At the April 16 meeting, the Committee reached consensus on the following principles regarding board of supervisors compensation:
-
The Board Member salary should be determined via peer to peer comparison.
-
Only Bay Area counties should be considered, and that Alameda and San Mateo appeared to be most closely aligned with Contra Costa County in size, scope, and complexity.
-
With regard to the pension benefit as a component of compensation, the quality and value of the benefit to the retiree should be considered rather than the dollar amount contributed by a county towards the premium, because amounts contributed by a county may be due to unfunded accrued actuarial liability (UAAL) vs. the actual value of an individual's retirement benefit.
-
The elected County Supervisor is a full-time job in terms of hours but, as a legislator/policy-maker, is not equivalent to, nor should the salary be tied to, an administrator, county department head, or operating department employee.
-
The Board Member salary should be set high enough so as to not pose a barrier to individuals seeking political office, and should be determined via peer to peer comparison.
The Committee requested staff to compile the following additional information:
-
With regard to comparing the quality of health benefit plans, the Committee asked to be provided the Cheiron report on Medical Benefits Trends that was provided to the Board of Supervisors at its January 27 retreat.
-
What, if any, mileage reimbursement is provided to Board members in addition to the monthly auto allowance.
-
Which supplemental pays are retirement compensable under CCCERA.
-
How the San Mateo County retiree health benefit applies to its Board members, who do not accrue sick leave.
-
More information about the San Francisco Civil Service Commission salary-setting procedures and other examples where such a salary setting commission operates.
-
10 years of history on general county salary increases for management/unrepresented, Local 1, and the Deputy Sheriff's Association, including any difference in the timing of COLAs
-
10 years of history on health benefit changes for management/unrepresented, Local 1, and the Deputy Sheriff's Association
-
10 years of history on Contra Costa elected officials' salary adjustments
-
10 years of history on SF County elected officials salary adjustments
-
How the Civil Service Commission at the City/County of San Francisco is composed, appointed, and how it operates to set elected official salaries
-
Any other examples that could be found of an independent commission for salary determination
-
Which supplemental pays are retirement compensable under CCCERA
|
Health Benefits Comparison
The Committee asked to see a comparison of county-offered health plans and benefits. See Attachment A for the report prepared by Cheiron on Medical Benefits Trends that was provided to the Board of Supervisors on January 27.
Mileage Reimbursement for Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Members
County Ordinance section 24-26-006(b) provides that each Supervisor shall receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses necessarily incurred in the conduct of his/her office, including an automobile allowance of $600/month plus all mileage at the rate per mile allowed by the IRS. Receipt of the automobile allowance requires that a private automobile be furnished for county business. Actual mileage claimed in March 2015 by the Supervisors ranged from 0-748 miles each and was reimbursed at the current IRS mileage deduction rate of $0.575/mile.
Therefore, when comparing auto allowances among Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, it must be noted that neither Alameda nor San Mateo County supplement the auto allowance with mileage reimbursement.
Clarification of San Mateo County Paid Leave Accrual Policy for Board of Supervisors
The San Mateo County Human Resources Department clarified that its Board members accrue leave hours as all their management positions do. However, the Board’s leave hours cannot be cashed out in order to increase the final salary upon retirement. Board members are eligible to use their sick leave balances to purchase retiree health plan subsidies in the same way that other employees may. See Attachment H for updated Tri-County Comparison table.
CCCERA Retirement Base
The following list applies to the calculation of benefits for all active or deferred employees who first became CCCERA members before January 1, 2013 ("Legacy Members.") All of the current Contra Costa County board members are legacy CCCERA members. New members after that date will have their retirement allowances calculated under the provisions of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"). See Attachment B for CCCERA’s Post AB 197 Compensation Earnable Policy, which explains the preceding list in more detail.
"Compensation earnable" ordinarily includes:
-
Regular base salary
-
FLSA premium pay for regularly scheduled work assignment (fire and law enforcement)
-
Longevity pay
-
Cash payments for special skills and qualifications and unique services, such as:
-
bilingual pay
-
shift differential
-
special assignment differential
-
holiday pay
-
Educational incentive pay (e.g. POST, CPA)
-
In-service leave cash outs (earned and payable each year, regardless of when actually paid)
-
Allowances (e.g. uniform, automobile)
-
Standby or on-call pay (for work during normal working hours, required by the employer and not voluntary, and ordinarily worked by all others in the same grade or classification at the same rate of pay during the FAS period)
"Compensation earnable" ordinarily excludes:
-
Overtime pay
-
Expense reimbursements
-
The monetary value of advantages received in kind, such as:
-
uniforms
-
employer payments to third-party insurers
-
lodging
-
transportation
-
the use of an automobile.
-
Employer contributions to deferred compensation plans
-
Lump sum at termination for accrued unused leave that could not be cashed out annually during service
-
Severance pay
The Committee asked specifically if the retirement base would include any lump sum payment of the $12,000 annual deferred compensation benefit to which a Supervisor is entitled if, for any reason, all or part of such deferred compensation cannot be paid into a deferred compensation account. The CCCERA Board has the authority to review individual “legacy” member compensation to determine if any element of final year compensation will “spike” the final annual salary. Staff was unable to obtain a definitive opinion from CCCERA on the Committee’s question.
Other-Agency Compensation Commissions
The Committee requested information about how the San Francisco Civil Service Commission is composed, appointed and how it operations, and also information on similar commissions in other jurisdictions.
City and County Civil Service Commission: Salary Setting Function
The San Francisco Civil Service System was established under the 1900 Freeholder Charter. The Commission provides Rules and policies interpretation, reviews and audits merit system operation, approves contracting out based on the scope of services, and conducts training and outreach on the merit system.
In 2002, voters approved a Charter Amendment determining that the job of the members of the Board of Supervisors is full time and that the salaries are to be set by the Civil Service Commission once every 5 years.
Salary setting for elected officials is only one of many functions of the Commission. To carry out the current merit system provisions of the Charter, the Civil Service Commission:
-
Establishes and revises Rules, policy and procedures on the merit system applicable to City & County of San Francisco departments, the Municipal Transportation Agency and classified employees of the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco Community College District;
-
Conducts hearings on appeals on examinations, eligible lists, minimum qualifications, discrimination complaints, future employment with the City, and other merit system matters under its jurisdiction;
-
Reviews, monitors and audits the operation of the merit system - receives reports, conducts hearings and takes remedial action as required and where appropriate;
-
Provides an Inspection Service to applicants, employees, departmental representatives, union representatives, and members of the public;
-
Conducts training and outreach on the merit system;
-
Approves contracting out based on the scope of services;
-
Publishes the Civil Service Adviser and other merit system informational materials;
-
Sets salaries of elected officials; and,
-
Performs functions authorized in Employee Relations Ordinance administration
The five commissioners are appointed by the Mayor.
Salary Setting. Under the City/County Charter, the SF Civil Service Commission, every five years, conducts a salary survey to rebalance the board of supervisors’ salary in the context of peer boards and councils (defined as full time California City Councils and County Boards of Supervisors). The Commission has typically also indexed the updated salary annually to changes in consumer prices for the San Francisco Area – All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from 0-5% annually, until the start of a new five-year cycle. If labor contracts are amended to reduce compensation for employees, the Commission may reduce the Supervisors salary as necessary to achieve comparable cost savings.
Following the 2002 ballot measure, in which the electorate confirmed that the board position is full time and established a five-year salary cycle, the Civil Service Commission in 2003 initially set the board salary at $112,320 for one year. When the Commission conducted its first salary survey in 2004, it considered salary and other information from California jurisdictions with full-time City Councils and County Supervisors including: total number of members and population represented; administrative responsibilities and/or job functions; total number of city/county departments and employees; budget; outside employment policy; internal and external committee structure; consumer price index; cost of living comparison; and, examples of applicable charter provisions. In its deliberations, the Commission considered the complex nature of the position, the importance of the position in the framework of City and County of San Francisco governance, the budget, the special nature of a combined city and county governing function, the salary in relation to staff, and comparison to other similar jurisdictions. Based on that study, the Commission reset the board salary at $90,000 for a five year cycle (July 2004-June 2009), with an annual escalator based on the January CPI-U. The subsequent cycle ran from July 2009 through June 2014.
The most recent Commission Salary Survey Work Plan looked like this:
|
Commission Meeting/Report |
Activity |
|
Dec 2013 |
Presentation of preliminary work plan; outline of Civil Service |
|
Jan-May 2014 |
Survey and obtain annual salary information for Councilmembers and/or Member of Board of Supervisors for California cities and counties that have full time City Councils and County Supervisors. |
|
Feb 2014 |
Obtain Consumer Price Index Report for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) issued by the United States, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the period December 2012 to December 2013. |
|
Apr 2014 |
Progress report |
|
May 2014 |
Analyze, finalize and prepare salary information to present to Commission. |
|
May 19, 2014 |
Presentation of salary survey findings & recommendation at the Civil Service Commission Regular Meeting; Commissioners make
decision & set base salary; forward salary decision/notice of action to the Controller for inclusion in the FY 2014-15 budget.
|
Two salary histories for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are provided in Attachment C. One is based on amounts contained in city ordinances. The other was excerpted from the May 19, 2014 Civil Service Commission Report on the 2014/2019 Salary Cycle.
Other Salary Review Commission Models
Both Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County use ad hoc committees selected by their CEOs to set their board of supervisors’ salary. These ad hoc committees are generally composed of representatives from the taxpayers' association, chambers of commerce, non-profits, and private sector businesses.
Santa Barbara County. Late last year, the Santa Barbara County Administrator set up a six-person committee to make recommendations to the supervisors on their current salary and the methodology for setting that salary now and in the future. The County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors Compensation Ad Hoc Committee met several times in December and January. A March 11 news article reported that the supervisors voted 3-1 (one absent) to adjust the board salary annually based on the CPI (see news article in Attachment D for context).
San Luis Obispo County. Prior to December 2014, San Luis Obispo County set its supervisors' salary using the average pay seen in a collection of other counties, but on December 16, 2014, the supervisors granted themselves a 5% pay increase based upon a recommendation of the human resources director to change the method used to determine the board’s salary to be consistent with the method used to determine the prevailing wages of other employee groups. The County expanded market comparator organizations to include a broader spectrum of agencies (“new market”) than had been previously utilized. This new market has been used by the county in negotiations with all employee organizations and replaces a previous contractual formulaic approach to establishing wages. The former formulaic approach was also included in the Board of Supervisors’ current compensation ordinance, which was eliminated in the December amendment. The December amendment also incorporated other economic factors important in consideration of establishing wages including the County’s financial stability.
California Citizens’ Compensation Commission. See Attachment E for a summary.
Gallatin County, MO Compensation Board. There is a county compensation board consisting of the county commissioners, three of the county officials described in subsection (1) appointed by the board of county commissioners, the county attorney, and two to four resident taxpayers appointed initially by the board of county commissioners to staggered terms of 3 years, with the initial appointments of one or two taxpayer members for a 2-year term and one or two taxpayer members for a 3-year term. The county compensation board shall hold hearings annually for the purpose of reviewing the compensation paid to county officers. The county compensation board may consider the compensation paid to comparable officials in other Montana counties, other states, state government, federal government, and private enterprise.
The county compensation board shall prepare a compensation schedule for the elected county officials, including the county attorney, for the succeeding fiscal year. The schedule must take into consideration county variations, including population, the number of residents living in unincorporated areas, assessed valuation, motor vehicle registrations, building permits, and other factors considered necessary to reflect the variations in the workloads and responsibilities of county officials as well as the tax resources of the county.
A recommended compensation schedule requires a majority vote of the county compensation board, and at least two county commissioners must be included in the majority. A recommended compensation schedule may not reduce the salary of a county officer that was in effect on May 1, 2001.
Multnomah County, OR Salary Commission. See Attachment F for recent report.
10-Year History of Negotiated Wage and Health Benefit Changes for Selected Employee Groups
See Attachment G for history table.
Related News Articles
See Attachment J for related news articles |