My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/19/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
10/19/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:55 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:35:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/19/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Further discussion ensued. <br />'Ms. Jordan discussed the following summary of the results of <br />the employee questionnaire: <br />TO: Jack Price, Personnel Director <br />FROM: Aeth Jordan, Risk Manager <br />DATE: 7 October. 1993 <br />SUBJECT: Indoor Air Quality Survey Results <br />The following will provide an overview of the results of the indoor air quality (IAQ) surveys <br />conducted during August, 1993 in the County Administration Building. You will recall that <br />on August 12 we distributed IAQ surveys to the occupants of the Third Floor. On August <br />17 we expanded that survey to include the remainder of the building with the exception <br />of the Utilities/SWDD area which was to be tested by Clayton Environmental Consultants. <br />Responses were received from 64% of the Third Floor and 74% of the remainder of the <br />building. Early returns came from employees with the strongest opinions, that is, those <br />who were most displeased with their workplace. Average overall quality for both groups, <br />however, was "somewhat acceptable" with the lowest scores for "amount of dust" and <br />"odor" both of which were "somewhat unacceptable" <br />In the category of "amount of dust" numerous comments were made about paper dust <br />and photocopiers and printers in work areas. Others complained of housekeeping, that <br />Is, dust on desks, shelves, upholstered furniture, etc., as well as dirty carpeting. Among <br />solutions to these complaints are the suggestion that employees be reminded that they <br />are responsible for their own work surfaces. Employees themselves could alleviate much <br />of this situation by cleaning their own desks, work tables, etc. As for more thorough <br />cleaning of carpets and upholstered furniture, these need to be considered. Of interest, <br />many of the complaints about dust came from employees who also complained of <br />cramped work space, lack of windows and distractions. Many of these same <br />complainants also wanted a new office building. <br />The "odor" category was of interest, as well, with complaints centering on tobacco smoke, <br />a situation addressed previously by the Board. Some complaints, however, took tobacco <br />smoke a step further, with several complainants advocating the ban of tobacco smoke <br />from County property. They complained of having to walk past smoking employees to <br />enter the building, and the odor of smoke entering the building from the outside. To <br />further restrict smoking on County property may present legal Issues and we suggest the <br />County continue to comply with applicable laws. <br />Other odor complaints centered on food odors. Some complained of food odors in <br />general; others complained of pizza, popcorn, and unknown food odors. Many <br />employees enjoy the privilege of hot food. The complaints included food brought into the <br />building for meals and the Blind Services' snack room. To remove these odors, however, <br />the County may wish to address its policy on cooking within the building. Other odor <br />complaints included cologne and body odors. In light of these complaints, we must <br />remember that IAQ surveys attempt to identify sources of potential health concerns. <br />Cooking odors, while offensive and irritating to some, do not point to a systemic problem <br />with the building itself. Cooking and cologne odors can be easily controlled through <br />policy. Body odors of the public cannot be controlled. <br />Odors which were referred to as "musty" were also prevalent among respondents who <br />complained of paper dust, old files, etc. Such odors are commonly found In office <br />environments. Absent any ambient air testing, we cannot comment on potential health <br />problems. As has been reported in numerous previous IAQ tests in Utilities, such odors <br />alone are not harmful. <br />W <br />OCT 19 1991 BOOK 90 rnF.814 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.