Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.b. Committee Minutes-Administration 01-12-21 Page 1 of 9 Item 11.b. CENTRALSAN jdf A- hom CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT January 21, 2021 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARYOF THE DISTRICT SUBJECT: JANUARY 12, 2021 -ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE - CHAIR WILLIAMS AND PRESIDENT PILECKI Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of 0 1-12-21 meeting January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 96 of 119 Page 2 of 9 ol&)i Cwil ENTRAL SAN CONTRACENTRAL • IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 9AS53-A392 BOARD OF DIRECTORS: REGULAR MEETING OF THE TAD PresiddentPILECKI ent CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA DAVID R. WILLIAMS SANITARY DISTRICT President Pro Tem ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE BARBARA°URITZEN MICHAEL R.MCGILL MINUTES PHONE: (925)228-9500 FAX: (925)372-0192 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 www.centralsan.org 9:00 a.m. (All attendees participated via videoconference) Committee: Chair David Williams Member Tad Pilecki Staff. Roger S. Bailey, General Manager Katie Young, Secretary of the District Philip Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services (left during Item 5.b.) Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager (left after Item 5.a.) Teji O'Malley, Human Resources and Organizational Development Manager Terrina Manor, Human Resources Analyst (left after Item 5.a.) Christina Gee, Management Analyst Donna Anderson, Assistant to the Secretary of the District 1. Public Notice Regarding COVID-19 This meeting was held in accordance with the Brown Act as in effect under the State Emergency Services Act, the Governor's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19, and the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 that allowed Board Members, District staff, and the public to participate in and conduct the meeting by teleconference, videoconference, or both. The agenda included instructions for options in which the public could participate in the meeting. 2. Call Meeting to Order Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 3. Public Comments - None. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 97 of 119 Page 3 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 2 4. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board a. Review draft Position Paper to consider adopting (1) Resolution No. 2021- delegating authority to the General Manager to execute and record certain real property agreements, and (2) corresponding revisions to BP 037 - Delegation of Authority to General Manager Ms. Gemmell explained that real property agreements (RPAs) are designed to protect the District from liability associated with encroachments upon Central San easements due to improvements made by property owners. Class One encroachments often involve concrete or pavers, which could affect access to underground pipes. Class Two encroachments typically involve structures, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), constructed atop easements. Permit Counter staff has seen more applications for ADUs recently, many involving encroachments. Ms. Gemmell noted that the recent change in procedures requiring that all real property matters, including RPAs, be routed through the Real Estate, Environmental & Planning (RESP) Committee before going to the Board has led to delays in processing applications, causing frustration for customers. District Counsel Kent Alm suggested the Board consider delegating the authority to the General Manager and/or his designee to approve RPAs for all existing and future Class One encroachments and all existing Class Two encroachments. All future proposed Class Two encroachments would continue to be brought before the Committee and Board for consideration. Member Pilecki recalled that the REEP Committee recently added the requirement for real property items to be routed through the Committee. Given the additional burden on staff to route these items through the Committee, especially when many of them are ministerial, and the delays it causes in processing applications for customers, he asked why they needed Committee review. Mr. Bailey said this was a matter for the full Board to discuss and come to a collective decision. Alternatively, he said the Board could give the General Manager the discretion to determine when an item should go through a Committee. Member Pilecki said he was willing to have such a discussion with the Board. Chair Williams asked if the Committee could (1) recommend Board approval of the proposed change to BP 037, and (2) request a future agenda item for a Board discussion on its philosophy about what items should be brought to Committees. Mr. Bailey said, yes. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 98 of 119 Page 4 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 3 Further discussion took place about RPAs, during which Ms. Gemmell noted that having an RPA recorded on the property was an active means of documenting liability issues when a property is sold, versus having the requirements stated in the District Code. For any new Class Two encroachments, there could be significantly more liability, so it is important that all potential liability be documented in an RPA and recorded with the deed. Member Pilecki asked for the Position Paper to be made clear that all "known and unknown"Class Two encroachments would be considered existing, as defined by the District Code, and would be within staff authority. Only new proposed Class Two encroachments would continue to be brought to the Board for approval. Beyond that, he believed staff could handle all other encroachment issues. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended: (1) Board approval of staff's recommendation to (a) adopt a resolution delegating authority to the General Manager to execute and record certain real property agreements, and (b) make corresponding revisions to BP 037 - Delegation of Authority to General Manager; and (2) Adding a future Board agenda item for the Board to discuss its philosophy about bringing items to Committees. b. Receive update on Classification Study Recommendations - Public Employees Union, Local #1 (Local 1) Ms. O'Malley recapped the memorandum contained in the agenda packet, adding that the proposed class title changes and salary adjustments applied only to Local 1 employees. She said discussions are ongoing with the Management Support/Confidential Group (MS/CG) bargaining unit, and she expects the recommended changes for that group to be brought forward soon. In response to a question from Member Pilecki, Ms. O'Malley said the Human Resources Division proposed the new class titles and associated salary adjustments, not Koff&Associates, who conducted the classification study. She said she would incorporate that distinction as a footnote to the report. All proposed changes were discussed with Local 1 as part of the meet-and-confer process. She noted that once any agreements are reached with the bargaining groups, they are codified and memorialized in writing. While some individual members of Local 1 may disagree with some of the proposed changes, the recommendations represent the collective agreement of Local 1 and the District. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 99 of 119 Page 5 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 4 As part of the discussion, Ms. O'Malley said the recommended changes for Local 1 will reduce the District's current 116 job classifications by seven. Chair Williams noted that there are typically salary adjustments upward and downward as part of a classification study. He asked whether any of the latter arose from this process. Ms. O'Malley responded that there were several, but due to attrition related to three positions and a job change for one employee since the classification study was undertaken, no downward salary adjustments were necessary. Finally, Member Pilecki asked whether any pending issues with the MS/CG meet-and-confer process might impact the recommendations made for Local 1. Ms. O'Malley said no; anything that could potentially have affected both groups has already been considered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval of the Classification Study Recommendations for Local 1. 5. Other Items a. Review Committee Charter as set forth in Board Policy No. BP 013 - Standing Committee Protocols, Guidelines and Charters Ms. Young explained the rationale for bringing each Committee its respective Charter at the first meeting each year. Member Pilecki questioned the origin of the biennial review process for Board policies. Chair Williams responded that one of his main objectives as a Board Member has been to separate policies from procedures to arrive at a very defined set of Board policies that are concise and written at the policy level. While biennial review is not set in stone, his recollection was that it was based upon a review of practices at other agencies. Member Pilecki said the Committee has done a good job developing the Board policies currently in place. He noted that at least one Board policy is required to be reviewed annually (BP 005— Investment Policy), but many others remain unchanged after biennial review. Given that the process of bringing all policies forward for review every two years creates work for staff, he suggested the Committee revisit the frequency of Board policy review going forward, with a view toward expanding the standard review period to longer than two years. Chair Williams said he would be comfortable having such a discussion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the Charter and recommended a future agenda item to discuss the frequency of Board policy reviews. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 100 of 119 Page 6 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 5 b. Receive information regarding 2021 Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits that apply for pension contributions and pension benefits Ms. O'Malley provided a brief overview of the memorandum included with the agenda material. Member Pilecki asked if anything could be done to make up the pension gap for employees hired under the Public Employees'Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) whose salaries exceed the IRC pension limit. Ms. O'Malley said Central San has no pension offset for income beyond the cap. A discussion took place as to how employees are notified of the various IRC limits on pension benefits. Ms. O'Malley said the limit for legacy employees hired on or after January 1, 1996 and before December 31, 2012 only recently came to her attention. That information will be incorporated as part of the "HR At Your Service"presentations periodically given by Human Resources staff to all employees. Mr. Bailey suggested that employees be notified of the new cap amounts each year. Ms. O'Malley confirmed that the new Oracle Enterprise Resource Planning system has been configured to automatically calculate pension contributions taking into consideration the IRC limits. Mr. Bailey also suggested that once the new internal auditor is hired, it would be best to conduct regular audits to assure that contributions are deducted appropriately. A very lengthy discussion took place in which the Committee sought clarification regarding pension contributions made by PEPRA employees under various scenarios, including someone who has worked for another public agency that is considered a reciprocal agency but not a participant in the Contra Costa County Employees'Retirement System (CCCERA) prior to joining Central San. Ms. O'Malley indicated that for PEPRA employees, pension calculations at Central San begin anew when they join the District. Contributions made while employed with another non- CCCERA agency remain with that agency until that employee files for their pension in all applicable retirement systems. They are calculated separately, and the employee would effectively receive separate pensions from each agency. Member Pilecki said if an employee were to join Central San with a salary that exceeds the pension cap, once they have reached the point where they can receive the full pension from the District, they have effectively fully paid into the system. But they may have also paid into the system toward the same cap at their former agency. Since Central San does not January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 101 of 119 Page 7 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 6 take into consideration prior contributions at the former agency, it would appear the employee might have paid more than required. Member Williams suggested that several scenarios be developed with arbitrary salary/contribution figures that somewhat resemble the following two situations: a PEPRA employee who spends his or her entire career with Central San, and an employee who has worked at two agencies as a PEPRA employee. Ultimately, Member Pilecki offered to provide staff with several scenarios to illustrate the Committee's questions, which staff will address and bring back for future discussion. Finally, the discussion turned to the confusing use of the term "tiers"by both Central San and CCCERA to classify employee groups eligible for different benefits. Ms. O'Malley acknowledged that this has always been difficult to explain. At the District, the tiers relate to post-employment retirement benefits and bargaining units. At CCCERA, the tiers relate to different pension formulas which are governed by statute. A chart clarifying what the different tiers mean for both entities is routinely included in the WR At Your Service"presentations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the information and requested a future agenda item to review employee pension contributions under various hypothetical scenarios. C. Receive information of notification from Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) regarding the pensionability of standby pay Ms. O'Malley recapped the memorandum included with the agenda material, stating that CCCERA has determined that, given the way Central San's standby pay is structured, it is not pensionable going forward. She is in the process of meeting and conferring with Local 1 regarding the impact to its members. Ms. O'Malley estimated that the number of affected employees could be in the range of 40-50. In response to a question from Member Pilecki as to whether staff agreed with CCCERA's determination, Ms. O'Malley said not at first. But, given the way the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) language is structured, the determination appears to be inarguable because the language in the MOU reflects the District's current practice. Mr. Bailey clarified that staff agrees that Central San does not have the discretion to make this ruling; CCCERA owns the decision that standby pay is not pensionable. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 102 of 119 Page 8 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 7 Member Pilecki said the notification letter from CCCERA asked Central San to state if it agreed with the analysis. Ms. O'Malley said she reached out to CCCERA and concluded that Central San's standby pay program cannot be modified to make such pay pensionable. Chair Williams inquired about the impetus for CCCERA to make this determination. Ms. O'Malley said it stemmed from the California Supreme Court's recent decision on AB 197. The effective date to stop including standby pay will not be decided until she has met and conferred with Local 1. Mr. Bailey noted that past employer pension contributions based on standby pay should affect the District's unfunded pension liability in a positive way. On the other hand, he asked if the affected employees would be due a refund for the standby pay portion of prior pension contributions. Ms. O'Malley said she has asked that question for other benefits, such as spiking, for which employees made pension contributions toward benefits for which they are no longer eligible and has not received a clear answer. She acknowledged that this issue is very complex and would be difficult to sort out quickly. While this is an area that deserves further inquiry, it was agreed that the meet-and-confer process regarding standby pay should be completed first. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the information and provided input to staff. d. Review timelines (Gantt charts) for activities related to upcoming labor negotiations with the Management Group, Management Support/Confidential Group, and Public Employees Union, Local #1 Member Pilecki asked if Task 3 was a staff activity or a Board activity. Ms. O'Malley said it is a Board activity and she would code the charts accordingly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the information. 6. Announcements Mr. Bailey announced that Steve McDonald had joined the District effective January 11, 2021, as the new Director of Operations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the announcement. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 103 of 119 Page 9 of 9 Administration Committee Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 8 7. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any other future agenda items 1) Member Pilecki suggested eliminating the following item from the unscheduled items list— Consider developing a policy or SOP regarding the use of capital project contingency funds. Chair Williams agreed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list and provided input to staff. 8. Future Scheduled Meetings Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. 9. Adjournment — at 10:41 a.m. January 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 104 of 119