The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06.a. Consider setting public hearing to review Board Member compensationCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District I BOARD OF DIRECTORS K. Q POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 2, 2012 Subject: CONSIDERATION OF SETTING A PUBIC HEARING TO REVIEW BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL PUBLIC REVIEW Submitted By Initiating Dept. /Div.: Elaine R. Boehme Administration Secretary of the District REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTT : 001 44k G Elaine R. Boehme Rapdy M graves Kent Alm, Esq. James M. elly Secretary of the District Dir for of District Counsel General Ni Hager Administration ISSUE: Consider how to address the District's response to Grand Jury Report No. 1104, agreeing to review Board Member compensation and benefits and establish an annual public review. RECOMMENDATION: Set a public hearing to review Board Member compensation and benefits and to consider adopting a resolution establishing an annual public review. Determine whether to set the public hearing for an upcoming Board meeting, or to set it to coincide with the annual budget public hearing. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board has committed to holding an annual public review of its compensation and benefits. This may be done by public hearing, or some other manner on a Board agenda. The Board may also choose not to adopt a resolution formalizing the annual public review. BACKGROUND: In April, 2011, the Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 1104 contained Recommendations #1 and #3 that all Cities and Special Districts conduct an annual public review of compensation and benefits provided to their respective Councils and Boards, and whether changes are warranted. The District responded that the Recommendations will be implemented (ATTACHMENT A). Staff conducted a survey of other local agencies, requesting information regarding Board Member meeting stipend, health and dental benefits, pension, deferred compensation and other factors in the Grand Jury Recommendation (ATTACHMENT B). Also attached is a chart comparing the Board's meeting stipend in relation to others (ATTACHMENT C). At its meeting on January 9, 2012 the Budget and Finance Committee reviewed options for addressing the annual public review and recommended that the Board set a public hearing to discuss Board Member compensation and benefits, and adoption of a resolution establishing an annual public review. POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 2, 2012 Subject CONSIDERATION OF SETTING A PUBIC HEARING TO REVIEW BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL PUBLIC REVIEW The Board may wish to consider the following options: Set a public hearing to review Board compensation and benefits and annual public review at an upcoming Board agenda; or Set a public hearing to consider Board compensation and benefits and annual public review to be heard at the same time as the 2012 -13 budget hearing. Incorporate the annual public review of Board Member compensation and benefits as a tandem item. Several public agencies already conduct annual reviews of Board Member compensation in conjunction with their budget hearings, as shown in agency responses to Grand Jury Report 1104 (ATTACHMENT D). The Committee also recommended that, if a public hearing is scheduled, the Board also consider adopting a resolution formalizing the annual public review process. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Set a public hearing to review Board Member compensation and benefits and to consider adopting a resolution establishing an annual public review, as recommended by the Budget and Finance Committee. Determine whether to set the public hearing for an upcoming Board meeting, or to set it to coincide with the annual budget public hearing. ATTACHMENT A: District's response to Recommendations 1 and 3, Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 1104 ATTACHMENT B: Survey of Board Member Compensation and Benefits, January 2012 ATTACHMENT C: Comparison of Board Member Meeting Stipends ATTACHMENT D: Other agency responses to Recommendation 1 of Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 1104 N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC\ BOARD \COMPENSATION- STIPEND\Annual Review of Board Comp \PP -Set Compensation Hearing 2012.doc ATTACHMENT -A CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Status of Recent Contra Costa County Grand Jury Requests /Responses as of October 2011 Report No. and Topic Grand Jury Request CCCSD Response Recommended Action /Comments CCCERA's Actuary has indicated an August 2010 timeframe (UAAL). to develop de- pooling data and conclusions for employer review. After employers have reviewed the de- pooling information, the District anticipates CCCERA will de -pool the employers. When this is complete, the District will be able to evaluate the impact of the new rates on the District. These rates will be used in the Ten Year Financial model updated which will be reviewed by the Board of Director in January 2011. The pay codes that can be considered to be changed are governed by the three District bargaining unit labor agreements which expire April 17, 2012. The District is required under California Labor Code to honor the terms and conditions of these current memoranda of understanding. Changes in the pay codes will be considered as appropriate when the new labor agreements are negotiated. No. 1104 April 2011: 7110111: Staff is recommending an Recommendation # 1: All cities This recommendation will be implemented. The District will annual review of Board Elected Board and special districts should conduct an annual public review of compensation and compensation in February Membership conduct an annual public review of benefits provided to Board members. of each year, in open (Compensation) compensation provided to their session. respective elected Councils and Boards. This review should include such items as salary, meeting fees, health care insurance costs, pension, deferred compensation, life insurance premiums, cell phone usage, and internet connections. The public review should address whether or not changes in compensation are warranted. N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC \Grand Jury\2011 \Grand Jury- Status of Recent Responses.doc -3- CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Status of Recent Contra Costa County Grand Jury Requests /Responses as of October 2011 Report No. and Topic Grand Jury Request CCCSD Response Recommended Action /Comments No. 1104 Recommendation # 3: These 7110111: The appropriateness of special districts, as part of the This recommendation will be implemented. The District will Board compensation will (Cont'd) annual review in Recommendation consider whether it would be appropriate to implement a be part of the February # 1, should consider whether it reduction of salary or meeting fee expenditures for Board annual review (see above). would be appropriate to implement members, while recognizing the amount of time spent by a reduction of salary and meeting Board members in service to the District community (an fee expenditures to bring them in average of 24 scheduled Board meetings and as many as line with other special districts. 48 Committee meetings in the course of a year), the size of the District, and in comparison with other agencies. N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN \DIST- SEC \Grand Jury\2011 \Grand Jury- Status of Recent Responses.doc -4- Board of Directors Compensation and Benefits Survey ATTACHMENT B 1 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Medical Dental Life Insurance Deferred Cell Computers/ Agency Stipend /Max. Compensable Mtgs Board Member/ Board Member/ Pension Board Member/ Spouse /Family Comp Phone iPads Spouse /Family Spouse District pays premium for up to Director District pays premium Castro Valley Sanitary $176.34 per meeting /6 meetings per & Spouse, 1 participating member, for up to family No District District month 3/1/12 Board member to share 50% cost coverage for Delta No No contribution No No of premium increase from 2012 to 2011 Dental PPO District pays premium for up to family District pays premium District pays Central Contra Costa $221 per meeting /6 meetings per coverage for Kaiser, Health Net HMO, or for up to family premium for No District Sanitary District month Health Net PPO ** Cafeterial Plan coverage for Delta $50,000/$1,500 No contribution No No offered in lieu of medical coverage Dental PPO policy Contra Costa Water $100 per meeting /10 meetings per District pays premium for family for any District pays premium District pays for No District District month plan offered for Delta Dental for $10,000 policy No contribution No No family Currently at $209 per meeting; Board District pays premium for CalPERS District pays premium District pays Delta Diablo Sanitation proposed to reduce to $170 (approx. Medical (HMO or PPO) up to the greater for up to family premium for No District District 20 mtgs /yr: 1 Bd /mo + — 8 Committee of either the Blue Shield or Kaiser HMO coverage; Self- $125,000/$2,000 No contribution No No mtgs /yr) family rate insured Plan policy The District District pays for premium up to $555 matches Board (Board Member only), $1,111 (Member District pays premium District pays for up Member Dublin San Ramon $146 per meeting /10 meetings per + 1 Dependent) $1,444 (Member + 2 for up to Board to $50,000 basic life No contributions to No No Services District month Member and eligible 457 plan by Dependents); rates set by resolution dependents insurance 25 %, up of $10 annually per calendar month 1 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Board of Directors Compensation and Benefits Survey 2 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Medical Dental Life Insurance Deferred Cell ` Computers/ Agency Stipend /Max. Compensable Mtgs Board Member/ Board Member/ Pension Board Member/ Spouse /Family Comp Phone iPads Spouse /Family Spouse Directors contribute 6.83% of their salary on a pre -tax basis District pays for premium for up to and the District Kaiser Family. District pays for East Bay Municipal $1,120 per month /2 meetings per Health Net and Anthem BC for the District pays premium contributes 37.74% No District for Director and eligible No (as of July 2011). No No Utility District month Director only and requires 15% premium contribution contribution for double and family dependents Directors are eligible to retire at coverage. age 54 with minimum of five years of service. $143.59 per meeting /6 District pays health expense reimbursement of $5,430 (2012 #s) see medical health Fairfield- Suisun Sewer meetings per month. 5% No District District increase each January unless (increased every January by CPI -W for SF expense No No contribution No No Oakland Metropolitan area 12 months reimbursement waived (2012 #s) ending in October of each year) Agency pays premium Agency pays premium for up to family for up to family Agency pays Inland Empire Utilities $195 per meeting /10 meetings per premium for up to No District coverage for the CaIPERS health plan of coverage for Delta No No Yes Agency month family coverage for contribution their choice Dental PPO or Western EyeMed Vision Dental 2 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Board of Directors Compensation and Benefits Survey 3 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Medical _ .. Life Insurance ' Deferred Computers/ Stipend /Max. Compensable Mtgs Boar Member ' Board Member/ Pension Board Member/ Spouse /Family Comp iPads Spouse /Family Spouse District pays premium Optional, if Ironhouse Sanitary $170 per meeting /6 meetings per District pays premium for up to Kaiser for up to family chosen to District month Family coverage for Delta No No enroll, cost to No No Dental PPO District $10 /mo. District pays up to $1,281.21 for Board Mt. View Sanitary $205.07 per meeting /6 meetings per Member & family. Coverage is through No District PERS. (PERS requires participation in a No No No No No District month contribution District - ponsored retirement plan. See Deferred Comp) $174 per meeting /6 meetings per District pays No District $20 Napa Sanitation District No No premium for No N/A allowance month $28,000 policy contribution for iPad fees District pays CaIPERS District pays premium for up to two - District pays premium contribution (Board 6.32% of salary Oro Loma Sanitary $260 per meeting /6 meetings per party PERSCare ($2,058.46 per month); for up to family No Member +District District No No District month all Board Members are enrolled in less - coverage - Delta Dental portion) for eligible contribution expensive plans Board members elected before 1995 District pays up to $827 per month for Board Member only; District pays for $212.10 per meeting /6 meetings per $1628 per month for Board Member +1; $2002 per month for coverage of $10,000 Union Sanitary District month Family for medical, dental, vision; allocated as follows: 100% for Board Member; No $50 /month No No $5,000 for spouse dental, 100% vision, and balance to medical plans and dependents 3 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Board of Directors Compensation and Benefits Survey ** Directors hired after 6/30/09 pay difference between highest- costing HMO to PPO if PPO selected 4 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD Medical Dental Life Insurance Deferred Cell Computers/ Agency Stipend /Max. Compensable Mtgs Board Member/ Board Member/ Pension Board Member/ Spouse /Family Comp Phone iPads Spouse /Family Spouse $100 per meeting, except for the Vallejo Sanitation and appointed County Board of Supervisor No District Flood Control District who receives $100 per meeting per No No No No contribution No No month District pays premium for CalPERS retirement West County $265.35 per meeting /6 meetings per District pays flat rate of up to $1500 month for family medical, $85,000 policy for (for Directors No District Wastewater District month and entire premium for up to family dental and vision Board Member elected before contribution No No only. (Age reduction 7 -1 -94 only) schedule applies.) ** Directors hired after 6/30/09 pay difference between highest- costing HMO to PPO if PPO selected 4 of 4 conducted January 2012 by CCCSD ATTACHMENT C COMPARISON OF OTHER AGENCIES' BOARD COMPENSATION AggtSlCY MEETING, STIPEND MAX tjO, OF, MTGS West County $265.35 1/5/12 6 Wastewater District $265.35 2009 (510) 222-6700 $265.35 2008 $265.35 2007 Oro Loma Sanitary District $260 1/5/12 6 (510) 276-4700 $260 2009 $250 2008 $240 2007 Central Contra Costa $221 1/6/12 6 Sanitary District $221 42009 $221 2-008 $221 2007 $170 2006 Union Sanitary District $212.10 1/5/12 6 (510) 477-7500 $212.10 2009 $212.10 2008 $212.10 2007 Mt. View Sanitary District $205.07 1/5/12 6 (925) 228-5635 x26 $200 2008 $170 Inland Empire Utilities $195 1/5/12 10 Agency $217.77 2008 (909) 993-1600 $207.40 2007 Castro Valley Sanitary $176.34 1/5112 6 District $176.34 2008 (510) 537-0757 $170.87 Napa Sanitation District $174 1/5/12 6 (707) 258-6000 $174 2009 $174 2008 $174 2007 Delta Diablo Sanitation $170 3/11/12 6 District $209 1/5/12 (925) 756-1900 $209 2009 $202 2008 $191 2007 NADMI NS UPADMI N\DIST-SEC\BOARD\COMPENSATION-STI PEN D\2012 Survey of Compensation and Benefits\Board Compensation Survey-2EB.doc Page 1 of 2 /_1if_TS]CI►41:Iki 11 tel AGENCY" January 2012 N:\ADMINSUP\ADMINOIST- SEC\ BOARD \COMPENSATION- STIPEND\2012 Survey of Compensation and Benefits \Board Compensation Survey- 2EB.doc Page 2 of 2 PER MONTH Ironhouse Sanitary District $170 1/5/12 6 (925) 625 -2279 $170 2009 $170 2008 $170 2007 Dublin San Ramon $146 1/5/12 10 Services District $156 2009 (925) 828 -0515 $156 2008 $156 2007 Fairfield Suisun Sewer $143.59 1/5/12 6 District $123.76 2009 (707) 429 -8930 $118.13 2008 $100 2007 Vallejo Sanitation and $100 2009 $100 flat fee per month, Flood Control District $100 2008 regardless of number of (707) 644 -8949 $100 2007 meetings EBMUD $1120 1/5/12 Monthly stipend (governed by (510) 287 -0404 $1093 2009 different regulations) $1093 2008 $1025 per month January 2012 N:\ADMINSUP\ADMINOIST- SEC\ BOARD \COMPENSATION- STIPEND\2012 Survey of Compensation and Benefits \Board Compensation Survey- 2EB.doc Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT D Recommendation # 1': All cities and special districts should conduct an annual public review of compensation provided to their respective elected Councils and Boards. This review should include such items as salary, meeting fees, health care insurance costs, pension deferred compensation, life insurance premiums, cell phone usage, and internet connections. The public review should address whether or not changes in compensation are warranted. Response: Responding Agency Response Comments City of Will Antioch's overall budget process is a transparent one, with Antioch implement several study sessions held each year and documents available on the City's website. There is a specific account established within the City's general fund to account for City Council expenditures. Also, policies regarding Council compensation and benefits are approved in open meetings. However, to increase governmental transparency, the City will combine those policies into a single document that addresses all Council compensation and benefit issues and include that document in its annual budget review for the followingfiscal year. City of Implemented The City adopts its operating budget biannually. Included in the Brentwood budget is a division set up for the City Council which details the amounts spent by individual expense item (e.g. salary, health insurance, pension, travel, etc). The budget and these items, are reviewed first at a public workshop and then adopted at a separate public meeting. All budget documents are also available on the City's website. The City then conducts regular reviews of the operating budget at public meetings every six months. A mid -year budget update and review occurs each December, and a mid -term budget update and review is conducted prior to the start of the second year of the biannual budget. City Council compensation also receives a public review whenever it is increased. City Council salary is established and amended after a public hearing and the adoption of an ordinance. In addition, it should be noted that any changes to the compensation ordinance would not take effect until after the next election cycle. It should be further noted that the last time the City Council salary ordinance (2.08. 10 of the Brentwood Municipal Code) was amended was September 18, 2001. Finally, the City includes City Council salary information in its published salary plan which is available on the City's website. Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 25 Grand Jury Reports are posted at hLtp://www.cc-courts.org/grandju[y Responding Response Comments , Agency City of Will Clayton's overall budget process is a readily transparent one, Clayton implement with data and actual dollar numbers calculated to the nearest dollar. At a minimum, an introductory session of the proposed City Budget and a subsequent public hearing for consideration and adoption of its budget are held each year, plus a mid -year review, each conducted at an open public meeting of the City Council. Further, budget documents and data are available on the City's public website. There are specific accounts established within the City's General Fund (Legislative Dept. 01) that itemize elected official compensation and associated benefits each year in the aggregate for the full council. Policies regarding City Council compensation and benefits, by law, must be and are approved in open public meetings. However, to enhance governmental transparency, the City will combine its elected official compensation and benefits policies into a single document that clearly illustrates all Council compensation and benefit categories. That prospective document will then be included in Clayton's annual budget and review process commencing the ollowin fiscal year FY 2012-13). City of Implemented This recommendation is already a practice in the City of Concord Concord. The Concord City Council Policy Development and Internal Operations Committee reviews the Council's portion of the City's budget every year at a public meeting, prior to the Council acting on the City's proposed budget. The Council as a whole reviews and acts on the entire city operating budget, including the Council's operating budget, at public meetings. Town of Will The Town Council does not receive meeting fees, life insurance Danville implement premiums or cell phone stipends. Town Council costs, including salaries and all related expenses, are included in a separate "Town Council" budget, which is contained within the annual Operating Budget. As referenced in the response to Finding #2, individual Council members receive monthly amounts of $675 for salary, $250 for health care reimbursement and a $25 deferred compensation contribution. Danville's budget process is a transparent one that includes four public study sessions and one public hearing annually. The Town Council budget is subject to annual public review, and budget information is available both in hard copy and electronically on line. The public review provides the opportunity to address whether or not changes in compensation are warranted. Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand jury Report 1201 Page 26 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://ww.w.cc-courts.org/grandiu[y Responding Response Comment Agency Town Council expenditures are accounted for and tracked separately and Town Council compensation is included as part of Town salary and compensation information posted on the Town website and reported to the State Controller. Town Council salary is set by ordinance, and consideration of any changes can only occur at a duly noticed public meeting. It should be noted that while the Town, as a general law city, can conduct an annual review of Town Council compensation, the Town can only adjust such compensation at the end of each council members (sic) term of office. 80 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 119 (1997); Government Code Section 365165. In order to further address this recommendation, by September 30, 2011, the "Town Council" budgetformat will be further itemized to coincide with applicable categories included in the recommendation, including: salary, meeting expenses, health expense reimbursement and deferred compensation contribution. City of El Implemented In response to both recommendations (1 & 5), the City Council Cerrito reviews its compensation annually as part of the budget public hearing process. That process also includes public review by the City's Financial Advisory Board. As the Grand Jury learned during its investigation, the City Council's salary has not changed since 1991 and any change to salaries would require adoption of an ordinance. Although the City believes it is already satisfying Recommendation #10 and #5, it may in the future enhance the information about City Council compensation included in the public budget process. City of Implemented Hercules implemented a process that is compliant with the Grand Hercules Jury's recommendation several years ago. On July 12, 2012 (sic), the City Council reviewed Council member compensation and benefits and directed staff to bring forward a resolution terminating all health and welfare benefits and CalPERS benefits for Council members. On July 26, 2011, the City Council adopted such a resolution rescinding all CalPERS and health and wet fare bene its or Council members. City of Will The overall budget process in Martinez is a transparent one, with Martinez implement several public meetings and documents available on the City's website. There is a specific page in the budget document that provides the total expenditures for the City Council. Those expenditures, along with all of the others in the budget, are part of the budget review and approval conducted at a public meeting. However, to increase transparency, the City will conduct a Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 27 Grand Jury Reports are posted at hqp : / /www.cc- courts.orgJprandiury Responding Response Comments Agency specific discussion on whether or not changes in Council comp ensation are warranted durin g the budget adoption process. City of —> Relative to Finding #1, the City of Oakley does conduct an Oakley annual review of the compensation provided to its City Council as each upcoming fiscal budget is prepared, discussed and approved. As your report noted, the compensation is amongst the lowest in the County, City of The City of Pinole will on an annual basis publicly review the Pinole elected City Council and City Treasurer compensation packages. This will be done concurrently with our annual budget review and adoption process. The current compensation totals $300 per month and is based on the government code and includes $250 per month for serving and attending City Council meetings, which more often than not are more than twice a month as well as $50 per month for serving and attending as the Executive Board for the Pinole Redevelopment Agency. Our elected officials do not receive a City provided cell phone or computer nor do they receive reimbursement for use of their personal cell phones and computers. City of Implemented This recommendation is already implemented at the City of Pittsburg Pittsburg. The City Council reviews the Council's portion of the annual budget every year at a public meeting, prior to the Council's actions on the City's proposed budget. City of Will Pleasant Hill's overall budget process is a transparent one, with Pleasant Hill implement the biennual (sic) budgets being adopted at open and public City Council meetings and documents available on the City's website. A specific departmental budget was established within the City's general fund to account for City Council salaries, benefits and expenditures. However, to increase governmental transparency, the city will specifically address all Council compensation and benefits during its annual budget review for the following fiscal year, as well as address this issue, as required, within six months of the date of the Civil Grand Jury report. City of Will not The City of Richmond's overall budget process is a transparent Richmond implement one, with several study sessions held each year and documents available on the city's website. Council member salaries are publicly displayed on the City of Richmond's website. There is a specific account established within the city's general fund to account for City Council expenditures. Also, policies regarding council compensation and benefits are approved in an open meeting that includes a public discussion and two public meetings. Therefore, the city is already conducting a periodic public review of compensation provided to elected council members, and an annual review is unnecessary, Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 28 Grand Jury Reports are posted at ho://www.cc-courts.org/grandiu[y Responding Response Comments Agency City of San Will The City reviews City Council compensation annually as part of Pablo implement its budget process. This includes several study sessions and culminates in a public hearing. The draft and final budgets are public documents and are available electronically. The budget includes specific accounts within the City's general fund to account for City Council expenditures. Any policies regarding Council compensation and benefits are reviewed and approved in open meetings. However, to increase governmental transparency, the City will combine those policies into a single document that addresses all Council compensation and benefit issues and include that document in its annual budget review for the following fiscal ear. City of San. Will not The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not Ramon implement necessary. The City of San Ramon compensates elected officials based on a publicly approved Ordinance. The Ordinance No. 365 was adopted in 2004 after conduction public hearings and a public noticing process. Changes to the existing compensation structure cannot happen without the same public process occurring and a new Ordinance being adopted. Although the City of San Ramon is a Charter City and can exempt itself from the Government Codes limits on elected official compensation levels, the City of San Ramon has chosen to voluntarily set compensation within the limits of the Government Code as it pertains to General Law cities. The process recommended in the report to hold additional public reviews of compensation is redundant to the current process of holding public hearings before an Ordinance is adopted and ignores the limits placed on compensation by those agencies that are following the Government Code. We suggest this recommendation could have been that changes in compensation be consistent with Sate Law, are publicly noticed, and providefior public comment. City of Will not The City of Walnut Creek has, since 1980, adopted two year Walnut implement budgets and has recently engaged in a mid year budget review Creek with its Council. As part of the budget process, the costs for the City Council are reviewed in the format shown in Exhibit A. This budget format is similar to the annual figures the Grand Jury used The Walnut Creek Municipal Code requires a public hearing be held prior to the adoption of the budget. The Grand Jury Report does not contend that a biennial review is inadequate. The Grand Jury recommendation for annual review will not be implemented because it is not consistent with the two - ear cycle under which the City of Walnut Creek reviews all Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 29 Grand Jury Reports are posted at hU://www,cc-courts.org/grandiury Responding Response Commend Agency budgets and that the City believes ensures that Council compensation is reasonable. Ambrose ARPD set a Board agenda item for its June 9` Board meeting Recreation (Attached) and did discuss in open session compensation of the and Park Board. The accompanying staff report listed compensation for District area agencies and included ARPD. The Board agrees with the finding and have left its current compensation package in place as ARPD is (sic) has one of the smallest compensation packages in the County. Byron- Will The District will comply with Recommendations No. I and No. 4 Bethany implement and will review such items as salary, meeting fees, health care Irrigation insurance costs, pension /deferred compensation, life insurance District premiums, cell phone usage, internet connections; and, determine whether the practice of paying health care insurance for Board members is appropriate, during the annual public review of the District's budget process. Byron Will The Byron Sanitary District will comply with Recommendation Sanitary implement No. 1 and review such items as salary, meeting fees, health District insurance costs, pension/deferred compensation, life insurance premiums, cell phone usage, and internet connections during the annual public review of the District's budget process. Central Will The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District will conduct an Contra Costa implement annual public review of compensation and benefits provided to Sanitary Board members. District Contra Costa Implemented The annual public review of CCWD Board members Water compensation recommended in Report #1104 has already been District implemented and has been integral to the review of District finances and the Board's adopted procedures for decades. • The Board of Director's compensation is budgeted as an individual department clearly delineated within the overall District budget and is reviewed annually as part of a publicly noticed presentation of the budget and mid - cycle review. The Board of Director's budget includes a review of the actual expenditures compared to budget to a level of detail that allows review of compensation and benefits cost per board member; and • In addition, at each Board meeting (two per month) as part of an agendized item titled `Approve Director's Service /Business and Travel Expenses" each Director's compensable meeting and travel expenses are presented in written form and are reviewed as to their business purpose and reasonableness and are approved as part of the publicly noticed meeting; and Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 30 Grand Jury Reports are posted at b!W://www.cc-courts.org/gi-andiury Responding Response Comments Agency Lastly, each Director verbally forecasts the compensable meetings they plan to attend in the prospective two week (or longer) period as part of the bi- weekly Board meeting to allow fellow Directors and the public an opportunity to confirm the business purpose. Diablo Water Implemented Respondent has historically conducted a public review of total District compensation provided to the Board of Directors each year during review of the District's annual budget at a public meeting. The District will expand its current annual public review of Director Compensation to address whether or not changes in compensation are warranted. Discovery The TODBCSD partially agrees with Recommendation #1 in that Bay compensation should be reviewed by its Board of Directors but Community disagrees that it should be done annually. Services District All of California's Independent Special Districts are subject to California Government Code Sections 61000 et seq., including the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Board member compensation, and the narrow manner in which it is permitted, is specifically acknowledged in the aforementioned Government Code sections. The TODBCD has an established meeting structure for its official Board Meetings. The TODBCSD Board of Directors meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7 :00 pm. Regularly scheduled Board meetings provide the opportunity to conduct the business of the district and to carry out the duties of their position. Additionally, it is at times necessary to call for a special meeting, to conduct a community workshop, or to attend a meeting that qualifies for a stipend pursuant to California Government Code Sections 61047(a) and 61047(e). At virtually each regular meeting the items of compensation for each Board member are contained in the warrants which are available to the public and reviewed by the Board of Directors before approving the expenditure. Thus an annual review is unnecessary. Any interested member of the public can review compensation of any TODBCSD Board member for compliance and conformity with California GC 61047. East Contra The East Contra Costa Irrigation District provides a monthly Costa stipend to its Directors in the form of meeting fees and mileage Irrigation reimbursement. The compensation for meeting attendance has District not changed in over a decade and is believed to be appropriate. The monthly stipend is reviewed annually during the budget Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 - Page 31 Grand Jury Reports are posted at hUp: / /www cc- courts org /P-randigur Responding Response Comments 4 enc process. On June 14, 2011, the Board of Directors considered the Findings and Recommendations made by the Grand Jury and determined that no changes are warranted at this time. Ironhouse As part of its standard annual budgeting process, the Board of Sanitary Directors of Ironhouse complies with Recommendation #1. The District Ironhouse annual budgeting process is open to the public and is publicized through public hearings noticed in accordance with the Brown Act. At these meetings all compensation provided to the members of the Board of Directors is reviewed and discussed by the Board, staff and members of the public in attendance. Los Medanos Implemented While the LMCHD partially disagrees with Grand Jury Finding Community 1, and finds that a blanket comparison of compensation across all Healthcare special districts in Contra Costa County is inapplicable and of District limited value, the District already conducts an annual review of all of its expenses at the beginning of each fiscal year, including meetingfiees paid to its Board Members. Mt. Diablo The Board reviews all expenditures during the annual budget Healthcare process. Every item is reviewed, including stipends and the District OPEB expenditures, and any item found to require further review is researched or alternatives and implemented appropriately, Mt. View Will The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be Sanitary implement implemented by an amendment to the Board Policies and District Procedures on or before August 18, 2011. Pleasant Hill Implemented The following policy has been adopted as Pleasant Hill Recreation Recreation & Park District Policy #4025.40.2 — The Board of and Park Directors will review the stipends of the elected Board Members District on an annual basis. This will take place at the second board meeting in July as a separate agenda item. The Board of Directors will determine whether any proposed changes are warranted. The results will be posted on the District's website and be included in the official board minutes. The Board of Directors of the Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District receives $100 per meeting at a maximum of $200 per month. There are no other benefits that the Board Members receive such as Health or retirement or any related medical benefits. Occasionally, Board Members do attend conferences on behalf of the District while representing the District and do receive reimbursable ex enses or travel and accommodations. Rodeo Will not Total cost for meeting fees by this agency are some of the Sanitary implement smallest in the county. No increase or addition to benefits or District meeting fees can be made without a public hearing as required by the Government Code. Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 32 Grand Jury Reports are posted at b!W://www.ce-courts.org/grandju Responding Response Comments Agency San Ramon Will not The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not Valley Fire implement warranted or is not reasonable. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Protection District agrees that public review of compensation is District appropriate. However, unless there are changes recommended to the compensation structure, it is not necessary to conduct an annual review and analysis until such time as a change might be considered. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has in the past, and will in the future, to agendize for public review any and all changes to Director compensation. The District's website has in the past and will continue to contain all information regarding Director compensation /benefits. The information is always available or public review. Stege Implemented The Stege Board annually reviews its compensation at a public Sanitary meeting and has done so since 2001. The Board plans to District continue to conduct this annual review in the future. West Contra At its Board meeting of May 25, 2011, the West Contra Costa Costa County Healthcare District conducted a public review of all Healthcare compensation provided to the elected Board members, and also District reviewed the policy for provisions of that compensation. Annual reviews will be conducted in the uture. West County Implemented The District implemented a process that is compliant with the Wastewater Grand Jury's recommendation more than a decade ago. District Effective January 1, 2001, Health and Safety Code §6489 was amended by SB 1559 to allow annual increases in Director compensation. Director compensation had remained fixed January 1, 1987. The District adjusted Director compensation in accordance with SB 1559 effective January 1, 2001. It has reviewed Director compensation and benefits in a public forum at least once each year since then. There have been no increases in Director compensation since January 1, 2006. On April 5, 2005, the District adopted an ordinance establishing the procedure for annually fixing and determining Director compensation. That ordnance (sic) requires the Board to annually establish the maximum compensation to which a Director is ,entitled for each day of his /her attendance at meetings, or for each day of service as a Director. Each Director must then select the amount of his /her compensation which can be no greater than the maximum compensation established by the Board of Directors. This requires the entire Board of Directors to review their salary and benefits in a public forum at least once each year to ensure that their compensation is reasonable and within legal limits. Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 33 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/prandiu!y Responding A em. Response Comments City of Partially In addition to the annual process for determining Director Antioch agree compensation and benefits, the Board of Directors and District staff annually review all Director, management and employee compensation and benefits during the annual budget cycle. This involves a detailed examination of every budget line item, including compensation and benefits. This process has been followed for decades. Finding # 2: Eight cities spend more than the county -wide average ($39,377) for salary and meeting fees. They are: Antioch, Concord, Danville, Hercules, Martinez, Richmond, San Pablo and San Ramon. Response: Responding A`enc Response Comments' City of Partially Although we have not expended limited city resources to verify Antioch agree the information provided by the various jurisdictions or the mathematical calculations, we do question the value of a simple mathematical average as determinative as to what salaries and meeting fees are questionable. As the report indicates these are cities of differing sizes. In addition, these city councils have differing meeting schedules and responsibilities, some cities have budgets of $50, 000, 000 and some budgets of $10, 000, 000; some cities provide all services in- house and other cities have contracted significant responsibilities to the County or other entities; and some city councils also serve as boards of redevelopment agencies and other entities. A simple mathematical average takes none of these variables into account in considering what may be appropriate compensation for city council members. To this end, Government Code section 36516, which establishes salary caps for general law cities, has different caps depending on the population of the city. For example, the California Legislature set a different salary cap for cities with populations of 75,000-150, 000 compared to cities with less than 35, 000 in population and cities with over $250, 000 in population. Further, increases to compensation are limited to 5% per calendar year and must be specifically approved by the city council pursuant to an ordinance in open session, unless approved by the electorate at a municipal election. Contra Costa County 2011 -2012 Grand Jury Report 1201 Page 34 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.orgigrandiu ry