of an electronic timekeeping system. She expressed further concern about the hire of a new employee solely to manage the timekeeping system. She noted that employee morale is very low.

(Member Woodbury arrived and was seated at 8:38am) Rosemary Ensign, employee, addressed the Board. She stated employees have been told numerous times that the district is in a financial crisis, yet management is seeking to purchase an electronic timekeeping system in addition to new financial/human resources software. Susan LaBay, employee, addressed the Board. She expressed concern about acquisition of an electronic timekeeping system when the current systems, though time consuming, are working well. She also expressed concern about the expenditures pertaining to an Enterprise Resource Planner (ERP) to replace existing financial and human resources software.

(Member Wood and Annette Bradley, board legal counsel, arrived and were seated at 8:46am) Charles Pollock, attorney, addressed the Board regarding concerns with the proposed electronic timekeeping system. He expressed concern about alleged violation of district policies by Scott Weiss, director of administration. As these comments were not specific to items on the agenda, Chair Jones asked for the discussion to relate solely to items specific to the agenda. Mr. Pollack was asked to address other matters at the end of the meeting during the second Public Comment section.


Cara Evangelista, representing SEIU, addressed the Board. She tried to express concerns relating to alleged misconduct by Scott Weiss, director of administration. Chair Jones again asked that all comments be specific to items appearing on the agenda. Member Vigilante noted that some Board members received documentation specific to this matter and he would like to discuss the issue.

(Member Anthony arrived and was seated at 8:51am) Member Giunchigliani suggested the issue be addressed in the agendized Closed Session; however Annette Bradley, board legal counsel, noted the agenda item was not worded in such a way to address this issue. Ms. Bradley continued that the issue relates to internal policy, procedures and processes. She stated that public employees do enjoy a certain amount of privacy; the Board and management need to strike a balance relative to this matter. Member Giunchigliani expressed concern that this issue was not agendized, as staff was aware the matter would be introduced by someone in the meeting. Ms. Evangelista asked for permission to continue speaking to this matter. Chair Jones said if there are concerns about an employee and his or her outside employment the matter can be discussed at a special Board meeting or privately with counsel and Dr. Sands. Member Woodbury concurred that the matter cannot be discussed as it is not an agenda item. He agreed that concerned members of the public can speak to the matter at the end of the meeting, noting that the Board will be unable to take any action. Ms. Evangelista continued her remarks expressing concern about the continued search for a replacement facility given the fact that management claims the district is in financial straits. She asked the Board to seek a copy of a financial analysis conducted by Community Health staff. She pleaded with the Board to protect employees, particularly the three other directors, against retaliation for addressing their concerns. Ms. Evangelista urged Board members to remain until the final Public Comment section to hear the public’s concern regarding alleged misconduct. Chair Jones asked if anyone else wished to speak to items on the Agenda. Seeing no one, he closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting.

II. Chair Jones called for a motion to adopt the agenda for the January 26, 2012 meeting as presented.

ADOPTION OF THE JANUARY 26, 2012 AGENDA

A motion was made by Member Onyema to adopt the January 26, 2012 Board of Health meeting agenda as presented; seconded by Member Giunchigliani and carried unanimously (Member Christensen absent).


III. CONSENT AGENDA These are matters considered to be routine by the Southern Nevada District Board of Health and may be enacted by one motion. Any item, however, may be discussed separately per Board Member request before action. Any exceptions to the Consent Agenda must be stated prior to approval. 1. Approve Board of Health Meeting Minutes: 11/29/11

2. Approve Payroll / Overtime for Periods: 10/29/11 – 11/11/11; 11/12/11 – 11/25/11; 11/26/11

– 12/09/11; 12/10/11 – 12/23/11

3. Approve Voluntary Furlough Program Reports for Periods: 10/29/11 – 11/11/11; 11/12/11 – 11/25/11; 11/26/11 – 12/09/11; 12/10/11 – 12/23/11

4. Approve Accounts Payable Registers: #1324: 11/10/11 – 11/22/11; #1327: 11/23/11 –

12/08/11; #1329: 12/09/11 – 12/22/11; #1331: 12/23/11 – 1/05/12 5. Petition #03-12: Approve a Cooperative Agreement for the Control of “Common Area”

Mosquito Breeding Sites in the City of Mesquite, Nevada 6. Petition #04-12: Approval of Interlocal Contract with Clark County to Provide Funding to Hire

Personnel, Conduct Planning, Training and Exercise and purchase Equipment Relative to the FY11 – Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Epidemiology Surveillance and Investigation Project

7. Petition #06-12: Approval of Syphilis Elimination Service Awards for Calendar Year 2012 8. Petition #07-12: Approval of HIV Prevention Service Awards for Calendar Year 2012 9. Petition #09-12: Continuation Approval of HIV Prevention Service Awards for Calendar Year

2012

Chair Jones asked if there were any discussion on the items brought forward on the Consent Agenda. Seeing none, he called for a motion to the Consent Agenda as presented.

A motion was made by Member Anthony to approve the Consent Agenda as presented; seconded by Member Menzel and carried unanimously (Member Christensen absent).


IV. PUBLIC HEARING / ACTION: Members of the public are allowed to speak on Public Hearing / Action items after the Board’s discussion and prior to their vote. Each speaker will be given five (5) minutes to address the Board on the pending topic. No person may yield his or her time to another person. In those situations where large groups of people desire to address the Board on the same matter, the Chair may request that those groups select only one or two speakers from the group to address the Board on behalf of the group. Once the Public Hearing is closed, no additional public comment will be accepted.

Dr. Sands noted that items #3 and #4 will be withdrawn as the bathing places specified on the Variance Requests are now in full compliance, which has been verified by pool plan review staff. Chair Jones asked for a motion to hear items #1 and #2 together, as they are related.

A motion was made by Member Noonan to hear Public Hearing items #1 and #2 simultaneously; seconded by Member Wood and carried unanimously (Member Christensen absent).

1. Consider / Approve Variance Request to Operate a Public Bathing Place (Pool #2) not in

Compliance with the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.134.1, Located at Caesar’s Palace – Octavius Tower Villa #2 Pool, 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (APN: 162-17-810-010); or take other action deemed appropriate. Petitioner: Caesar’s Octavius, LLC

2. Consider / Approve Variance Request to Operate a Public Bathing Place (Pool #3) not in Compliance with the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.134.1, Located at Caesar’s Palace – Octavius Tower Villa #3 Pool, 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (APN: 162-17-810-010); or take other action deemed appropriate. Petitioner: Caesar’s Octavius, LLC (for possible action) Chair Jones declared the public hearing open. Valerie Hirata, environmental health specialist II and Steve Goode, environmental health manager, spoke on this matter. Jim Barger, of Pacific Custom Pools, and Karyn Steenkamp, representing Caesar’s Entertainment, were present to answer questions of the Board. The petitioner requests a variance for the Octavius Tower Villa #2 pool’s deck as the deck is less than the entire perimeter of the pool, specifically 45% of the perimeter, and is also obstructed for a distance more than ten percent of the pool’s perimeter, in this instance 55% which is non-compliant with NAC 444.134.1 which states in part: “…a clear, unobstructed deck must be provided around the entire perimeter of a pool…a deck may be obstructed for a distance equal to not more than ten percent of the perimeter of the pool.” The petitioner states Villa #2 is a low occupancy, high end, exclusive unit and the pool negative edge feature is an iconic contribution to creating the overall ambience, aesthetics and caliber which appeal to an important guest market. The pool was designed around the unique way to access the spa; essentially bathers will have to travel along a walkway in the pool to gain access to the spa. Infinity edges will be provided on either side of the spa to create two water features in the pool. These water features will create a waterfall sound effect which will contribute to the overall environment that this hotel is trying to achieve. The petitioner further states the negative edge and ornate columns significantly enhance the aesthetic and functional value of the pool, with their sensory appeal of spilling water and sophisticated architectural treatment. These elements play an important role in the overall project signature. Evidenced by decades of high percentage occupancy, such villas at the


property have proven very popular with guests. The relaxation value of the pool environment greatly augments revenue potential. Project marketing will be severely impaired without this critical identity element. In terms of pool #3 (Item #2): The petitioner requests a variance for the Octavius Tower Villa #3 pool’s deck as the deck is less than the entire perimeter of the pool, specifically 45% of the perimeter, and is also obstructed for a distance more than ten percent of the pool’s perimeter, in this instance 55% which is non-compliant with NAC 444.134.1 which states in part: “…a clear, unobstructed deck must be provided around the entire perimeter of a pool…a deck may be obstructed for a distance equal to not more than ten percent of the perimeter of the pool.” The petitioner states Villa #3 is a low occupancy, high end, exclusive unit and the pool is an iconic contribution to creating the overall ambience, aesthetics and caliber which appeal to an important guest market. The pool includes an adjoining spa where the water from the spa will spill over an infinity edge into a weir. This design will create the illusion that the spa water is spilling into the pool. A decorative waterfall will be located on either side of the pool. These water features will create a waterfall sound effect which will contribute to the overall environment that this hotel is trying to achieve. Several decorative columns supporting an overhang, a theme that is commonly used throughout the property, will also be located on the deck around this pool. The petitioner further states that the pool in Villa #3 is nestled between adjacent raised grade elevations, and is a key element in creating a secluded and ornate space for this guest market. The unique circumstances and conditions are that the sunken pool was designed to be the most memorable and aesthetically pleasing element of the Villa’s amenities.

(Member Christensen arrived and was seated at 9:09am) As such, it is a one-of-a-kind, critically important signature marketing tool like no other amongst Las Vegas’ resort hotels and on par with competing resorts built in other gaming markets throughout the world. The petitioner concludes that compliance with the current regulation would be burdensome and cause a hardship on Caesars business in the increasingly competitive Las Vegas and international resort market. The sunken pool’s location and its aesthetics significantly enhance its marketing and functional value to the property, with its secluded setting and elegant architectural finishes. The pool will feature prominently in profiling the unit to a most discerning target clientele all over the world. Evidenced by decades of high percentage occupancy, such villas at the property have proven very popular environments with guests and augment the relaxation value of the pool environment. Project marketing will be severely impaired without this critical identity element. The hardships incurred by full compliance with the regulation would lessen project visibility, reduce property occupancy and decrease revenues, not only for the owner and operator, but also for the state, county and country. The cost to the property of a smaller pool size and diminished aesthetics from the addition of deck is calculated at $365,000 annually. Should approval be denied, Caesars would have no choice but to go back and redesign, setting the project back months. This would also allow further erosion of this particular customer base. The petitioner states that granting the variance will not be detrimental or pose a danger to public health and safety, nor will it affect other persons subject to the regulations regarding water recirculation requirements because of the following design features:


1) The proposed design does not preclude bather access to conventional decking, and does not compromise safety in any way. The length of this pool is 50 feet and is no deeper than four feet at any point. There is a double stairwell located in the middle of the pool which provides ingress and egress points for hotel guests. Therefore a means of access is always provided to bathers within twenty-five feet.

2) Even though the pool and the spa are located next to each other, the circulation systems will remain separate.

3) The pool design will meet or exceed all other requirements with the NAC 444 regulations.

4) Other facilities with similar designs have already been approved for a variance from the Board of Health.

Section 439.420 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) states that a variance can be granted from a regulation only if it is found, from evidence presented at a hearing that:

a) There are circumstances or conditions which: 1. Are unique to the petitioner; 2. Do not generally affect other persons subject to the regulations; 3. Make compliance with the regulation unduly burdensome; and 4. Cause a hardship to and abridge a substantial property right of the petitioner;

and b) Granting the variance:

1. Is necessary to render substantial justice to the petitioner and enable him to preserve and enjoy his property right; and

2. Will not be detrimental or pose a danger to public health and safety 2. Whenever a petition for a variance alleges that he suffers or will suffer economic

hardship by complying with the regulation, he must submit evidence demonstrating the costs of this compliance with the regulation. The Board will consider the evidence and determine whether those costs are unreasonable.

Staff is of the opinion that there exist circumstances which satisfy the requirements for a variance and that the granting of these variances will not be detrimental or pose an unreasonable danger to public health and safety if the following conditions as recommended are included:

1) The petitioner agrees to maintain the width of the deck not less than four feet on the remaining perimeter of the pool;

2) The petitioner agrees to adhere to all other applicable requirements of the Public Bathing Places Public Spas regulations, NAC 444;

3) Failure of the petitioner to prevent public health and safety issues, as determined by the health authority, will result in the voiding of this variance; and

4) This variance is automatically terminated without further notice upon the closing of any sale transaction involving the subject property, or upon petitioner leasing or assigning operations of these public bathing spas to any other person or entity.

Chair Jones asked if the parties understood and were in agreement with the conditions as specified; the parties responded affirmatively. Member Giunchigliani stated the Board needs to make a finding that the variance request complies with the provisions outlined by NAC 439.420. Ms. Hirata said the petitioner is asking to build a pool/spa combination in two high roller suites. There are some design features with the pools in question that call for deck obstruction greater than the allowable ten percent, such as decorative columns and weirs. Member Giunchigliani asked if there are safety factors the


Board would need to recognize going beyond the ten percent deck obstruction. Ms. Hirata said in review of the plan design, the petitioner has satisfied requirements by redesigning certain elements to come further into compliance. She referenced the pool and spa renderings provided to the Board members (attachment #1). The pool design allows guests to have access to the spa through the pool. There are planters and day beds strategically placed which create additional deck obstructions, thus forcing the need for a variance. The bathing places are fully ADA compliant with the addition of a portable chair lift on the ramp. Chair Jones noted that the NAC has not been updated in some time to be kept current with new designs and amenities created by properties throughout the state. In his review of the information, he feels that public safety is not being jeopardized by granting the variance. Member Giunchigliani asked the status of updating the NAC to be more encompassing of new bathing place designs and amenities. Ms. Hirata said the state has prepared draft changes to the regulations; however Governor Sandoval stated that no new regulations will be considered at present. Member Onyema asked for clarification on the pool depth. Ms. Hirata said the pools will be no deeper than four feet – the average depth is between three and a half and four feet. NAC requires one ladder/stairwell every seventy-five feet of pool perimeter; the plan design calls for a double stairwell in both pools, which provides two access points thereby exceeding the provision in the regulations. The walkway in pool #2 is considered the first step of the stairwell and is at a depth of approximately six inches, and it is four feet wide with handrails on each side. A bather cannot fall into the pool or spa from the walkway – a bather will need to walk down the stairs to enter either the pool or spa. A portal lift can be brought to the bathing place to assist patrons as necessary. Chair Jones asked if anyone from the public wished to offer testimony on this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Member Noonan expressed his appreciation to staff for their exceptional work on the items.

A motion was made by Member Noonan to approve both Variance Requests with the conditions outlined in the respective Memoranda and noted the requests are in compliance with the specific conditions outlined by NAC 439.420; seconded by Member Giunchigliani and carried unanimously.

3. Consider / Approve Variance Request to Operate a Public Bathing Place (Spa #2) not in

Compliance with the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.454.1, Located at Caesar’s Palace – Octavius Tower Villa #2 Spa, 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (APN: 162-17-810-010); or take other action deemed appropriate. Petitioner: Caesar’s Octavius, LLC (for possible action) Item withdrawn by staff

4. Consider / Approve Variance Request to Operate a Public Bathing Place (Spa #3) not in Compliance with the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.454.1, Located at Caesar’s Palace – Octavius Tower Villa #3 Spa, 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (APN: 162-17-8101-010); or take other action deemed appropriate. Petitioner: Caesar’s Octavius, LLC (for possible action) Item withdrawn by staff

(Member Giunchigliani left the meeting at 9:26am)


5. Memorandum #08-12: Consider / Approve Application for a Temporary Permit for LKQ of Nevada, Inc. to Operate a Solid Waste Management Facility – Recycling Center, Located at 4995 Copper Sage Street, Las Vegas, NV 89115 (APNs: 123-32-401-002 and 123-32-401-006); or take other action deemed appropriate Chair Jones declared the public hearing open. Walter Ross, environmental health engineer/supervisor and Arta Faraday, senior environmental health specialist, spoke relative to this matter. Mr. Ross said that LKQ has met all requirements for a temporary permit to operate a recycling center as specified in Section 4 of the Regulations Governing Temporary Permits to Operate Solid Waste Disposal Sites. The facility must also comply with Section 5 requirements including all design and operating standards for a recycling center. Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions and a site inspection within sixty (60) days of approval:

1. This facility, including all operations, must be in conformance with the information submitted in the Application for Temporary Permit to Operate a Recycling Center on November 18, 2011, as amended.

2. This facility, including all operations, must be at all times in compliance with the latest revision of the Temporary Permit Regulations, the design and operating standards specified in the Recycling Center Regulations, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations.

3. This facility must maintain approvals for applicable land use(s) and obtain and maintain applicable business license(s) and permits.

4. Failure to comply with the timelines listed in the conditions or with any other terms specified in this Memorandum will automatically result in the revocation of the permit and/or approval without further Board action.

The temporary permit will expire six (6) months after issuance. The applicant will need to submit an application for a permanent permit, which is approved by the Board of Health. The facility plans to accept lead-acid batteries and auto bodies. The facility will be operational Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 6:00pm, and open to the public between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm. Carol Downing and Petya Balova, representing LKQ were present to answer questions of the Board. Chair Jones asked if the parties understood and were in agreement with the conditions as specified, including acknowledgement that the temporary permit is valid only for six (6) months; the parties responded affirmatively. Chair Jones asked if anyone from the public wished to testify on this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Member Scow to approve the application with the conditions outlined in the Memorandum; seconded by Member Tarkanian and carried unanimously (Member Giunchigliani absent).


6. Memorandum #09-12: Consider / Approve Application for a Temporary Permit for City Auto Pick-A-Part, Inc., dba Las Vegas Recycling to Operate a Solid Waste Management Facility – Recycling Center, Located at 2220 N. Commerce Street, North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (APN: 139-22-501-009 ptn); or take other action deemed appropriate Chair Jones declared the public hearing open. Walter Ross, environmental health supervisor/engineer, and Kent Wirtz, environmental health specialist II, spoke relative to this matter. Mr. Ross said that City Auto Pick A Part, Inc. has met all requirements for a temporary permit to operate a recycling center as specified in Section 4 of the Regulations Governing Temporary Permits to Operate Solid Waste Disposal Sites. The facility must also comply with Section 5 requirements including all design and operating standards for a recycling center. Mr. Ross shared a revised copy of page 1 of the permit application with the Board, which reflects a name change of the owner and operator (attachment #2). Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions and a site inspection within sixty (60) days of approval:

1. This facility, including all operations, must be in conformance with the information submitted in the Application for Temporary Permit to Operate a Recycling Center on November 30, 2011, as amended.

2. This facility, including all operations, must be at all times in compliance with the latest revision of the Temporary Permit Regulations, the design and operating standards specified in the Recycling Center Regulations, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations.

3. This facility must receive and maintain approvals for applicable land use(s), including complying with all conditions, and obtain and maintain applicable business license(s) and permits.

4. The applicant has submitted satisfactory proof of financial assurance to cover the maximum cost to close this facility.

5. The applicant must pay a fee for the Waste Management Permit after the temporary permit to operate is issued.

6. Failure to comply with the timelines listed in the conditions or with any other terms specified in this memorandum will automatically result in the revocation of the permit without further Board action.

The temporary permit will expire six (6) months after issuance. The applicant will need to submit an application for a permanent permit, which is approved by the Board of Health.

(Member Giunchigliani rejoined the meeting and was seated at 9:31am) The facility plans to accept most forms of recyclable solid waste with the exception of certain textiles, all organic materials, construction and demolition debris and e-waste. The facility will be operational Monday through Saturday from 6:00am to midnight, and open to the public between the hours of 7:00am and 5:00pm and to 4:30pm on Saturdays. Laurie Sanders, representing City Auto Pick A Part, Inc. was present to answer questions of the Board. Chair Jones asked if the parties understood and were in agreement with the conditions as specified, including acknowledgement that the temporary permit is valid only for six (6) months; the parties responded affirmatively.

(Member Onyema left the meeting at 9:32am)


Member Giunchigliani asked if the facility is located in Commissioner Weekly’s district. This information was provided in the backup materials as well, in Attachment C of the memorandum. Chair Jones asked if anyone from the public wished to testify on this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to approve the application with the conditions outlined in the Memorandum; seconded by Member Tarkanian and carried unanimously (Member Onyema absent).

7. Memorandum #06-12: Consider / Approve Application for SA Recycling, LLC for SA Recycling

Nellis #2 Recycling Center to Operate a Solid Waste Management Facility – Recycling Center, Located at 2780 North Nellis Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89115 (APN: 140-16-301-001); or take other action deemed appropriate Chair Jones declared the public hearing open. Walter Ross, environmental health engineer/supervisor, and Dante Merriweather, environmental health specialist II, spoke relative to this matter. Mr. Ross said that SA Recycling, LLC for SA Recycling Nellis #2 Recycling Center has met all requirements to operate a recycling center as specified in Section 4 of the Regulations Governing Recycling Centers. The facility is currently operating under a temporary permit previously approved by the Board of Health. This facility must receive, store and process only source-separated recyclables for which there is an available market. Recyclable materials must be separated from the solid waste stream at the source of waste generation and the recycling center must not receive any solid waste, other than residual solid waste, commingled with recyclables at the recycling center. The facility will be operational and open to the public Monday through Saturday from 8:00am – 4:30pm on a seasonal basis. Types of waste accepted include paper, various metals, plastics, glass, special waste to include used tires, paint, waste oils, antifreeze, capacitor, possible PCB and non-PCB, and e-waste such as alkaline and rechargeable batteries, computers, hard drives, monitors, optical drives (CD and DVD), televisions and lead-acid batteries (automotive). Brandon Smith and Phillip Johnson, representing SA Recycling, LLC were present to answer questions of the Board.

Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions and a final inspection:

1. This facility, including all operations, must be in conformance with the information submitted in the Application for a Permit to Operate a Recycling Center submitted on September 16, 2011, as amended.

2. This facility, including all operations, must be at all times in compliance with the latest revision of the SWMA Regulations Governing Recycling Centers and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations.

3. This facility must receive and maintain approvals for applicable land use(s), including complying with all conditions, and obtain and maintain applicable business license(s) and permits.

4. This facility must submit a plan to SNHD to install appurtenances that screen the facility from the view of members of the general public. This plan must be approved by SNHD before a permit will be issued.

5. The applicant must pay a fee for the Waste Management Permit after the permit to operate is issued.


6. Failure to comply with the timelines listed in the conditions or with any other terms specified in this Memorandum will automatically result in the revocation of the permit without further Board action.

(Member Onyema rejoined the meeting and was seated at 9:34am)

Chair Jones asked if the parties understood and were in agreement with the conditions as specified; the parties responded affirmatively. Mr. Smith said it is a pleasure to work with the solid waste and compliance program staff. Member Giunchigliani asked if the facility will accept used tires. Mr. Johnson said this particular facility will not accept used tires; when automobiles are accepted the maximum number of tires that can be accepted is five. These tires are then sent to the shredder, which is then sent to industrial Class III landfills. Mr. Smith clarified that when the tires are shredded, the materials are unable at present to be separated for use at different facilities, such as the waste tire management facilities. Chair Jones asked if anyone from the public wished to testify on this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to approve the application with the conditions outlined in the Memorandum; seconded by Member Tarkanian and carried unanimously.

8. Memorandum #07-12: Consider / Approve Application for a Permit to Modify a Class III

Disposal Site from Southern California Edison Mohave Generating Station, Located at 655 Bruce Woodbury Drive, Laughlin, NV 89029 (APNs 264-23-000-002 (ptn), 264-26-000-001 (ptn), and 264-27-101-001 (ptn)); or take other action deemed appropriate Chair Jones declared the public hearing open. Walter Ross, environmental health supervisor/engineer, and Arta Faraday, senior environmental health specialist, spoke relative to this matter. Mr. Ross said that Southern California Edison Mohave Generating Station is a Class III landfill accepting solid waste from the past generation of electrical power from coal, which is no longer operating. NAC 444.753 which refers to NAC 444.6891 describes a Class III site’s final cover requirements. Southern California Edison is modifying their permit application regarding this requirement. NAC 444.6891.2 allows the Solid Waste Management Authority to approve an alternative design for a final cover which achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration. SNHD staff concurs that the rationale supports the regulatory intent to minimize percolation through the landfill. A permit condition requires continued groundwater monitoring throughout post-closure. An SNHD approved Ash Canyon Sampling Plan supplements this condition. NAC 444.644 entitled “Systems for Solid Waste” includes requirements that properly designed and operated landfills are permitted to ensure the disposal of solid waste is by means that do not create a health hazard public nuisance or impairment of the environment and will not cause or contribute to pollution of the atmosphere or surface of ground waters of the state. The existence of toxic materials or potential contaminants in solid waste by itself does not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Risk management is accomplished through proper operational practices and efforts preventing the driving force of water or liquids containing potential contaminants to waters of the state including groundwater.


No public comments requiring staff responses were received during the period for public comment or at the two workshops held in Laughlin and Las Vegas. Any person with a concern regarding this facility or any other solid waste management facility is encouraged to contact the Solid Waste and Compliance section at (702) 769-0600. Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions and a final inspection:

1. This facility, including all operations, must be in conformance with the information submitted in the Application for a Permit to Modify a Class III Disposal Site submitted on December 1, 2011, as amended.

2. This facility, including all operations, must be at all times in compliance with the latest revision of the SWMA Regulations Governing Class III Landfills and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations.

3. This facility must maintain approvals for applicable land use(s) and obtain and maintain applicable business license(s) and permits.

4. This facility shall install a system for a final cover which is designed to minimize infiltration and erosion. The system must be designed and constructed to:

a. Have a permeability that is less than or equal to the permeability of any system for a bottom liner or natural sub-soils present, or have a permeability no great than 1x10-4 centimeters per second, whichever is less.

b. Minimize infiltration through the closed landfill unit by the use of a layer which contains at least 24 inches of earthen material.

5. This facility shall conduct post-closure groundwater monitoring in accordance with a Landfill Sampling Plan that will be submitted within 180 days and approved by the Solid Waste Management Authority prior to permit issuance.

6. Failure to comply with the timelines listed in the conditions or with any other terms specified in this memorandum will automatically result in the revocation of the permit without further Board action.

7. The applicant must pay a fee for the Waste Management Permit after the permit to operate is issued.

Paul Phelan, representing Southern California Edison, was present to answer questions of the Board. Chair Jones asked if Mr. Phelan understood and was in agreement with the conditions as specified; Mr. Phelan responded affirmatively. Mr. Phelan stated this is part of the overall closure process and is another step which must be taken prior to decommissioning the site. Chair Jones asked if any conditions were outlined for this particular facility which are different or inconsistent from other power generating plants coming before the Board in the past. Mr. Ross said conditions are comparable with similar facilities; however the conditions are limited due to the fact this facility is in a closure status versus one that is fully operational and therefore generating solid waste on a daily basis. Member Scow referenced condition #5 and asked if groundwater monitoring would continue for a specified period of time. Mr. Ross said monitoring will continue for 30-year post-closure period. Member Giunchigliani asked who pays for the monitoring. Mr. Phelan responded that the co-owners of the facility fund this expense. Mr. Ross said that staff will review the monitoring through the 30-year period. Member Giunchigliani asked if staff would be compensated for this review to which Mr. Ross responded this is a continued topic of discussion.


Glenn Savage, director of environmental health said that the district sought assistance with our hydrogeology program to determine any trends with pollutants in the groundwater system. Staff contracted with Desert Research Institute to review data pertaining to groundwater monitoring. Member Wood asked for clarification on dry pond sludge. Mr. Phelan said there were a number of evaporation ponds on site and as the facility morphed into a zero-discharge facility water was used and reused to the greatest extent possible. Fine materials were picked up in the water, which then evaporated, became concentrated and became a deposit in the evaporation ponds as dry pond sludge. This substance is compacted and is quite dense. Permeability and compaction tests indicate that the material is of no imminent danger. Chair Jones asked if anyone from the public wished to testify on this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Member Scow to approve the application with the conditions outlined in the Memorandum; seconded by Member Tarkanian and carried unanimously.

(Member Christensen left the meeting at 9:49am)

V. Meeting of the Board of Health as governing body to receive information from its attorneys

regarding potential and existing litigation involving matters over which the Board has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power and to deliberate toward a decision on the matters – CLOSED SESSION pursuant to NRS 241.015(2)(b)(2); and to receive a report on the status of labor negotiations, pursuant to NRS 288.220 Chair Jones called for a motion for the Board to enter into Closed Session.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani for the Board to enter into Closed Session pursuant to NRS 241.015(2)(b)(2) and NRS 288.220; seconded by Member Litman and carried unanimously (Member Christensen absent).

CLOSED SESSION The meeting recessed for the Southern Nevada District Board of Health to meet in Closed Session at 9:50am. Chair Jones reconvened the open session at 10:23am.

(Member Christensen rejoined the meeting during Closed Session and was seated at 9:51am) Chair Jones noted a quorum was present following the conclusion of the Closed Session with Members Christensen, Giunchigliani, Litman, Menzel, Noonan, Onyema, Scow, Tarkanian, Vigilante, Wood and Woodbury seated (Member Anthony not present). VI. REPORT / DISCUSSION / ACTION

1. Petition #01-12: Approval of Proposal for Implementation of the Kronos Workforce Management Solution; direct staff accordingly or take other action deemed appropriate

Scott Weiss, director of administration; Angus MacEachern, human resources administrator; Eddie Larsen, information technology manager; and Mark Ricciardi, legal counsel presented on this item.


Mr. Weiss said the district has been considering an electronic timekeeping process for the last eighteen months. The Board, as well as the community, have requested the district to adopt processes which are more efficient and make better use of available resources. Staff looked at the Kronos system and one other system, as possible solutions for improving the current method of manual timekeeping. Mr. Ricciardi said there are several reasons to consider an electronic timekeeping system, particularly in terms of how records of hours worked are kept and maintained. Under state and federal law no employer is required to have a time clock or electronic timekeeping system.

(Member Anthony returned to the meeting and was seated at 10:26am.) The law requires employers to keep an accurate record of hours worked. Over time the process for timekeeping has evolved to what is now an electronic method. Most large employers, including public entities, have migrated to this type of system for increased efficiency and accuracy. A large benefit of an electronic timekeeping system is an accurate, real-time accounting of actual time worked. Mr. MacEachern shared a PowerPoint with the Board regarding the benefits of an electronic timekeeping system (attachment #3) noting that staff is recommending acquisition of an electronic timekeeping system to provide a better means to capture employee time and to improve efficiency over the current manual process. This would also eliminate many redundant records and increase productivity across the board. The primary components of the electronic timekeeping system, such as Kronos provide:

• Records of actual work hours • Verification of attendance and real-time knowledge of who is at work • Off-site clock-in/out and status change • Overtime records

Chair Jones noted that during public comment concerns were expressed about problems with clocking in/out in the field. Mr. MacEachern said employees expressed concerns with their telephones and lack of service in some areas. Employees should call the system to clock in prior to entering an establishment, such as while still in the parking lot. Wherever an employee is at any given time, he should be able to log in and access the system to clock in/out. Mr. Weiss said in his experience with Kronos, there is always a back-up system in place in the event an employee cannot access the system to clock in/out. Kronos does not have much down time; however a manual process will be in place to account for any time the system is not accessible. This is termed a “mis-punch” and is an exception and must be signed by the supervisor. An internal audit system will reflect the authorization to make the mis-punch change in the system itself. Mr. MacEachern continued that automation of payroll-related forms will eliminate the need for hand-entry of hours worked and allocation of hours to various assignments. The automation of leave requests and approvals will allow a supervisor to automatically see staffing effects of leave requests or usage in “dashboard” format. This type of system will also track grant salary allocations.


Mr. Larsen said the time-entry system is a small component of the overall solution being considered. Some opportunities of the time-entry system include:

• Automation and efficiency • Accountability and tracking • Reporting • Attendance and leave policy enforcement • Grant payroll tracking • Elimination of manual process which is inefficient and subject to human error • Digital master record

The district currently offers an Employee Self-Service module; however Kronos will provide enhanced capabilities for employees including:

• Payroll information and accrued leave balances/history • W-2s and W-4s • Benefit enrollment • Personal profile and performance records • Automation of leave requests by employees to supervisors • Allow supervisors to process leave requests and anticipate staffing requirements • Employees and supervisors will be able to track time available and worked in real time

Mr. Larsen compared the current manual process of timekeeping versus an enhanced electronic timekeeping process:

Current Manual Process

Improvements with Electronic Timekeeping

Paper routing takes too long; subject to change because of inaccuracies

Shortened process

Papers get lost or temporarily misplaced Support remote business process Manual validations Allow for system validations Potentially inconsistent application of pay rules and practices

Rules-based system will ensure accuracy and consistent application of practices

The proposed electronic timekeeping system will allow employees to clock in/out in a variety of ways. Employees in the field will need a phone that is J2ME compliant – currently all phones provided to staff meet this requirement. Employees will also be able to clock in/out via a computer, time clocks and the internet – there are multiple avenues available to capture employee time. Mr. Larsen also outlined the benefits of converting to an electronic timekeeping process versus a manual paper process related to time off requests:

Current Manual Process

Improvements with Electronic Timekeeping

Manual paper processes allow for error by employee and supervisors

Elimination of redundant entry

Inconsistent practices from division to division or section to section

Calendar leave views for supervisors and managers

Better records and tracking Chair Jones noted there are two staff members spending 75% of their time performing timekeeping functions. He asked for clarification on how the employees’ time would be spent going forward. Mr. MacEachern stated that one employee would work on payroll functions while


the other employee would be assigned to other HR functions. Though the expense for the system is $352,000, these funds are coming from the capital budget and will not be taken from operating expenses. Mr. MacEachern said that Kronos will last for sometime in the future and is adaptable to whatever financial/payroll system the district may acquire in the future. Todd Philips, representing Kronos, addressed the Board. Member Scow asked for clarification on the system’s capabilities to interface with other programs, such as payroll, to further generate efficiencies. Mr. Philips responded that Kronos is a labor/accounting platform. Reports can be generated throughout the month which reflect grant management, payroll, overtime, timekeeping activity and the like. Member Woodbury asked if the district is looking for new financial system software. Mr. Larsen said he has been working with Accent Business Services to develop an RFP for a new Enterprise Resource Planner (ERP) that will encompass inventory, HR and financial systems. The RFP will take several months to finalize. Input from all divisions is necessary for the RFP as the ERP affects all divisions, sections and programs across the district. Member Woodbury asked if there were a particular platform in mind. Mr. Larsen said he is aware of some platforms used for this purpose; however we have not made progress toward this end as the RFP is not finalized. Member Woodbury noted one employee stated that implementing the Kronos system is akin to putting the cart before the horse; we need to be fully aware of any potential additional costs going forward. He asked for an estimate of any projected costs from Kronos pertaining to interfacing with a new ERP. Mr. Philips said Kronos provides a standard interface. He said an ERP is looking for basic information; Kronos provides this information as a standard API which easily interfaces with platforms such as PeopleSoft and SAP – it is a standard interface that will work with any ERP on the market. Once the district decides on an ERP, the provider will create an interface on the backend of Kronos to determine where the information needs to be routed.

(Member Menzel left the meeting at 11:01am) There is no estimate needed at present; this will come with the actual interface with the ERP. Member Woodbury said the district will need to budget funds to maintain the Kronos system going forward and asked if this has been considered. He said that all potential needs and future costs need to be considered. Mr. Philips asked if the needs and costs to which Member Woodbury referred were specific to an interface with an ERP. Member Woodbury asked if Kronos is self-operating. Member Christensen said the interface is the key component and going forward there will be additional components needed, coming with hidden costs, to ensure everything works appropriately going forward. Mr. Philips said the Workforce Integration Manager (WIM) is being provided to the district as part of the initial package. When the ERP vendor is determined and any additional needs are fleshed out – including what may be needed from Kronos – the backend of the interface will be created. Kronos does not need to be on site for this to happen. He stressed that all the software is already in place. When it comes to solutions such as this, Kronos wants to make everything simple for the employer and provides all information up front; ERP vendors are familiar with Kronos and know how to work with their product. Member Woodbury asked for examples of other businesses using Kronos. Mr. Philips listed Clark County, UMC and Clark County fire as local customers.


Member Noonan said he is familiar with Kronos, as it is used in a majority of resorts in town. It is proven as a good and consistence product that many employers rely on for their respective workforce.

(Member Menzel rejoined the meeting and was seated at 11:04am) He asked what would happen if 150 employees called in at the same time and if the system could track all the calls. Mr. Philips said Kronos provides a solution called TeleTime where employees can clock in by phone – this is a punch in process, not actually “calling in.” The employee will dial a number, hear a ring, enter an employee code and then a specified code to clock in/out, followed by hanging up. The minimum configuration of employees in a fifteen-minute period of time to access the system over eight ports is 450 employees. The system can accommodate up to ninety-six ports. Member Vigilante echoed the concerns of staff expressed earlier with cell phones not working in certain areas due to lack of signal strength. He said employees need options other than clocking in/out via cell phones. Mr. Philips said that employees can access their self-service site from their computer, and call up the timecard and enter comments for a particular date/time and why approval is needed. Member Vigilante said this defeats the purpose as supervisors would still need to manually approve the time worked in this particular scenario. Mr. Philips said this is done on an exception basis, rather than the rule. There is no system that can foresee every possible scenario, thus the need for a contingency plan. A process needs to be in place to address most issues. Member Vigilante said in reference to the health district it would be most problematic for environmental health employees and any nurses working in the field. He felt that this type of system would be most beneficial for employees working at their desks and not those in the field. He expressed concern expending a large amount of funds on this system when there are other more pressing issues facing the district at this time. He said administration needs to spend time in the field with employees to have a better grasp on what is being done on a daily basis and staff’s needs. Timekeeping needs at the health district are vastly different from other industries. Member Vigilante said Kronos is a great system, and his comments are not reflective of comments made by staff earlier in the meeting. He feels that management should be more cognizant of what employees are doing, and input is needed from all levels as to how to make improvements. Employees continue to bring up problems at monthly Board meetings, and Member Vigilante felt that management needs to address those concerns prior to purchasing new systems. Mr. MacEachern said there are currently 526 staff on the payroll, 300 of whom are not field employees. Those employees working in the field are in and out of the office on a daily basis. Employees working in the field will be expected to clock in prior to entering a facility, where reception is more likely such as in a parking lot. Part of the implementation process will be to meet with staff and discuss different scenarios which will be addressed when rules are created. We need to work out viable solutions for clocking in/out and mis-punches. Acquisition of an electronic timekeeping system will bring the health district into alignment with many employers in Clark County. Member Vigilante said that there is not always reception in parking garages, thus this type of system is impractical for environmental health employees. Chair Jones said that field workers are currently completing manual time cards at their desk at some point. There is no extra work for employees to enter time worked in a digital manner.


Mr. Philips addressed leave requests and management of overtime. When an employee requests time off through the Kronos system, the system will verify available leave time and if time is available the request is automatically routed to the supervisor for approval. Kronos is also capable of keeping track of FMLA time and verifying request for use. Member Wood asked why RFPs are done for some projects and not for others. Mr. Larsen said an RFP was being developed for the ERP solution, but none was done for electronic timekeeping solutions and Member Wood expressed concern about the lack of consistency. She questioned how the Board can know for certainty that Kronos is the best option for the money when no RFP was done. Mr. Weiss said the ERP solution will cost millions of dollars to acquire and implement. The Board will need to know what is being done with that large of expense. In terms of electronic timekeeping, other solutions were considered prior to Kronos. A team of district employees, not just management, reviewed one solution and determined that it was not the best option for the district – the team felt Kronos was the most viable solution. Mr. Weiss said the implementation team will work together to address issues, determine rules and address concerns following implementation of Kronos. Member Wood said it is evident the number of problems created by not having an RFP for this type of solution. An RFP would have resulted in a transparent process to demonstrate why this particular solution is the best option for the district. Member Wood expressed further concern that no information was provided detailing the balance in the capital budget and how this expenditure will affect that fund. Mr. Weiss said the Board has traditionally approved allocation of a certain amount of funds each year to establish a capital fund for projects such as this. There will be an ongoing expense of approximately $18,000 annually as well. Member Wood said she has reservations approving a large expenditure without full knowledge of how the expense will affect the specified fund. Mr. Weiss was unable to provide the exact balance of the capital fund, but cited he believes it is in excess of $3 million. Member Christensen asked where the data for the system would be maintained, as well as clarification on market penetration. Mr. Larsen said the system is based on client-server architecture, which will be housed in the datacenter. It is web-based on the front end, running off SQL in the back end, similar to other applications running at the district. Mr. Philips said that Kronos is the system of choice in over 50% of the market in terms of workforce management solutions. There are 37 other competitors in the market. Member Scow asked if the annual maintenance fee would come from operational or capital funds. Mr. Weiss said the maintenance fee would come from the operational budget. Member Scow asked if any efficiencies created by the use of this system could offset the annual maintenance fee. Mr. Weiss stated that any savings created will be used to perform more value-added services for the community and staff. Member Scow noted that many of the jurisdictions represented on the Board have an electronic timekeeping system of some sort in place; these jurisdictions also have field workers. To her knowledge no problems have been reported. Mr. Philips said that many jurisdictions have a city health organization imbedded in their infrastructure. The Kronos system implemented at Clark County took into account field services workers and how those employees could properly and accurately enter their time worked, and any exceptions are few rather than the rule.

(Member Onyema left the meeting at 11:31am)


Member Giunchigliani said in her opinion the issue is not about Kronos. Words like planning, team, and participation were used today and it seems that these practices were not employed during this entire process. She stated that everyone, including management and elected officials, should punch a time clock. It is important to have empathy and understanding for how an individual’s job fits in to the overall scheme of things. She asked for clarification on the entire timeline of the electronic timekeeping discussion. Mr. Weiss said the manual timekeeping process has long been an issue at the district. Approximately eighteen months ago management began discussions about electronic timekeeping procedures. Information was shared with union leadership about two months ago when district finances where discussed in depth; a group of employees from all divisions met to discuss potential solutions. Member Giunchigliani asked who the employees were on this team. Mr. Weiss said he could not recall, but there were about fifteen employees involved, most of whom represented HR and IT. Member Giunchigliani asked for a list of these employees. She feels there is a great deal of miscommunication. There is a difference between sharing information and inviting others to a discussion. She feels the health district has been unhealthy, which is bothersome to her. She noted staff is exceptional and managers do a terrific job; however there is something that is not working, which is evidenced by the comments today. She commended the two staff members dedicated to managing the district’s payroll.

(Member Onyema rejoined the meeting and was seated at 11:33am) She continued that this is one more indicator that there are problems at the health district. She said there is no cohesive group and implementation of electronic timekeeping will not be successful if employees are not involved in the entire process. She asked Mr. Philips for clarification on e-cards. Member Giunchigliani also noted that Mrs. Clark was able to assist her in locating both the Personnel Code and the Collective Bargaining Agreement on the Board website. Mr. Philips said that an e-card is a punch in/out system – all information is collected electronically and payroll can be generated from those electronic records. Member Giunchigliani noted there is flexibility to accommodate variables if this is the direction the district wishes to move in. Her primary concern is that if staff has been discussing this since 2009, the Board should have been aware before prior to members receiving emails from concerned staff members. She said the entire process was not handled well. She asked Mr. Weiss if implementation could be accomplished in a more thoughtful manner to avoid duplication of efforts. She noted there is no widespread abuse of time accounting by staff. She suggested a business plan and a budget be developed for the Board’s review detailing the full implementation process with input from staff, and any potential costs for relocating the system to a new facility. Mr. Philips said Clark County has a full-time employee dedicated to the management of the ERP. Smaller organizations do not enjoy this benefit. Member Giunchigliani said this is yet another reason the health district should be consolidated with Clark County. Mr. Philips said the proposed timeline includes migration to an ERP and training efforts, as well as determination of business roles in that process. Member Giunchigliani said again there is no business plan; she does not see evidence of employee involvement on the front end to provide input; she does not see management spending time with front line employees. She said the agenda item today should have read to give administration direction to provide a business plan, meet with employees, visit sites where


the system is in place, and provide feedback and a final recommendation to the Board. She would like to see that an RFP was completed. Member Wood said that a cost savings analysis should also be included with a business plan. None of this information has been shared with the Board or employees. Member Anthony said the City of Las Vegas has an electronic timekeeping system, which was developed in-house. He said that everything is done better with technology: jurisdictions are looking at ways to better utilize the Internet, smart phones, apps, and iPads. Technology is the driver for efficiency and effectiveness. He expressed his support for the proposal and is ready to move forward. Member Tarkanian said a key element is that the workforce should be able to provide input early in the process, particularly when they are the ones doing the work. Member Onyema said with any introduction of new technology or manner of doing business the most important step is the adoption of that process. A plan needs to be developed to formally adopt what will be implemented for a more meaningful use of technology. There is a breakdown in the process, but it’s not broken as yet. A plan needs to be developed outlining who should be involved, at what phase and how to unroll the project. It is essential to educate staff about the benefits of new technology and address hurdles as they arise in the process, keeping in mind that no migration to new technology is seamless. Member Noonan said he is also a strong supporter of the RFP process and he wants an explanation why this was not done in this case. He wants justification on the $352,000 cost and proof that this is the best quote available. Mr. Weiss said he looked to the County as an example, who did not do an RFP process. This information was shared with Kronos; staff was able to negotiate better pricing for our needs. Kronos has a government pricing schedule, which was offered to SNHD.

(Member Christensen left the meeting at 11:47am) A team reviewed two presentations from Kronos and another company and determined that the other company’s product was not sufficient for the district’s needs. Staff has been negotiating with Kronos to get the best deal possible. He stated that Dr. Sands has challenged staff to be involved in the process, including development of an implementation team – directors provided HR with a listing of staff to participate on this team. This team would be maintained after the system goes live to address any concerns that may arise. Mr. Weiss said the Joint Labor/Management Committee was informed over a year ago that the district was looking to convert to an electronic timekeeping system. Union leadership was also notified. The goal has been to involve representatives from each division to ensure all unique needs are met and addressed as best possible. Member Giunchigliani said this was done after the fact. She motioned to give direction for management to move towards an integrated electronic timekeeping system; to form an implementation team comprised of employees on the front end; and bring back to the Board an implementation plan including a budget and an RFP. Chair Jones said the district needs to come into the 20th century. Whatever solution may be selected and implemented, there is going to be a process to make it work. Improvement will be continuous to make implementation work. Kronos is a proven product and can be successful given the opportunity.


Member Litman said he heard concern about the large expenditure in a difficult economic setting, not migration to an electronic timekeeping system. Monies are available in the capital fund for the expenditure and the initial expense will not be taken from wages or operations. Member Woodbury said he agrees in principle with what had been said. He said the public comments went deeper than a time clock system. Two issues in his mind are a “big brother mentality” and cost, which impacts employees. Employees feel if the money is spent on this project, it is not available for employee benefits or services to the public. He would like to see a demonstration of potential cost saving benefits and efficiencies. He would like to see management and staff discuss the rules process and how to address potential problems in the field. Member Giunchigliani asked to amend the motion to focus on Kronos, but she would like to ensure employees are involved at the beginning of the process, and that a plan is brought back to the Board to include maintenance fees and rules for the timekeeping process and exceptions. Member Onyema said one issue is moving forward with Kronos; the other is implementation of a new process. He said there should be two motions. Member Giunchigliani said it is up to the Board on how to proceed with a motion. She said if the County didn’t do an RFP, she was unaware as the process was already in place before she became a Commissioner. Just because the County did not do an RFP is no excuse for the district not doing an RFP. She expressed a willingness to separate the motion to include an RFP or acquiring Kronos. Chair Jones asked Member Giunchigliani to state her motion. Member Giunchigliani said any issues with Kronos should be brought to the Board. She would also like Mr. Weiss to name the other company considered and why it is ultimately excluded. She is concerned that after three years the Board is just learning of the plan to move forward; she said it is akin to the building issue. Chair Jones said the motion is to go forward with purchasing the Kronos system; develop an implementation team with employee involvement on the front end. Member Giunchigliani asked to separate the two items into separate motions. She said the purchase amount may or may not be accurate going forward – there was not enough information provided to make an educated decision today. Dr. Sands said in doing the analysis of various electronic timekeeping systems it was always the intent to obtain input from the different areas of the district to address individual needs. Member Giunchigliani said this did not happen. She said the issue is bigger than just purchasing Kronos. The issue is whether or not the Board wants to move forward with changing the culture of the health district. Member Tarkanian said management did not purposely seek to do something wrong. She wants to ensure that with such a large expenditure that there is input from all levels, to address any concerns, and that the best interest of the employees is considered. Technology is extremely important and there must be employee buy-in in order to succeed. Member Giunchigliani said the issue is not moving forward with electronic timekeeping. The crux of the issue is how it was decided upon. Member Giunchigliani motioned to direct administration to formulate an implementation team for the purposes of identifying how to implement an electronic timekeeping system; and focus on


development of a business plan to include potential interface with a future ERP; development of a full budget; and bring this information back to the Board within two months time. She said acquisition of Kronos could be a second motion. This motion was seconded by Member Litman. Member Anthony said an electronic system is an electronic system, regardless of whether or not it is approved today. Member Tarkanian asked why Member Anthony felt the Board and staff did not want an electronic system in place. The comments from staff did not reflect resistance to accountability and clocking in/out. Member Anthony said he is merely stating the obvious and is not sure what else can be done – staff presented a proposal to the Board from a reputable company that can be put in place quickly to begin realizing both cost savings and efficiencies. Chair Jones said employee input and involvement in the implementation process is crucial; he further understands the need for a thorough business plan at the start of a project. He would like to see the Board make a decision on the acquisition of the Kronos system. Member Giunchigliani said this should be a second motion. Shelli Clark, recording secretary, asked for a roll call vote due to the possibility of a split vote on the motion. Member Onyema stated the Board is being asked to vote on a plan to implement something before a decision to purchase the product is made. Member Woodbury asked to switch the order of the two motions. Member Onyema said the first decision should be whether or not to move forward with an electronic timekeeping system; if so, then a motion should follow with a plan for implementation. Member Vigilante said he cannot support purchase of a system that has not been openly discussed with employees at all levels.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to direct administration to formulate a team for the purposes of identifying how to implement an electronic timekeeping system, with a focus on development of a business plan and any potential interface with the proposed future ERP while ensuring a full budget is developed to include any maintenance fees for review by the Board within a two-month period; seconded by Member Litman and carried with Members Anthony, Menzel and Onyema opposed (Members Christensen absent).

Chair Jones called for a motion to purchase the Kronos system as recommended by staff.

A motion was made by Member Scow to proceed with the purchase of the Kronos timekeeping solution, while implementing the first motion for collaboration with staff; seconded by Member Anthony and carried with Members Giunchigliani, Tarkanian, Vigilante and Wood opposed (Member Christensen absent).

Due to the split vote a roll call was taken: Member Menzel: Aye Member Tarkanian: Nay Member Noonan: Aye Member Wood: Nay Member Onyema: Aye Member Anthony: Aye Chair Jones: Aye Member Vigilante: Nay Member Woodbury: Aye Member Scow: Aye Member Litman: Aye Member Giunchigliani: Nay


2. Petition #05-12: Approval of New Classification Specification for Software Engineer, Recommended Schedule 24 ($64,376 - $89,835); direct staff accordingly or take other action deemed appropriate

(Member Anthony left the meeting at 12:11pm) Angus MacEachern, human resources administrator, presented on this item. Essentially this new classification specification comprises some of the duties currently assigned to the applications programmer/analyst classification specification to better meet the needs of the programming and system development needs within the information technology section. With these changes we can more effectively recruit and fill these hard to fill positions. Member Giunchigliani asked for clarification on the specific duties of this position. Eddie Larsen, information technology manager, said this position will be devoted to programming and software development, not system support as does the applications programmer/analyst position.

(Member Vigilante left the meeting at 12:14pm) Mr. Larsen continued that we are looking at ways to increase our web presence and creation of online forms. EMS is able to validate an EMT’s certificate by entering certain criteria online versus submitting a written form to the office. Mr. MacEachern confirmed the recruitment for this position would be both internal and external. The salary range for this type of position averages $75,000 per year.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to approve the new classification specification for Software Engineer as presented; seconded by Member Tarkanian and carried unanimously (Members Anthony, Christensen and Vigilante absent).

Chair Jones asked to hear Items #6 & 7 due to possibly losing quorum as the meeting continues.

6. Discussion Item: Consideration of a Request to Include the Statute of the Decade System Implementation (VAX Replacement) as a Future Agenda Item; and direct staff accordingly (requested by Member Vigilante) – Held from November 29, 2011 Board of Health meeting

7. Discussion Item: Consideration of a Request to Include Reestablishing a Public Health

Center in the City of North Las Vegas as a Future Agenda Item; and direct staff accordingly (requested by Member Wood)

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to agendize the two items for discussion at the February 2012 BOH meeting as requested; seconded by Member Onyema and carried unanimously (Members Anthony, Christensen and Vigilante absent).

3. Receive Report on the Temporary Solid Waste Permit process; direct staff accordingly –

Held from November 29, 2011 Board of Health meeting

(Member Onyema left the meeting at 12:15pm)

Dr. Sands remarked this item is before the Board as a result of discussion at the October 2011 meeting when the Regulations Governing the Temporary Permits to Operate Solid Waste Disposal Sites were approved, and there were concerns about the permit process and the time


required for a temporary permit to be approved. Following the presentation, the Board can provide direction on any changes to the existing approval process. Dennis Campbell, solid waste and compliance manager, presented on this item and shared a PowerPoint presentation with the Board (attachment #4). Currently the regulations state: “A solid waste management facility shall not be in operation until the site location has been approved by the agency of jurisdictions, a business license has been applied for at the agency of jurisdiction, and a Temporary Permit has been approved and issued by the Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA) to the operator/owner for the solid waste management facility.” Approval currently entails a Public Hearing before the Board and a formal motion to approve the temporary permit. The temporary permit was established to allow businesses to operate and generate revenue for up to six months while working to obtain a permanent permit. As of today, the timeline includes a minimum of sixty days to navigate approval of a temporary permit, which does affect the six month period. Temporary permits can only be issued to recycling centers, construction and demolition waste short-term storage bin facilities and any other solid waste management facility determined to have a low potential to create risk to public health, safety and/or the environment or cause a public nuisance. The regulations do not apply to those facilities operating under a permanent permit. Before an application can be accepted, the owner/operator must have land use approval and proof of having submitted a business license application. A complete application must include the following:

• The name, location, phone number and mailing address of: o The business owner o The property owner o The authorized agent of the owner, if applicable

• A statement indicating whether the applicant is a natural person, firm or corporation • Signature of a responsible person • Evidence of ownership or a lease agreement • Other permits or licenses required to be issued by agencies of jurisdiction as applicable

(i.e. air quality, fire, flood control, building department, etc.) • Financial assurance (assurance of available fund to cover the cost of closure, post-

closure and any release of contaminants; proven to be the most problematic of all requirements) – no facility can receive a permit to operate or be in operation without this document

• Plan of Operation outline specifying: o Types of solid waste to be handled o Volumes to be handled daily, weekly and monthly o Sources of waste stream o Sources for disposal o Number and positions titles of staff o Number and types of equipment used to store, process and/or dispose of solid

waste at the site o Available markets

• Closure plan Mr. Campbell shared a process diagram overview depicting the actual timeline for applicants going through the temporary permit process. The application packet includes a Public Notice and Fact Sheet, which allows a 30-day public comment period.

(Member Anthony rejoined the meeting and was seated at 12:26pm)


There are currently thirty-nine applications under review as either temporary permits, new applications or modifications to existing permits. In recent months two companies lost their lease on a permitted facility and have been forced to relocate operations; these companies have submitted applications for a temporary permit and missed the deadline for getting their applications to the Board for approval – operations will cease until after the February Board meeting. Staff is of the opinion that based on set criteria consideration should be given to allow the director of environmental health the ability to waive the requirement of taking certain Temporary Permit applications to the Board of Health. Staff would provide a monthly report at Board meetings regarding any temporary permit approvals. The criteria for administrative approval for a temporary permit would be as follows:

• Previous compliance history • No environmental or significant health hazards • No complex operations involving potential hazardous waste • Permit application submittal requirements met • Zoning and land-use approved • Business license application submitted • No public comment received concerning any of the above criteria

Institution of administrative approval would reduce the process by thirty days thereby allowing businesses to begin operations sooner. This would also benefit the two companies being forced to cease operations at the end of January. Applications for permanent permits will continue to come before the Board of Health for approval. Member Giunchigliani said that administrative approval makes good sense in this case, as businesses will be allowed to operate sooner, thereby generating revenue. She asked if recommendations were made relative to the cost of financial assurance. Mr. Campbell said financial assurance is outlined in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) and there is a set process to follow. Member Giunchigliani asked if buildings are required to be built on a slab. Mr. Campbell said this is not required by regulation in most cases – it is generally up to the local jurisdictions. Chair Jones said the elected members may be hearing about these facilities for the first time when the application is heard during Public Hearing. Member Giunchigliani replied that the representatives should be aware of zoning and land use approvals within their respective jurisdictions. Member Giunchigliani expressed support for this expedited process. She also expressed appreciation for the working relationship between health district staff and county zoning staff. She asked that staff include a report monthly on the number of temporary permits issued to keep the Board duly informed. Mr. Campbell said that public comment will continue to be accepted and notices will be placed in the newspaper for the respective jurisdiction where the facility is located.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to accept staff’s recommendation to institute an administrative approval process for temporary permits for solid waste management facilities; seconded by Member Wood and carried unanimously (Members Christensen, Onyema and Vigilante absent).


Member Noonan expressed his appreciation to staff for developing an expedited process for the business community and creating efficiencies as well.

4. Consider / Approve Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Board Resolution; direct staff accordingly

Dr. Sands this item is a follow-up to the presentation on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, which was well received by the Board. The Board directed staff at that time to prepare a Resolution to communicate to the community the direction of the Board related to this important topic and how the Board would like to the community to respond. Member Giunchigliani expressed her appreciation for staff’s growing partnership with the Clark County School District, and the possibility of legislative changes in the future. She further stated this will help build a community-based effort that is evidence-based and not promote one issue over another. Chair Jones asked if the faith-based community would be involved in this endeavor. Dr. Sands said the district is very involved in the faith-based community and staff can reach out to our partners to ensure their concerns are addressed. Member Giunchigliani suggested adding language on the fifth bullet to coordinate community-wide coalitions, including the faith-based community. Member Woodbury commended staff on the draft Resolution and keeping it broad-based while emphasizing preventive measures. He shared the draft with his associates for their feedback and two common themes arose: how to control content including awareness of moral beliefs, introduction of alternative lifestyles, safe sex practices versus abstinence; the other concern is providing information to parents/guardians and a focus on the family in addition to the community. Member Giunchigliani suggested modifying the language to read: “to coordinate community-wide coalitions, including the faith-based community and parents/guardians.” Member Woodbury referenced the last “whereas” and suggested “centered on communities and families and guided by the principles of social justice.” He further referenced the third bullet and asked the language be revised to read: “updated referral information to parents, guardians, teachers…” Member Scow noted her appreciations for Member Woodbury’s comments and support for including reference to parents and family in the document, as the home is most effective place to receive education. She also appreciates the partnership with the school district; however she does not want to see programs imposed where there are very limited resources – we need to ensure we are working together. She noted the teenage pregnancy rate did decline slightly while she served as a Trustee.

A motion was made by Member Giunchigliani to approve the draft Resolution with the changes requested by the Board; seconded by Member Wood and carried unanimously (Members Christensen, Onyema and Vigilante absent).

(Member Giunchigliani left the meeting at 12:41pm)


5. Receive Update on Status of Main Building Assessment and Potential Replacement Facilities; direct staff accordingly or take other action deemed appropriate

Scott Weiss, director of administration and Larry Singer, broker from Grubb & Ellis presented on this item and presented at PowerPoint (attachment #5).

(Member Litman left the meeting at 12:42pm) Mr. Singer said the district established search criteria to identify potential facilities to replace the current buildings located at the main campus, which included:

• All of Clark County bounded by the 215 beltway • All existing buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet of available space • Vacant land containing nine or more acres suitable for development • Properties for sale or leave • Government-owned properties

District staff also established evaluation criteria for each identified building in an effort to find the best possible facilities for the district. Due to timing and cost issues it was determined that vacant land should be excluded from consideration at this time.

• Central location (within three to five miles of Shadow Lane Campus) • Existing building • Building size (50,000 square feet or greater) • Site size (to accommodate district’s space and parking requirements) • Sales price ($120.00/square foot or less) • Lease rate ($2.00/square foot full service gross or less) • Parking (minimum ratio of 4.5 stalls/1000 square feet of space) • Ease of automobile/public transportation access to and from parking facilities • Primary street • Visible from primary street or freeway • Ability to add additional space or buildings • Owner control of property (no sublease of building or ground lease)

(Members Giunchigliani and Litman rejoined the meeting and were seated at 12:46pm)

• Single tenant building • No possible asbestos (built after 1976) • No use restrictions preventing district’s use or occupancy

Member Giunchigliani said the evaluation criteria should include a site that is conducive to the clients using our services – we do not want to lose sight of the client. Mr. Singer said a central location keeps the needs of our clients in mind, as well as access to both parking and public transportation. As a result of the search the following were identified:

• Four existing buildings within three miles of the main campus • Nine existing buildings located between six and nine miles of the main campus • Seven existing buildings located more than nine miles from the main campus • Six existing buildings containing 50,000 square feet or less of available space


• Eleven existing buildings containing between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet of available space

• Three buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of available space A total of eight properties were selected for inspection and tours were scheduled on three separate days, which included a mix of both government-owned and privately-owned properties. Next steps include continuing the due diligence based on the evaluation criteria as established. Mr. Singer will also work with staff to determine the possible structure of the project, including a detailed financial analysis. Member Giunchigliani asked the status of the letter she and Member Scow sent to Dr. Sands concerning the facility study with the School of Medicine and UMC. Dr. Sands said he met with county staff, and also had discussion with Marcia Turner, vice chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education. We are waiting for additional word from Clark County concerning the study. Member Giunchigliani expressed pleasure in the district’s willingness to participate in the study, noting the need for a medical campus in the community. Dr. Sands he has always been willing to participate in this process. Chair Jones asked if any new information has become available since the November meeting. Mr. Weiss said the evaluation criteria were developed so staff could tour the sites. A Replacement Facility Committee meeting is scheduled for February 8, 2012 where additional information will be provided for consideration. The funding issue, which is tied to current litigation, is curtailing development of any project proposal and a financial structure for the Board’s review. Chair Jones noted he would not be available to meet on February 8, but expected the committee to meet and discuss the information as presented. Member Giunchigliani asked if a formal motion regarding the health district’s participation in the medical campus discussion is necessary. Chair Jones said staff was asked to participate, which was accomplished and a willingness to continue further discussion was expressed. Dr. Sands said he is waiting for further communication from Clark County or the School of Medicine regarding this study. Member Tarkanian asked for clarification on the matter Member Giunchigliani mentioned. The School of Medicine has committed to a presence in Southern Nevada, including a building. It was determined that a study needed to be conducted as to what is currently in place in the existing medical corridor, as well as the needs of all interested parties. This would include the needs of UMC and any resulting needed facilities. The health district building is county-owned, sitting on county property – if the health district leaves this location it can be used by another agency. It is important for the health district to participate in the facility planning to express its needs as well.

VII. BOARD REPORTS

Southern Nevada District Board of Health members may identify emerging issues to be addressed by staff or by the Board at future meetings, and direct staff accordingly. Comments made by individual Board members during this portion of the agenda will not be acted upon by the Southern Nevada District Board of Health unless that subject is on the agenda and scheduled for action. Chair Jones asked Board members if there were any information to report.


Chair Jones said a community planning meeting was held with partners throughout Clark County. The role of the health district working in with various entities and partners provides a good opportunity to survey community health globally. The initial training session for the accreditation steering committee was held earlier this month as well, and the fruits of this process will assist in development of better mechanism for a community assessment to determine where our focus should be and more evidence-based application of resources. Member Menzel said that all Board members received an invitation to take various surveys related to public health. An invitation to attend a consensus workshop in mid-February will be going out later today. Chair Jones asked if there were further Board reports. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the agenda.

VIII. HEALTH OFFICER & STAFF REPORTS

Chief Health Officer Update The first full Accreditation Steering Committee meeting will be held February 1, 2012. It is hoped that these meetings, along with the assessments which Member Menzel is working on, will help facilitate the district’s readiness for accreditation in the future.

(Member Litman left the meeting at 12:56pm) We are not ready to apply for accreditation yet – there is much work to be done. We need to use these assessments to determine how well we are meeting the standards set by the Public Health Accreditation Board. Update on Food Safety Training Dr. Sands said the issue of food safety training has come up numerous times, as well as concerns about the outdated movie and limited locations/times for applicants to view the movie. Staff has been working with VegasPBS to establish a means to provide a more efficient training with enhanced access for the community. Glenn Savage, director of environmental health; Christine Sylvis, environmental health training officer; and Ray Chua, health records supervisor, presented on this item and shared a PowerPoint presentation (attachment #6). The district issues over 100,000 health cards annually at four valley locations and two remote locations on specific dates and times. Currently the district does not offer movie showings in the evening or on weekends. All facilities are closed on observed holidays as well. Applicants should expect to spend up to two hours completing the health card process, which includes paperwork and viewing the movie. Since 2003 the food handler training movie has been constant, focusing on the ServSafe certification; a minor update was made in 2005. The movie does not address current regulations and most applicants have seen the movie numerous times. Staff showing the movie do not have food handling or inspection experience and are unable to answer questions of applicants. Identified issues and challenges with our current food handler education include:

• Current training does not fully prepare food handlers for proper sanitation methods • Current method does not assess individual client knowledge


• Movie times do not accommodate a 24/7 city • The movie is outdated and has no interactive component • Training is static and has not evolved to meet industry standards • Inability to update training with new food safety techniques or regulation requirements • Limited space for training

The health district is a recognized national leader in environmental health. Added to that, many jurisdictions across the country look to SNHD for guidance on development of food safety training programs. Possession of some sort of a food handler card is becoming a standard across the nation. Our local businesses and industries continue to look to the district as the resource for comprehensive food safety training, in spite of the fact some large resorts offer training on site for their staff. Going forward the district would like to utilize technology to deliver information to the public and assess knowledge. This would assist in facilitating interactive learning and ensuring knowledge through a computerized assessment. To meet this end we can create public and private partnerships with local organizations and industry. The goal will continue to be to promote public health through improved food safety training. Said training needs to be consistent with the most current Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Establishments. We also need to bear in mind the needs of our clients and provide a streamlined application process with less time spent commuting and at a health district office. We would also like to implement an a la carte fee schedule so clients will only be charged for the service provided; those clients receiving food safety training will be issued a “Food Handler Card.” Mr. Savage shared the details of the proposed online training program:

• Training can be accessed anywhere with a computer and internet connection 24/7 • Self-paced, learner friendly format • Interactivity including voice-overs, videos and interactive exercises • Pre-test, sectional quizzes and course final • Training time approximately 90 minutes • Place in training is bookmarked and can be done in multiple sessions • Provide food handler training in English and Spanish (additional languages available in the

future) • More languages may become available in the future where and when it is needed • Applicants can take assessment twice if needed • Applicants have one year of course access

In partnership with VegasPBS training will be available wherever the Internet is available. The district is also exploring providing learning kiosks for the public. VegasPBS will sub-brand the secured learning management system for SNHD with the appropriate logo and messaging. Content from VegasPBS Virtual Online Education center will be provided.

• Cost of sub-branded website has been deferred by VegasPBS • Cost to operate the LMS System is incorporated into the cost of the training • Provides for real-time reporting. SNHD staff will have appropriate training and reporting

permissions to access learner information in the system • Learning includes pre-testing and post-testing with verification of successful completion • Training can be modified to address emerging issues and problematic areas


• Ultimately there will be better communication with the regulated community with the capability of sending mass emails for reminders, updates, education, new information and renewals

Currently the cost for a health card is $50. Staff is discussing a tiered cost specific to the needs and type of health card and/or food handler card issued. For those applicants not needing a hepatitis A vaccination, the proposed cost for a Food Handler Card would be $25. An applicant needing the hepatitis A vaccination would pay $91, which includes the cost of the vaccine. Mr. Savage outlined the timeline for implementing this new process, which we hope to begin in July 2012. Member Menzel expressed concern with a knowledge-based learning system when many applicants have low-literacy levels and are more auditory/visual learners. She also expressed concern with test security. Mr. Savage said there will be multiple versions of the test. Tom Axtell, of VegasPBS, said that clients will be required to test at a computer with a web-cam and include a photo with the completed exam. If someone tests at a testing site, the facilitator will ensure test integrity. Chair Jones said the issue of testing has been raised with both the resort and restaurant associations. For those with lower levels of competency, he or she may need to report to a testing center. Member Wood asked if this new process would be exclusive or if applicants could obtain a health card in the former manner if there is a language/learning barrier. Mr. Savage said the goal is to move toward a technological-based learning system and not rely on the antiquated movie. Staff appreciates there are language and learning barriers and staff is working on addressing this concern. Member Noonan stated that most major casino industries require applicants to apply online and demonstrate basic computer use. Many large operators also have computer labs on site for employees to obtain computerized training with a proctor on site.


Dr. Sands said the existing training will continue until the new training standard is finalized and all questions/concerns have been addressed. Member Giunchigliani said her original concerns about the barrier to employment and lack of need for a health card have yet to be addressed, we’ve only modified how to obtain a health card. She asked why an educational video component could not be developed versus creating an online testing format. She wants to ensure that the disabled community is accommodated and that this new process will not be a barrier for them to obtain a health card. She said that training needs to be developed in Asian languages as well as others. Mr. Savage clarified that any school or industry where food sanitation is being taught will be incorporated into our training as well. Member Giunchigliani expressed concern about a pass/fail type of test and questioned why we are considering this type of format. Mr. Savage said it boils down to knowledge. There are many food handlers in the community that do not practice safe food handling practices, even something as simple as handwashing. We need to emphasize the core public health responsibilities in food safety training. Member Giunchigliani asked the current price of a health card and for how long it is valid. The current cost is $50 for a card, valid for three years, regardless of whether or not the applicant requires hepatitis A vaccination. All applicants for a health card are required to receive a hepatitis A vaccination, unless they have already received two doses or can demonstrate immunity to hepatitis A. Member Wood referenced the first slide and the locations listed for health card services. She asked if these are the only sites where a health card can be obtained or where training is located. Dr. Sands said these locations offer full service health card program, including the movie.

(Member Scow left the meeting at 1:33pm) Dr. Sands continued that if an applicant can demonstrate having received training elsewhere, staff will issue a health card to the applicant and the movie will not be required. Chair Jones said the district is looking at a more effective means of training.

IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS DULY NOTED

A. Chief Health Officer and Administration: 1. Monthly Activity Report, Mid-November 2011 – Mid-January 2012

a. Letter of Appreciation from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation to Dr. Lawrence Sands

b. Certificate of Participation in the “2011 Business and Community Leader Principal for a Day Program” for Dr. Lawrence Sands

2. Financial Data: Revenue and Expenditure Report for General Fund, Capital Reserve Fund, Bond Reserve Fund, Insurance Liability Reserve Fund, and Public Health Laboratory Fund for the Months of November and December 2011 a. Grant and Agreement Tracking Report, as of January 10, 2012

3. Public Information Monthly Report, November and December 2011


B. Community Health: 1. Monthly Activity Report, November and December 2011

a. PEWSS Bulletin 11-03-11 b. PEWSS Bulletin 11-09-11 c. PEWSS Bulletin 11-16-11 d. PEWSS Bulletin 11-23-11 e. PEWSS Bulletin 11-30-11 f. PEWSS Bulletin 12-07-11 g. PEWSS Bulletin 12-14-11 h. PEWSS Bulletin 12-21-11 i. PEWSS Bulletin 12-28-11 j. November 2011 Disease Statistics k. December 2011 Disease Statistics l. Quarter 3 2011 Disease Statistics

C. Environmental Health:

1. Monthly Activity Report, November and December 2011 a. Letter of Appreciation from “The Nxt Design Squad” to Christine Sylvis, EH training

officer b. Letter of Appreciation from Nellis Air Force regarding Tim Ripp and Theresa Daspit,

environmental health specialists II c. Letter of Appreciation from Darling International Inc. regarding Dennis Campbell,

environmental health manager; Eddie Ridenour, environmental health supervisor; and Gerry Bletsch, environmental health specialist II

d. Letter of Appreciation from Sweet & Salty regarding Steve Humble, environmental health specialist II

e. Email of Appreciation from CDC regarding Philip Bondurant, environmental health supervisor

D. Clinics and Nursing: 1. Monthly Activity Report, November and December 2011

a. November In-service calendar b. Note of Appreciation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Freedom Park

Ward/Central Stake to Michael Lacy, administrative assistant II c. December In-service calendar d. Email of Appreciation from the College of Southern Nevada regarding Judith Flores,

community health nurse II e. Email of Appreciation from a Client regarding Christina Valdez, administrative assistant II f. Email of Appreciation from United Way of Southern Nevada regarding Veronica Morata-

Nichols, community health nurse manager g. Certificate of Appreciation from Clark County Head Start h. Letter of Appreciation from UNLV-Student Health Center regarding Staff i. Flyers regarding World AIDS Day 2011

X. PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment is a period devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of those comments, about matters relevant to the Board’s jurisdiction will be held. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of this Agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to NRS 241.020. All comments are limited to five (5) minutes.


Chair Jones asked if anyone wished to address the Board. He noted that speakers will be limited to five minutes.

(Member Anthony left the meeting at 1:37pm) Charles Pollock, attorney, addressed the Board regarding concerns Scott Weiss, director of administration, and an alleged conflict of interest as it related to outside employment with The Plaza at Sun Mountain. Mr. Pollock shared several documents with the Board documenting Mr. Weiss’ employment at this assisted-living facility (attachment #7). Cara Evangelista, representing SEIU, addressed the Board. She expressed concern about employees entering time worked while in the field. She also expressed concern about Mr. Weiss’ alleged outside employment. Rosemary Ensign, employee, addressed the Board. She echoed the concerns raised about conflicts of interest and different standards for different employees. Board members asked legal counsel for guidance in how to best to proceed to address the concerns raised in public comment. Annette Bradley, legal counsel, referred to Board Governance Policy-006: Board Governance Process and that the Board recognizes the distinction between the role of management and the role of the Board; the Board is a policy-making Board, making overarching policy decisions, while allowing management the authority to implement those policies on a day-by-day basis. Member Giunchigliani remarked that there is an issue with the Personnel Code and outside employment. She asked for guidance on how address this concern. Member Woodbury said a seed of doubt was planted and he needs to know what the next step is for the Board, as the concerns were brought forward in a public forum. Ms. Bradley said that Mr. Weiss reports to Dr. Sands. Management has the responsibility of enforcing policy on a daily basis. After an investigation was completed, it was determined that there was no conflict of interest. Member Giunchigliani referenced Personnel Code §58.21, 58.213 and 58.4 which states in part that in terms of outside employment an employee cannot oversee a business that is also regulated. The Plaza at Sun Mountain is a regulated facility. Member Woodbury again asked for guidance on how the Board should proceed. He wants clarification on the board’s obligations and rights, those of the people making the allegations, as well as those being accused. He feels the Board has a right to know. Ms. Bradley stated that management has the authority to implement policy daily. Part of that authority entails conducting an investigation when there is an alleged instance of misconduct. Member Giunchigliani stressed that the issue is now part of the public forum and the public is looking for answers and resolve. She expressed concern with the form that Mr. Weiss completed for his outside employment and questioned if Dr. Sands was fully aware of the work Mr. Weiss conducted outside the health district. Member Giunchigliani asked for an Executive Session to further discuss this issue. Ms. Bradley stressed this was a personnel issue. A Closed Session is permissible to discuss misconduct, professional competence the like. Mr. Pollack, speaking from the audience, referenced NRS 241.031 which allows for a Closed Session to discuss persons other than those who are direct reports to the governing body.


Dr. Sands stressed that he takes these allegations very seriously. He welcomes the opportunity to meet and discuss the matter with the Board, noting that he must defer to counsel as to what he can share. Member Woodbury urged counsel to advise the Board on how best to proceed. He again asked for clarification on the board’s obligations and rights, those of the people making the allegations, as well as those being accused. He feels the Board has a right to know. Ms. Bradley stated that when management has made a decision that decision stands. She said having a Closed Session may provide the Board with the answers it seeks. Chair Jones directed staff to schedule a Closed Session, pursuant to NRS 241.031, for the February 23, 2012 to discuss Scott Weiss, director of administration.

(Member Noonan left the meeting at 2:03pm and quorum was broken) Chair Jones asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Seeing no one, he closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting.

XI. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Jones adjourned the meeting at 2:04 p.m.

SUBMITTED FOR BOARD APPROVAL ________________________________________ Lawrence Sands, DO, MPH, Chief Health Officer Executive Secretary /src attachments

clarks

Typewritten Text

Attachment #1

clarks

Typewritten Text

clarks

Typewritten Text

Attachment #2

Southern Nevada Health District January 26, 2012

Payroll Process Improvement

Attachment #3

Payroll Responsibility Based on federal and state statues our HR legal

counsel has opined that it is the District’s responsibility to maintain accurate and verifiable payroll records. Without these records the District has a very limited ability to contest alleged violations of overtime laws that could possibly result in monetary claims against the District. Kronos will also provide accurate and well-documented worked hours for grant required salary allocation.

2

Current Status of SNHD Payroll 559.75 FTE’s for FY 2012 employees $53.6 million payroll, benefits, and taxes for FY 2012 Manual, paper-intensive processes for bi-weekly

timesheets, overtime records, time entry into payroll system, leave records and scheduling as well as recording time allocation

There is no Time of Day record of employee work time All activity occurring after timecard submission is done

manually with amended time records and approvals

3

Components of Payroll Process Improvement

Electronic time-entry system (Kronos) provides -

Records of actual work hours

Verification of attendance and “real-time” knowledge of who is at work

Off-site clock-in/out and status change

Overtime records

Automation of payroll-related forms

Eliminates need for hand entry of hours worked and allocation of hours to various assignments

Automation of leave requests and approvals

Allows supervisors to automatically see staffing effects of leave requests or usage in “dashboard” format

Tracks grant salary allocations

4

Centralization of Rules Analysis Opportunities Uniform payroll and tracking. Consistent, correct direction and application of

Federal and State laws (FLSA), Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and SNHD policies and practices.

Efficiency of system will allow staff time to be redirected to provide more time to customer service and program needs.

5

Time-Entry System

Opportunities Automation and efficiency Accountability and tracking Reporting Attendance and leave policy enforcement Grant payroll tracking Eliminate manual process which is inefficient and subject to

human error Digital master record

6

Employee Self-Service Employee Self-Service (ESS) currently provides: Payroll information and accrued leave balances/history

W-2s and W-4s

Benefit Enrollment

View personal profile and performance records

Kronos will add: Automation of leave requests by employee to supervisors

Allow supervisors to process leave requests and anticipate staffing requirements

Employees and supervisors will be able to track time available and worked in “real time”

7

Automation of Payroll-Related Forms

Current Improved Paper routing takes too

long – Subject to change because of inaccuracies

Papers get lost or temporarily misplaced

Manual validations Potentially inconsistent

application of pay rules and practices

Shorten process Support remote business

processes Allow for system validations Rules based system will

ensure accuracy and consistent application of practices

8

Automation of Leave Requests and Approvals

Current Improved Manual paper processes

allow for error by employee and supervisors

Inconsistent practices from division to division or section to section

Elimination of redundant entry

Efficient Calendar leave views for

supervisors and managers Better records and tracking

9

Solid Waste & Compliance Section Environmental Health Division

Attachment #4

TEMPORARY PERMIT PROCESS TO OPERATE A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

Per Section 3 of the Regulations Governing Temporary Permits To Operate Solid Waste Management Facilities: A solid waste management facility shall not begin operation until the site location has been approved by the agency of jurisdiction, a business license has been applied for at the agency of jurisdiction, and a Temporary Permit has been approved and issued by the SWMA to the operator/owner for the solid waste management facility.

The purpose of these regulations is: • To allow certain types of solid waste management

facilities to operate and generate revenue to keep a company viable for up to six months while working through the permanent permitting process.

• With the current timeline of a minimum 60 days to take a

permit application through the approval process a good portion of the six month period can be used up.


An application for a temporary permit cannot be accepted by SNHD/SW&C without: • Land Use approval • Business license application


As specified in the Regulations the application must include: • The name, location, phone number, and mailing address

of: o The business owner o The property owner o The authorized agent of the owner, if applicable.

• A statement indicating whether the applicant is a natural

person, firm or corporation,


The application must also include:

• The signature of a responsible person; • Evidence of ownership or a lease agreement • Other permits or licenses required to be issued by

agencies of jurisdiction, as applicable; i.e., air quality, fire, flood control (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan), building department, etc.

• Financial assurance. (Proven to be the most problematic of all the requirements)


The application must also include (cont.):

• Plan of Operation outline specifying: o Types of solid waste to be handled, o Volumes to be handled daily, weekly, and monthly, o Sources of waste stream, o Sources for disposal, o Number and position titles of staff, and o Number and types of equipment used to store, process,

and/or dispose of solid waste at the site, o Available markets.

• Closure Plan


SOLID WASTE PLAN REVIEW Process Diagram Overview

Temporary Permits Initial Meeting

Application Received

Review Application

Is Application Complete/All Criteria Met?

No Notes/Letters

21 days for initial review

14 days for

re-submittal review

Yes

Public Notice & Fact Sheet

30 days for public comment

Create BOH Documents/Package

Memos completed two days prior to

BOH deadline

Approved by BOH

Generally within two weeks of BOH

approval

No

Final Inspection

Yes

Passed Final Inspection

Yes

Issue Permit Temporary permit

issued for six months

No

Timelines: Review time to determine if the application is in compliance : 21 days after receiving an initial application 14 days after receiving a resubmission/addition.

If application is incomplete , a notice shall be provided to the applicant:

The notice will specify noncompliance with: • Corresponding statutes or regulations • The period required to resubmit the documents to

SNHD


Public notice and fact sheet and public hearing includes: • A summary of the action to be taken by the SNHD • Comments from the general public • Procedure for obtaining copies of the documents and comments

submitted with the application, and • A description of the proposed facility, the proposed action, the

availability of the documents submitted with the application, and the procedure for public review and comment.


• Written and oral comments regarding the proposed issuance or denial of the temporary permit are in the record of the public hearings, and are retained as part of the public record.

• Comments and their resolutions shall be available for public inspection upon request.

• The application shall be presented for Board of Health review and approval at a public hearing during a regularly-scheduled Board of Health meeting.

• The application for a temporary permit must be approved or denied by the Board of Health, acting as the SWMA, at the public hearing


With specified timelines, approximately 60 days are required to issue a permit, provided application is complete at the time of submittal. The failure of the applicant to submit a complete application can slow the process down significantly. There is an expedited review process for applications. Even with the expedited review process the timeline includes a 30 day public comment period.


Current Status Currently within SWPR there are 39 permit applications under review as either temporary permits, new applications, or modifications to existing permits. The review times vary based on the type of solid waste management facility. In addition there have been approximately 14 initial meetings conducted in the past quarter regarding the potential submittal of an application.


Criteria for Environmental Health Director Approval

1. Previous Compliance History 2. No environmental or significant Health hazards 3. No complex operations involving potential hazardous waste 4. Permit application submittal requirements met 5. Zoning and land-use approved 6. Business License application submitted 7. No public comment received concerning any of the above

criteria.


Recommendation: Based on set criteria consideration should be given to allow the Environmental Health Director the ability to waive the requirement of taking certain Temporary Permit applications to the Board of Health. Monthly Reporting at Board of Health Meetings of actions taken by staff regarding Temporary Permit approvals


Questions ??

The following “Search Criteria” was established to identify potential facilities that would replace the current buildings located at the Shadow Lane Campus: • The search area to include all of Clark County bounded by the 215 Beltway • All existing building containing in excess of 50,000 square feet of available space • Vacant land containing nine or more acres suitable for development • Properties for sale or lease • Government owned properties

Attachment #5

Our due diligence resulted in the following data: • There are four existing buildings within three miles of the Shadow Lane Campus • There are nine existing building located between six and nine miles of Shadow Lane • There are seven existing buildings located more than nine miles from Shadow Lane • There are six existing buildings containing 50,000 square feet or less of available space • There are eleven existing buildings containing 50,000 and 100,000 square feet of available space • There are three buildings with more than 100,000 square feet of available space

Following direction from the Southern Nevada Health District’s staff, the following Evaluation Criteria was established: 1) Central Location (within three miles of Shadow Lane Campus) 2) Existing Building 3) Building Size (50,000 square feet or greater) 4) Site Size (to accommodate Districts Space and Parking Requirements) 5) Sales Price ($120.00/square foot or less) 6) Lease Rate ($2.00/square foot full service gross or less) 7) Parking (minimum ratio of 4.5 stalls/1000 square feet of space) 8) Ease of Automobile Access to and from Parking Facilities 9) Primary Street 10) Visible from Primary Street or Freeway 11) Ability to Add Additional Space or Buildings 12) Owner Control of Property (no sublease of building or ground lease) 13) Single Tenant Building 14) No Possible Asbestos (build after 1976) 15) No Use Restrictions Preventing Districts Use or Occupancy Timing and cost issues resulted in the conclusion that vacant land should be eliminated from consideration at this time.

Inspection Tour of Properties: A total of eight properties were selected for inspection and tours were scheduled on three separate days. A mix of government owned and privately owned properties were inspected. Next Steps: • Continue with further due diligence based on the Evaluation Criteria. • Continue to work with District Staff to determine the possible structure of the project including a financial analysis.

FOOD HANDLER TRAINING IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Food Handler Card Improvement Committee: Dr. Lawrence Sands (SNHD Chief Health Officer)

Scott Weiss (Director of Administration) Ray Chua (Health Card Supervisor)

Glenn D. Savage (EH Director) Robert Urzi (EH Supervisor)

Rose Henderson (EH Supervisor) Christine Sylvis (EH Training Officer)

Ellen Spears (EH Training Officer)

Attachment #6

Current Situation – Health Cards

• Health cards issues over 100,000 health cards yearly •109,016 health cards issued for fiscal year 2010-2011

• Health cards are issued at four valley locations and two remote locations at specified times • Ravenholt, East Las Vegas, Henderson, Cambridge

Community Center, Laughlin and Mesquite • SNHD does not currently offer evening and

weekend movie times • All locations are closed on observed holidays • Applicants should expect to spend up to an hour

processing time plus an additional hour for the food handler training movie to obtain their cards

Current Situation - Food Handler Training

• Since 2003, food handler training has consisted of watching a 50 minute ServSafe video. Except for a minor update in 2005, the movie has remained the same. • Many food handlers have seen the same video

numerous times • New regulations are not covered and there is a need

for updated training • Personnel who run the movie are health card

employees without food handling or inspection experience and cannot answer questions asked

The Current Issue/Challenges with our Education

• Current training does not fully prepare food handlers for proper sanitation methods

• Current method does not assess individual client knowledge

• Movie times do not accommodate a “24 hour” city • Movie is outdated and has no interactive component • Training is static and has not evolved to meet

industry standards • Inability to update training with new food safety

techniques or regulation requirements • Limited space for training

Application

Processing/ Pay Fees

Hep A

Shot? Movie? Card

30 day temp

Movie w/in 30 days

Card

Movie

Current Renewal Process

YES

NO YES

NO

NO

YES

Why Change Is Needed

• Oregon EHS Network Communication Study- Dr. Donna Beagle, 2004 • Nearly half of the study participants received high school

equivalency as their highest level of education completed • 62% of the respondents reported incomes of less than $15,000 • 22% reported incomes between 15,000 and 22,000 • More than 50% reported struggles with vocabulary in school and

with not having information that everyone else seemed to know • Learning styles is oral communication based

• Many jurisdictions nationwide require food handler cards associated with food safety training and assessment • California has recently required food handler cards statewide

Foodservice in Southern Nevada

• Foodservice is critical to the economy of the community and has a local and global impact • In 2010 Las Vegas had 37 million visitors and 43,365,743

room nights rented (for it’s 149,000 rooms)* • SNHD EH has 17,123 active food establishment permits

• SNHD is a recognized national leader in environmental health

• SNHD’s Foodhandler Health Card program historically has been a model for other agencies across the country

*UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research

http://cber.unlv.edu/tour.html�



MANY ESTABLISHMENTS

WANT CURRENT &

COMPREHENSIVE FOOD

SAFETY TRAINING.

Proposed Solution

Vision for Success

• Utilize advanced technology to transfer information to the public and assess knowledge

• Facilitate interactive learning • Ensure knowledge through

computerized assessment • Create public/private

partnerships with local organizations and industry

• Promote public health through improved food safety training

Solution

• SNHD requires a high level of food safety training for food handlers who prepare and serve food to our residents and tourists

• Replace outdated training (movie) with up to date, interactive online training consistent with SNHD Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Establishments

• Streamline application process with less time spent commuting and at SNHD

• Provide an a la carte fee schedule charging applicants appropriately for the service provided

• Name change to “Food Handler Card”

Updated Online Training • Training can be accessed anywhere with a computer and

internet connection 24/7 • Self-paced, learner friendly format • Interactivity including voice-overs, videos and

interactive exercises • Pre-test, sectional quizzes and course final • Training time approximately 90 minutes • Place in training is bookmarked and can be done in

multiple sessions • Provide food handler training in English and Spanish

• More languages may become available in the future where and when it is needed

• Applicants can take assessment twice if needed • Applicants have one year of course access

Benefits

• Partnering with a local, respected company Vegas PBS who believes part of their mission and public service commitment is to support and provide life-long education to the community

• Training will be completed online wherever the internet is available (home, work, school, public library, 32 Urban League broadband locations, Wi-Fi hot spots) at the convenience of the applicant • SNHD is exploring providing learning kiosks available to

the public for food handler training and other SNHD services

Broadband Access Locations

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?vps=2&ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=200197724671671940620.0004a3fc4fdc366c1a744�

Benefits

• Vegas PBS will sub-brand the secured learning management site for the SNHD with the appropriate logo and messaging

• Content from Vegas PBS’ Vegas Virtual Online Education Center will be provided • Cost of sub-branded website has been deferred by Vegas

PBS • Cost to operate the LMS System is incorporated into the cost

of the training • Provides for real-time reporting - SNHD staff given

appropriate training and reporting permissions to access learner information in the system

• Learning includes pre-testing and post-testing with verification of successful completion

Benefits “Continued” • Reports and statistics of food handler training

• Number of registrants • Pass/fail rate • Problematic topics and questions • Feedback/survey

• Training can be modified to address emerging issues and problematic areas

• Better communication with the regulated community with the capability of sending out mass emails for reminders, updates, education, new information and renewals

Online Training

Application

Processing

Shot •Given •Not needed

Card

Improved Renewal Process • In person • Online renewals with

completed Hep A

Online Training

Apply and pay online

Processing

Card Mailed

Research and Assessment

• Determine community public health needs • Comparison of food handler training and card issuance in

similar communities to SNHD including: • Riverside County, CA • Anaheim, CA • San Diego County, CA • Orlando, FL • King County, WA • New York, NY • Houston, TX • Miami Dade County, FL

• Development of Food Handler Card Improvement Committee • Many meetings over many months

• Researched several food handler training programs

Current Cost for Health Card

• $50 bundled service, three year renewal cycle includes: • Hep A vaccine and administration fee

• Given at initial and first renewal unless vaccination records provided

• Processing of health card (twice if temporary issued) • Cost of card and temporary health card if issued • Training/movie

• Repay for not seeing the movie within 30 days (expired temporary health card)

Projected Cost for Food Handler Card (valid for 3 years)

COST WITH HEP A $91 Hepatitis A vaccination ($66) Food safety training ($20) Card issuance ($5)

COST WITHOUT HEP A $25 Food safety training ($20) Card issuance ($5) Optional convenience fee ($5)

July April May June Jan Feb March

•Discontinue movie option

•Assessment of training and process

•Approve food safety training course

•Establish beta test parameters

•Secure draft contracts w/Vegas PBS

•Establish SNHD resource requirements

ACTION PLAN AND MILESTONES

•Secure signed contracts w/Vegas PBS

•Establish sub-branded website

•Internal validation and verification

•SNHD resource assessment

•Train health card staff

•Meet with PIO – public service announcements, website update, recorded phone information, signage

•Implement beta test

•Status meeting

•Continue beta test, modify as necessary

•Online training available to all applicants

•Start PSAs and marketing

•Status meeting

•Assessment of online training, continue to review public comments and modify as necessary

•Continue PSAs and marketing

•Status meeting

•Assessment of online training, continue to review public comments and modify as necessary

•Update PSAs and marketing

•Status meeting

The Future of the Project

• Evaluation of additional educations needs for food establishments including food safety manager and special processing/HACCP

• Computerized assessment of other SNHD certifications (Pool CPO, EMS, Body Art, etc.)

“The Bottom Line”

• Convenience • Time savings • Cost savings • Job preparation • Partnerships • Continuous improvement • Accountability • Communicating public health

Conclusion

As leaders in Environmental Health and food safety, SNHD recognizes the need for updating the current health card system and education format. Partnering with Vegas PBS not only provides current educational material and availability but also the flexibility and cost reduction. Using a testable, more accountable system ensures an increased knowledge base thus raising the level of safeguards for food safety for Southern Nevada residents and tourists.

clarks

Typewritten Text

Attachment #7