| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
|
|
Call to Order, Roll Call, and Introductions |
| |
Facilitator Steve Weir called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). |
| |
No members of the public asked to speak under Public Comment.
Michael Moore suggested that, once the Committee determined a set of recommendations, that the recommendations be listed on two Committee agendas in order to provide more than one opportunity for members of the public to view and comment on the recommendations.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
|
RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the April 9, 2015 Ad Hoc Committee on BOS Compensation meeting.
|
| |
The Committee approved the Record of Action for the April 9, 2015 meeting with the following clarification: that the Deputy Sheriff's Association filed the petition for referendum and a coalition including the Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association, the Bay Area News Group, labor groups and many individuals gathered the signatures required to qualify the referendum. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Margaret Eychner, Margaret Hanlon-Gradie, Michael Moore, Rick Wise, Stuart McCullough
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Record of Action_Ad Hoc Cte on BOS Compensation_4-9-15
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
|
NOMINATE and VOTE to elect Committee officers: Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary.
|
| |
The following slate was nominated and approved by unanimous vote: Chair, Rick Wise; Vice Chair, Margaret Eychner; and Secretary, Michael Moore. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Margaret Eychner, Margaret Hanlon-Gradie, Michael Moore, Rick Wise, Stuart McCullough
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
|
RECEIVE draft compilation of research data on the characteristics of Bay Area county governments and the compensation factors of their governing bodies, and provide direction to staff on next steps.
|
| |
CAO staff presented the Draft Bay Area Board of Supervisors Compensation Chart. This draft included information from the nine Bay Area counties including: Population; Budget; FTE (full time equivalent employees); compensation factors for Board of Supervisors including salary, pension contribution and vesting, county health benefits contribution, county retirement health benefits contributions and vesting; county contribution to deferred compensation or other pension enhancements (IRA); auto allowance; vacation, sick leave, or other paid accruals that can enhance terminal pay or retirement basis and other county-paid perquisites. Staff noted that the information was acquired informally through phone and email inquiries and web searches, and needed to be refined and verified.
Staff also provided supplemental information on Alameda, San Mateo, and Contra Costa counties, including the ACERA Retiree Benefits Plan and Monthly Medical Allowance for Alameda County retirees, the employer/employee contributions to Contra Costa health plan premiums, and a more detailed comparison of benefits among Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo counties. Supplemental documents were added to the meeting record.
Staff clarified that Contra Costa health benefit contributions are a fixed dollar amount that varies by plan rather than a fixed percentage of a premium or flexible spending allocation (as occurs in some of the other Bay Area counties).
Steve Weir explained why staff chose to focus on Alameda and San Mateo counties for the more detailed comparisons and asked the Committee for direction on which counties it preferred to focus on for further analysis. There was consensus among the Committee members that 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.
Staff reviewed each element of the comparison with Alameda and San Mateo counties. Michael Moore suggested that in terms of the value of the pension benefit as a component of total 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. After further discussion, there appeared to be a general consensus on this point.
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.
The Committee asked staff to verify what, if any, mileage reimbursement is provided to Board members in addition to the monthly auto allowance, and how the San Mateo County retiree health benefit applies to its Board members, who do not accrue sick leave.
The Committee engaged in a broad discussion of issues including equity and fairness for Board compensation. There was consensus that 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 Committee discussed its overall charge and acknowledged that the Board Member salary should be set high enough so as to not pose an barrier to individuals seeking political office, and should be determined via peer to peer comparison. There was interest in knowing more about the San Francisco Civil Service Commission salary-setting procedures. Staff is to report more on this and try to include other examples where such a salary setting commission operates.
Attachments "2015 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments"; "FPPC Form 806"; and "Government Code section 1770" were acknowledged by the Committee.
The Committee asked staff to report back with the following information:
-
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
-
which supplemental pays are retirement compensable under CCCERA
-
any other examples that could be found of an independent commission for salary determination
|
| |
|
AYE:
|
Margaret Eychner, Margaret Hanlon-Gradie, Michael Moore, Rick Wise, Stuart McCullough
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Bay Area County Characteristics
|
| |
Elected Board Compensation Factors Among Bay Area Counties - DRAFT
|
| |
2015 Contra Costa County BOS Committee Assignments
|
| |
FPPC Form 806 Identifying BOS Committee Assignments That are Compensated
|
| |
Government Code section 1770
|
| |
CCC 2015 MedicalDental Premiums
|
| |
Alameda Co Retirement System Fact Sheet
|
| |
Alameda Co Retirement System Monthly Medical Allowance
|
| |
Tri-County Compensation Comparison
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
|
The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 23, 2015. |
| |
The committee decided to cancel its April 30 meeting. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Margaret Eychner, Margaret Hanlon-Gradie, Michael Moore, Rick Wise, Stuart McCullough
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
|
Adjourn |
| |
Chairman Wise adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. |