HomeMy WebLinkAbout17.b. Committee Minutes-Finance 02-03-21 Page 1 of 8
Item 17.b.
CENTRALSAN
jdf A- hom
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
February 18, 2021
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: KATIE YOUNG, SECRETARYOF THE DISTRICT
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY3, 2021 - FINANCE COMMITTEE - CHAIR PILECKI AND
MEMBER MCGILL
Attached are minutes of the above Committee meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of 02-03-21 meeting
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 112 of 147
Page 2 of 8
I CENTRAL SAN
CONTRACENTRAL •STA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 IMHOFF
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
TAD J PILECKI
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA President
SANITARY DISTRICT DAVID R. WILLIAMS
President Pro Tens
FINANCE COMMITTEE BARBARA D.HOCKETT
MARIAHN LAURITZEN
MICHAEL R.MCGILL
MINUTES
PHONE: (925)228-9500
Wednesday, February 3, 2021 FAX: (925)372-0192
9:00 a.m. www.centralsan.org
(All attendees participated via videoconference)
Committee:
Chair Tad Pilecki
Member Mike McGill
Staff.
Roger S. Bailey, General Manager
Katie Young, Secretary of the District
Philip Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration (left during Item 4.b.)
Jean-Marc Petit, Director of Engineering and Technical Services
Danea Gemmell, Planning and Development Services Division Manager
Stephanie King, Purchasing and Materials Manager (left during Item 4.b.)
Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager (left during Item 4.b.)
Kevin Mizuno, Finance Manager (left during Item 4.b.)
Thomas Brightbill, Senior Engineer
Shari Deutsch, Risk Management Administrator (left after Item 4.a.)
Bryan McGloin, Management Analyst
Donna Anderson, Assistant to the Secretary of the District
1. Notice
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 attendance by Board Members, District staff, and the public to
participate 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 Pilecki called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 113 of 147
Page 3 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 2
3. Public Comments - None.
4. Agenda Items
a. Receive annual update on Strategic Risk Inventory / Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM) Program [Continued from January 26, 2021]
Mr. Leiber briefly recapped the first half of the presentation given at the
January 26 meeting after which he reviewed the second half of the
presentation included with the agenda packet.
Member McGill said he likes this approach to tracking potential risks and
being able to review it twice a year. He asked if the focus of the program
was to reduce risk. Mr. Leiber responded yes, which is why a separate
mitigation plan for each of the 28 risk areas is a key part of the ERM
program. Staff periodically discusses the risk areas, how they are trending,
and the status of the mitigation plans for each. This includes the workplan,
and resources, and whether additional resources are needed (and budgeted)
to mitigate a particular risk area. The risk mitigation plan also addresses
other factors such as the leading and lagging indicators as to the onset of a
risk. Using the Economic Recession risk area as an example, Mr. Leiber
shared its matrix and explained how the mitigation approach for that risk
area has evolved since the program's inception. Mr. Bailey added that the
purpose of the program is to continually assess the District's risk areas in
terms of whether they are improving or getting worse. The whole point of the
program is to assure any issues are promptly addressed and mitigated.
Member McGill asked if the District's current Strategic Plan had any
initiatives or metrics tied directly to the Strategic Risk Inventory to help
monitor progress with risk mitigation. Mr. Bailey and Mr. Leiber said the
general answer was yes. But to the extent the linkage is not specific at this
point, staff will incorporate the suggestion when the Strategic Plan is next
updated. Member McGill said, in his oversight position as a Board Member,
it was important to understand how the Strategic Risk Inventory/ERM
program fits with the Strategic Plan.
Member McGill noted that the Contra Costa Local Area Formation
Commission (LAFCO) recently reported that cities, on average, are reporting
a 30% loss in revenue due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. He noted
that Central San is on the Teeter Plan, and its Sewer Service Charge (SSC)
is collected on the property tax roll. He asked if that has helped the District's
revenues remain relatively constant. Mr. Leiber said that as of last
December, County officials indicated there were no defaults on a significant
level, and they were confident that they had enough reserves to cover any
defaults and honor their obligations through the Teeter Plan. He added that
the December installment of the SSC will be reflected in the December 2021
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 114 of 147
Page 4 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 3
quarterly financials at the next meeting, and that staff had no indication of
any shortfalls.
Mr. Bailey commented that, unlike Central San, revenue streams for cities
are, for the most part, linked to property taxes and sales taxes. Sales tax
revenue has declined significantly during the pandemic, placing a burden on
city budgets. Chair Pilecki said that concept was noted by the Mayor of
Pleasant Hill at yesterday's State of the City Address. While the pandemic
has significantly impacted the city, it is doing better than many others, thanks
to solid hotel revenues.
Member McGill opined that Central San should do what it can to help
businesses that have been particularly impacted, such as restaurants,
because doing so will, in turn, help cities. He suggested that consideration
be given to doing whatever can be done under the law to assist cities in
Central San's service area. Chair Pilecki agreed. Mr. Bailey said an appeal
hearing was scheduled for the February 4, 2021 Board meeting at which a
new food establishment in Concord will seek assistance with financing its
capacity fees. Under the District Code, staff has no authority to authorize
installment payment plans for such establishments, even though it would be
helpful to customers. The topic of helping restaurants is pertinent to this
issue. He suggested that it be raised during the February 4 meeting.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the update and provided input to staff.
b. Review draft Position Paper to consider proposed changes to various
sections of the District Code to confirm with external requirements, internal
practices, and enable more efficient operations [Continued from January
26, 2021]
Ms. Gemmell noted that staff has been planning for quite a while to bring
forth a proposal to significantly overhaul portions of the District Code to
conform with external requirements, internal practices, and to otherwise
enable more efficient management of Central San's operations. The bulk of
the proposed changes described in the draft Position Paper have to do with
(1) converting the existing Capacity Use Charge Program for sewer capacity
fees to a new "Non-Residential Capacity Fee Installment Program,"and
(2) updating the Code to agree with recycled water changes in the recently
adopted Standard Specifications. If the Board approves these proposed
changes, staff intends to bring forth proposed changes to Title 11: Recycled
Water in order to ensure consistency with these proposed revisions to the
Capacity Use Charge Program and to address changes necessary as a
result of the new Standard Specifications.
Since the January 26, 2021 meeting, staff met with Chair Pilecki to review
his questions about the proposed Code changes. Notes from that meeting
were provided to Member McGill, who said he very much appreciated Chair
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 115 of 147
Page 5 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 4
Pilecki taking the time for such a thorough review, noting that he was
uniquely qualified because of his familiarity with the District Code. Member
McGill also appreciated the summary of changes in the draft Position Paper
and seeing the strikeout version of the Code highlighting the changes.
Ms. Gemmell noted that District Counsel Kent Alm had also provided
extensive review of the proposed changes. Member McGill said he assumed
that when Mr. Alm reviewed it, it was from both a legal and enforceability
standpoint. Ms. Gemmell said yes.
Mr. Brightbill reviewed the proposed changes summarized in the draft
Position Paper, during which the following items were discussed:
1) Resolution Process for Any Conflicts in the District Code: Chair
Pilecki inquired about the resolution process if different titles/sections
of the Code were in conflict. He noted that the District's contract
documents for construction projects include language describing the
process for resolving such conflicts. He wondered if something similar
should be added to the District Code. Mr. Bailey said that was a
question for Mr. Alm, and staff would follow up with him.
2) Proposed Changes to Capacity Fee Program: Mr. Brightbill said the
focus of the proposed changes to the Capacity Fee chapter were to
simplify the existing program for payment of non-residential capacity
fees and expand the number of businesses eligible to participate. He
said the complexities of the existing program had raised some
concerns, including the fact that fees vary annually based on the prior
year's water consumption, and calculations can be problematic when
businesses share a water meter or when a business wishes to
expand. Customers generally have expressed a preference for fixed
payments. He noted, however, that one key element being retained is
the requirement that the property owner must sign off on the fee
agreement and agree to the collection of annual charges on the
property tax roll, which keeps payments secure and easy to
administer.
3) Community Input on Proposed Changes: Member McGill asked if
staff had sought input from local businesses, the homebuilding
community, and cities in relation to the proposed changes to the
Capacity Fee Program. Mr. Brightbill said a recent applicant
suggested that staff reach out to the local Chambers of Commerce
about the changes. He said his group would work with the
Communications group in this regard. He also said staff has spoken
to the Building Industry Association (BIA), but noted their focus is
primarily on residential construction. Ms. Gemmell added that part of
the impetus for the proposed changes were comments from past and
current users of the program. Member McGill said he wanted to be
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 116 of 147
Page 6 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 5
sure there was a mechanism to gauge if these changes, if approved,
achieve the intended result.
4) Potential Expansion of Capacity Fee Financing Program: Chair
Pilecki said the current program uses the deli rate as the cut-off for
whether a business can participate in the installment payment
program. He asked if it would be possible to broaden the program's
availability to more customers by basing it on a dollar amount versus
a specific business classification. Mr. Brightbill said yes. Chair Pilecki
said his desire would be to make it available more broadly so it is
equitable for all businesses.
5) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): While not included on the draft
Position Paper summary, Ms. Gemmell said that as staff was cleaning
up provisions of the District Code, it also updated the language
regarding ADUs.
• Definition of an ADU: A reference to the applicable section of the
Government Code was added to define an ADU. Additional
language clarifying what constitutes conversion of an existing
space was also added. This is an important distinction because, in
general, the collection of sewer capacity fees for ADUs created by
conversion of an existing space is not allowed by state law. For
new construction ADU projects, state law does allow the collection
of sewer capacity fees, albeit at a discounted rate.
• Non-Conforming ADUs: Mr. Brightbill said it has become clear
that a section needed to be added to address certain accessory
structures with sewer connections that do not meet the ADU
criteria laid out in state law. The intent is to clarify the attributes of
these non-conforming structures. Ms. Gemmell added that
customers often debate what constitutes a kitchen. It was decided
to remove the word "kitchen"in that portion of the District Code,
thus defining these non-conforming structures as having a full bath
and "an additional sink located outside of bathroom area." This
suggestion was made by Chair Pilecki when he met with staff to go
over his questions on the proposed Code changes. Staff was
comfortable with the suggested wording because it is very clear.
6) Community Outreach for the Capacity Use Program and ADUs:
Member McGill requested that information on ADUs be incorporated
when staff reaches out to the Chambers of Commerce about the
Capacity Use Program. Ms. Gemmell said she and her staff were in
the process of preparing an update for the Board on ADUs and that
information could be used for community outreach purposes.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 117 of 147
Page 7 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 6
7) Fees for New Connections to the Sewer System: Chair Pilecki said it
is not just the capacity fee that customers find concerning; it is also
that the annual SSC is added to their tax bill. He said the charges can
add up very quickly compared to a one-time connection fee. He
mentioned that the City of Pleasant Hill's Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) rose from 448 in 2020 to over 1,200 for 2021
because of the need for affordable housing and homeless issues.
Thus, the number of applications for ADUs is likely to increase
dramatically over the next five to ten years and staff will be inundated
with requests. He said he and Mr. Bailey have discussed this issue
and wondered about options to simplify the ADU process. He said the
sink outside the bathroom is a good interim solution, but an ADU
program that is less complex yet defensible would be desirable. He
saw this as an opportune time to make such changes because of the
anticipated volume of applications on the horizon.
A general discussion took place where Mr. Bailey and Chair Pilecki
pointed out that any program would need to address equity issues
between existing homes without meters and newer ones with meters.
Ultimately, Mr. Brightbill said staff wants to ensure that the District
collects appropriate fees from users based on classifications and user
groups. A new cost of service study will be helpful in this regard.
Mr. Bailey agreed, saying that discussions should take place about
the concept of tying capacity fees to meter size.
It was agreed that this topic deserves a longer conversation. With
regard to the surge in RHNAs, Member McGill said the Contra Costa
Chapter of the California Special Districts Association (CCSDA) is
asking the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to
investigate the phenomenon. Ms. Gemmell said that next year the
District was heading into the fourth and final year of its SSC rate
schedule, at which time the cost of service study will be updated.
Member Pilecki said he felt obligated to spend a fair amount of time
reviewing the proposed changes to the District Code because it was obvious
that staff had made a tremendous effort in bringing the matter forth. He
commended staff for a job well done, saying it was much appreciated.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval.
5. Announcements - None.
6. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items - None.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 118 of 147
Page 8 of 8
Finance Committee Minutes
February 3, 2021
Page 7
7. Future Scheduled Meetings
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
8. Adjournment— at 10:31 a.m.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 119 of 147