MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT
October 2, 2012
The Ironhouse Sanitary
District (ISD) Board of Directors met in regular session on Tuesday, October 2,
2012.
The place of meeting was the
Ironhouse Sanitary District Office at 450 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley,
California.
1.
Call to
Order
The
meeting was called to order by President Hardcastle at 7:30 p.m. who announced
that the board would go into the Closed Session shown as Item 2 on the
Agenda.
2.
Roll Call:
Directors present: David
Contreras, Doug Hardcastle, David Huerta and
Chris Lauritzen
Members
absent: Michael Painter
Staff/Consultants present: Tom Williams, General Manager
Jennifer Skrel, District
Engineer
Susan Walde, District
Secretary
Bob Henn, District
Counsel
Michael Welty,
Financial Officer
Interested
parties present: Michael and Susan
Morgan, Oakley, CA
Mike
Burkholder, Oakley, CA
Rowena
Coetsee
Matt
Tillis, Danville, CA
Kevin
Tillis, Danville, CA
Pledge of Allegiance: The pledge of allegiance was led
by Matt Tillis
3.
Approval of Agenda
M/S D. Huerta and D. Contreras and the Board voted to
approve the agenda.
4.
Approval of the minutes of the September 4, 2012
Regular Meeting
M/S D. Contreras, D. Huerta and the Board voted to approve the minutes as amended
of the September 4, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Board.
5.
Public Comments
– Communications from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
There were no comments from the public.
6.
Consent Calendar
A. Approval of
Payment Order, Report on Financial Position & Operating
Performance.
Mr. Welty reported to the Board that staff are
currently starting the audit process with the Auditors and will have a full
audit report for the Board at the November meeting. Director Lauritzen asked about a Finance
committee meeting before the next meeting.
Mr. Welty reported he will get back to the Finance committee with a
possible date.
M/S D. Huerta, C. Lauritzen and the Board voted
unanimously to approve the consent calendar.
7.
Business Before the Board
7A. Presentation by Matt Tillis Regarding the
Construction and Installation of Ten Raptor Perches on Jersey Island, as his
Eagle Scout Project.
Mr. Tom Williams reported that RD 830 in coordination
with Department of Fish and Game (DFG) had to remove some trees from the levee
on blind Point on Jersey Island. DFG had
asked if RD830 would be interested in placing some raptor perches on Jersey
Island in the vicinity of the levee project to attract raptors to help with the
rodent control on and near the levee.
Matt Tillis, son of RD 830’s Geotechnical Engineer, applied to RD 830
for his Eagle Scout project to complete the project. Matt addressed the Board and thanked them for
this opportunity. Matt gave an overview
of his requirements of Eagle Scout. He gave
a project overview of his raptor perches project with a detail report of his
project and budget. He presented a
sample stand for the board to review and approve. He will preselect the locations on October 9,
2012 with the approval form DFG and RD 830.
His scheduled work day for the project is November 3, 2012. Director Lauritzen suggested two safety
elements in his project to consider; amend walking on the slop of the levee and
also driving on the levee. The Boy
Scouts of America will provide proof of insurance to RD 830 and ISD. Mr. Williams will be working out the details
with Mr. Tillis.
Director Lauritzen asked about the life and the
service life of the stands. He also
asked if any other Islands are starting this project. Director Contreras asked if we have a base
line of rodents on island. Mr. Williams
stated that we won’t have a count, but we do have rodent control and will have
to alter it. He also added that we get
an influx of raptors on the Island. Matt
Tillis was asked about what help he will have setting the stands up and he
stated that he will have the use of Mr. Tillis’ company vehicle that is already
insured to be on the island and that the Boy Scouts support each other on their
projects which give each of them Scout merits.
He has a crew set-up to work with him.
Matt Tillis thanked the Board for inviting him to give
his presentation and thanked them for supporting his project.
7B. Review
of Existing Director Benefits and Consideration of Possible Revisions.
Mr. Williams referred the introduction of the next
item to the ad hoc Committee on Director’s benefits. Director Lauritzen stated that he and
Director Painter met on September 19 with Bob Henn, General Counsel, and Tom
Williams, General Manager, to develop the memo in the Board’s agenda packet for
the Board’s consideration. He stated
that the Committee’s proposal now in its memo has been circulating since
November of 2011 and January of 2012, but since the Budget Committee got a late
start, the review of Directors’ benefits was delayed. Director Lauritzen then gave an overview of
the Committee’s memo to the Board.
After Director Lauritzen’s summary, President
Hardcastle asked for public comments.
Mike Burkholder spoke to the Board, stating that the
Committee had made a good first attempt.
He feels that the District should not offer any medical benefits to the
Directors. If it continues to offer
them, the District should cover only 25% or at most 50% of the cost, but he
recommends not offering any benefits to any Director. His recommendation to the Board is for the
Directors to opt out of medical coverage.
There were no other public comments.
Director Contreras inquired as to what retirement
meant, and suggested that the better term would be term of service.
Director Huerta inquired as to the effect of an
existing director’s break in service. If an Existing Director does not serve on
the Board for a period of time, and then resumes service on the Board, is he an
“Existing Director” or a “New Director?”
Director Huerta suggested that in that situation the
Existing Director should become a New Director.
Director Lauritzen suggested that if the break in
service lasted more than 4 years, then the former Director should become a New
Director and not be able to cumulate his years of service as an Existing
Director with his years of service as a New Director. If the former Director resumed service on the
Board within 4 years, then the former director would still be a New Director,
but would be able to add his prior years of service to his years of service as
a New Director in computing the 28 years of service required for retirement
benefits for New Directors. As to a New
Director who is first seated on the Board after November 2012, the New Director
should be able to cumulate years of service for purposes of the 28 years of
service requirement.
Director Hardcastle suggested that a break in service
should end the prior time – which the 28 years should be continuous only.
Director Hardcastle suggested that a New Director not
receive any health benefits, since he is not losing anything and doesn’t have
or expect anything. It’s equivalent to
the District entering into a new contract with the New Director. But an Existing Director who knew of the
availability of the benefits when he ran should not have them taken away. The Existing Director is like a party to a
contract – the District shouldn’t take away what he has.
Director Huerta stated that no Board member here ran
for office for the medical coverage. However,
he believes that there should be compensation for Board members. They are doing
a
job, and so they should be compensated.
Director Hardcastle asked – but at what level of
compensation?
Director Contreras said that some compensation was
needed. Many special districts have
people running unopposed and find it hard to fill positions when current board
members leave. Some compensation is needed to attract qualified people. Ironhouse provides a vital service, the
collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, and good people are needed
on the Board to manage it. He believes
that compensation should end when the Director leaves the Board.
Bob Henn explained that CalPers has some
constraints. If any Director is to
receive medical benefits, whether existing or new, serving or retired, then the
District must make the same contribution for all directors. The minimum contribution permitted during
2013 will be $115/mo. If Existing
Directors are going to receive medical benefits, then the District must
contribute the same amount towards the medical benefits for a New
Director. However, the District is free
to determine when a Director has “retired,” that is, when the Director is
eligible for retirement benefits.
Like Director Hardcastle, the ad hoc Committee had
wanted to eliminate any medical benefits for New Directors during their
retirement. But since CalPers wouldn’t
allow that without eliminating all medical benefits for all existing, new,
serving and retired directors, the Committee was recommending that a New
Director not be retired for medical benefits purposes until he or she has
served 28 years on the Board and is age 65 or older upon retirement. This is such a long time, that it is expected
to reduce the number of New Directors who receive medical benefits upon
retirement to very few or none, and thus to largely achieve the desired result
of eliminating medical benefits for retired New Directors. If later there actually is a New Director who
serves 28 years on the Board, there may be some equity to that Director
receiving medical benefits in retirement.
After further discussion, the Board decided to vote on
the ad hoc Committee’s primary proposals on an item-by-item basis.
As to items 3.a.i. & ii of the Committee’s
proposal, M/S C. Lauritzen, D. Contreras and the Board voted to adopt those
proposals with some clarifications. As
adopted (with the clarifications), they are as follows. While a New Director is serving on the Board,
the District’s contribution to the New Director’s medical, dental and vision
coverage will be limited to the cost of covering the individual Director, and
so will not include the cost of covering the New Director’s spouse or other
family. The amount of the District’s
contribution will be frozen at the level of the District’s contribution during
the New Director’s first year in office.
The amount of the District’s contribution during that first year will be
the same as what the District would contribute for a full-time employee who was
first hired during that same year (and whose coverage does not include any
family members). The New Director will
pay any increases in cost after the New Director’s first year in office. The New Director may choose to add members of
his or her family to the District’s coverage at the New Director’s
expense. In favor: D. Contreras, D.
Huerta and C. Lauritzen. Opposed: D. Hardcastle.
As to Item 3.b of the Committee’s proposal, M/S C.
Lauritzen, D. Huerta and the Board voted to adopt the proposal, which is as
follows. After a New Director ceases
service on the Board (retires), the New Director will be eligible to receive
the CalPers medical benefit in retirement if the New Director has served on the
Board for at least 28 years and is age 65 or over on the date of retirement. In favor: D. Contreras, D. Huerta, C.
Lauritzen and D. Hardcastle. Opposed:
none.
As to items 1 and 2 of the Committee’s proposal, M/S
C. Lauritzen, D. Huerta and the Board voted to adopt the two proposals, which
are as follows.
1. Divide the Directors into two categories:
those serving now (“Existing Directors”) and those who are first seated on the
Board after November 1, 2012 (“New Directors”).
2. As to
Existing Directors, retain their eligibility for the existing benefits, but
freeze the District’s total contribution to the cost of each Existing
Director’s medical, dental and vision plans at the amount the District paid for
that Existing Director during calendar 2012.
Any increase in the total cost of the three plans after 2012 will be paid
by the Existing Director. An Existing
Director will remain eligible for CalPers medical benefits after his retirement
from the Board to the extent he satisfies the length of service and retirement
age requirements applicable to him during his service prior to November of
2012. The District’s contribution during
the Existing Director’s retirement will remain frozen at the level of the
District’s CalPers medical contribution for that Director for 2012, with the
Existing Director paying any increase.
In favor: D. Contreras, D. Huerta, C. Lauritzen and D.
Hardcastle. Opposed: none.
7C. Consideration of Environmental Compliance
for Infrastructure Improvements.
Ms. Skrel reported to the Board that now that the
Water Recycling Facility (WRF) is complete ISD staff has requested
infrastructure improvements be constructed; VAC-CON dump station, provide a
secondary access road to the WRF and the proposed VAC-CON dump station and
install an 8-inch reclaimed water pipe from the WRF to the existing irrigation system
for the administration/shop buildings.
To implement these projects it is necessary to cross over or through a
drainage ditch that was previously used for irrigation adjacent farmland which
has been classified as wetlands. Staff
has chosen Vinnedge Environmental consulting to prepare the environmental
documents required to get the projects constructed. Ms. Skrel stated that the project would be
designed in-house and would go out to bid.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the General
Manager to enter into an agreement with Vinnedge Environmental Consulting to
Prepare Environmental Compliance and Permitting for Infrastructure Improvements
for a not to exceed cost of $29,180.
Discussion was held on the possible out-come of the
study.
M/S D. Hardcastle, C. Lauritzen and the Board voted
unanimously to authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with
Vinnedge Environmental Consulting to prepare Environmental Compliance and
Permitting for Infrastructure Improvements for a cost not to exceed
$29,800.
8. Staff Reports
Jenny Skrel –
Ms. Skrel reported to the Board with an update on the Solar project. The District received 6 proposals and had two
finalists. Real Goods Solar was selected
and we are moving forward. Staff will be
hiring an attorney to review the Power Purchase Agreement and Henn Etzel and
Moore to provide legal review for the District.
The plan includes ground mount solar panels for the treatment plant and
solar panels on carports located in the west parking for the Administration and
Maintenance Buildings. The feasibility for solar for the Ironwood Pump station
is still being investigated. The
proposed savings from the solar system for the first year is estimated at
$78,000. She reported that staff will provide a solar project update at the
November meeting.
9. Board
Members Advisory Reports
Director Contreras – Director Contreras stated the Board would
like to hold a closed session for the General Manager evaluation. The date of October 30th at 6:00
was decided. Director Contreras also
stated that he submitted a Public Outreach Committee report to the Board in the
Board packet.
Director Lauritzen – Director Lauritzen reported on Restore the
Delta and the condition of the Delta.
The Documentary “Over Troubled Waters”, a documentary about the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will premiere in on Saturday in Brentwood and an
upcoming showing in Discovery Bay. He
encouraged everyone to see it.
Director Hardcastle – Director Hardcastle
reported he attended the EC2 A collaborative meeting in Antioch with leaders
form different District and Cities growing together the East County as a
community with our resources to build opportunities for growth in our
area. Everyone is dealing with the Economic
climate and partnering will give opportunities to growing the East County. Mike McGill is helping the community as a
regional coordinator to bring jobs into the East County.
10. Future Agenda Items for Consideration
Director Huerta asked to have a discussion creating
Wi-Fi hot spots for the Board room as well as the Conference room at the
District office.
11. Adjournment
President Hardcastle
adjourned the regular meeting at 9:00 p.m. until Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at
7:00 p.m. for the next regular meeting in the Ironhouse Sanitary District
offices at 450 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley, California.
