1.
Call to Order.
10:30 a.m.
2.
Roll.
Directors
Amoroso and Comstock; General Manager Jennifer Blackman also present
3. Draft Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget
At Director Amoroso’s request, the Committee turned
first to a review of the draft FY 2015-16 budget. Staff explained the assumptions with regard
to wages and benefits in the draft budget, including a wage increase of 3%
(based on the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose CPI) and an employer contribution
of 11.9% of wages to CalPERS (per the latest estimate by CalPERS, as compared
to 11.2% in the prior fiscal year).
Discussion ensued about the district’s participation in CalPERS, and
staff explained that CalPERS sets the employer contribution percentage each
year to fund the pension plan (the BCPUD has no discretion on the
percentage). Importantly, per a new
accounting standards rule effective this fiscal year, GASB Rule 68, CalPERS
will be providing the district with the valuation information required to be
included in the district’s annual financial statements for a fee of
$800.00. Director Comstock noted that
CalPERS controls and manages the district’s pension plan, so to the extent the
plan is unfunded in any way, that is CalPERS’ responsibility (and not because
of a decision by the BCPUD not to fully fund its plan). Staff concurred, but said the responsibility for
reporting the valuation per GASB 68 is with the district, so it is a good thing
that CalPERS is providing this service to its members. Director Comstock said that it is his
understanding that the unfunded liability attributable to the district’s plan is
relatively small, which is a good thing, particularly considering the status of
other Marin public entity plans, such as the County (which has a very large
unfunded pension liability).
Director Comstock noted that in addition to
escalating unfunded pension liabilities, many public agencies also are facing
escalating health care costs. Staff
noted that the district, under the leadership of prior director Bobbi Kimball,
examined its health care benefits several years ago and transitioned to another
employer pool offered by ACWA/JPIA, which reduced the district’s health care
costs by approximately 30%. The district
also implemented a flexible spending plan as a new benefit for employees to
enable them to pay certain health care costs on a pre-tax basis. As for worker’s compensation, the district’s
rates have been stable or even reduced in the past ten years and district
employees participate in many safety training programs offered by ACWA/JPIA to
reduce the risk of work-related injuries.
Staff said the budget assumes a renewal of Lewie
Likover’s limited duration employment agreement to continue his work on the
district’s chlorine disinfection byproduct reduction project, as well as
drainage project consultion and implementation.
With regard to the chlorine disinfection byproduct reduction project,
the focus in the upcoming year will be on running a coagulation pilot study to
determine whether adding a coagulant to the district’s water on a
pre-filtration basis will sufficiently reduce the organics prior to
chlorination. This project is, of
course, a capital project and the other capital projects included in the draft
budget on the water side are: fire hydrant replacement ($10,000), water meter
replacement ($10,000), water supply study ($10,000), and the sliplining of the
overflow pipe at Woodrat #1 ($75,000).
Staff noted that the budget also contemplates $60,000 dedicated to the
district’s water system reserves and $27,000 to the district’s sewer system
reserves.
With regard to the revenue side of the budget, staff
proposes a 6% increase in water rates to cover the the district’s operating
costs, as well as the planned capital improvement projects, loan repayment and
contributions to reserves. Director
Comstock said that the operating side of the proposed budget essentially
carries forward existing costs, adjusted by cost-of-living adjustments; staff
agreed. Director Comstock said that the
two focal points of interest for him are: (1) the capital plan; and (2) the
impact on reserves and debt reduction.
With regard to the latter, he noted that a reduction in debt is the
functional equivalent of an increase in reserves. He asked staff to prepare a table for the
committee that will show the impact of the proposed budget on the level of
district reserves, and the impact on the district’s outstanding debt, as was
done last year.
Director Amoroso said that he will need to spend
time on his own to review the operating side of the budget on a line-by-line
basis to make sure he does not have any questions or concerns about the
specific proposed budget amounts. He
noted that the budget does not currently propose to increase the quarterly
metered water rates and questioned whether it was time for the Board to consider
doing so.
4.
Draft Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan; Draft Financial Reserve Policy
Director
Comstock said that in his view, the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan should
reflect the district’s actual needs, not what the district currently can
“afford”; in that respect, he analyzes the plan differently than he conducts
his personal affairs at home (i.e., at home, he doesn’t replace something
unless and until it breaks, rather than on a scheduled basis). First, he said that it will be more expensive
for the district if it waits to replace assets until they break. Second, there is an inconvenience to
customers if assets needs to be replaced in an emergency, unplanned basis
rather than a planned basis. Third,
replacing assets on an emergency basis is also a strain on staff and likely
leads to unplanned overtime costs. Fourth, the district is a regulated public
agency and regulators and/or grand juries do not like it when agencies are not
planning their asset replacement on a scheduled basis. Fifth, it is a very small cost to the district
if it should replace an asset “early” vis-à-vis the cost of waiting too
long.
Director
Amoroso said he did not disagree, but there are certain assets that are more
important to replace or rehabilitate than others; for example, the staff can
repair a leak or a break on a water main.
As such, assets such as the water storage tanks, or the sewer force
main, or certain components of the water and/or sewer treatment plants, for
example, should be a higher priority for replacement. Discussion ensued about the condition of the
water mains on the Mesa and all agreed that the steel water mains are the top
priority water mains for replacement due to their age and material.
Director
Comstock reiterated that he wants the capital improvement plan to be based on a
professional assessment of the district’s needs, i.e., what the district ought
to do. Staff noted that the draft plan
is based on the prioritization list that staff developed after developing an inventory
of all of the district’s assets. Director Comstock said that it would be
helpful if staff could provide a narrative to accompany the capital improvement
plan that will explain how it was developed; the asset inventory and
prioritization worksheet can be exhibits to the plan. Also, it will be important to include notes
to explain each of the proposed projects and how they will be scheduled
out. Director Comstock said the plan
should include everything the
district should upgrade or replace within
the next five years as determined by someone professionally qualified to do so such
that the district is completely caught up by 2020; if the district then
concludes that it cannot afford to do all of those projects, then the plan can
be pared back at that point. Director
Amoroso questioned whether the district should consider engaging outside
engineers to conduct this analysis given limited staff time.
Director
Comstock said he would like to know whether, for example, if cost and staff
time were not constraints, the district should replace all of its steel water mains within the next five years, even if
some of those mains have not posed problems for the district to-date. He said that the district should base that
decision on a professional evaluation of the district’s distribution system
rather than base that decision on affordability – financing the needed work is
a separate question. He noted that the
district has a large infrastructure for a small agency and he wants to
understand how well the district is doing on keeping that large infrastructure
upgraded. Staff said that many of these
questions should be answered if a narrative is included to explain how the
specific projects scheduled out in the capital improvement plan were selected
and organized (i.e., derived from the entire asset inventory, which then was
distilled into a prioritization spreadsheet) because the plan was developed
based on the chief operator’s assessment of the district’s infrastructure; however if, after the plan is better drafted,
the committee determines more work is needed, perhaps then the Board should
consider issuing an RFP to obtain proposals from engineering firms to undertake
this work.
Discussion
ensued about a line item in the draft capital improvement plan which depicts a
projected cost of more than $400,000 to replace the irrigation pumps and
control panels at the sewer treatment plant.
Staff explained that this is a placeholder while staff investigates a
recommendation by the original treatment plant engineer, Bailey Greene, to
consider upgrading the pond transfer/spray disposal process to transfer
wastewater between ponds from the surface water levels and also to take
wastewater from pond 3 at the surface level for disposal throughout the spray
fields. Staff is researching the actual
potential cost of a new pumping system and will update this number when better
information is available.
The
committee turned to a review of the draft Financial Reserve Policy. Director Comstock inquired about the
difference between the district’s reserves as laid out on a table prepared by
staff and the district’s total cash position – he noted that the total cash as
of 6/30 on the district’s balance sheet is much higher (approximately $2.2
million) than the total amount in the district’s reserves (approximately $1.6
million). Staff explained that the
difference is due to timing of the district’s receipt of its annual revenue via
the County tax assessment process; the bulk of the district’s revenue is
disbursed in December and April of each year (a small percentage trickles in
between April and June), so the district has a greater amount of cash on hand
in, for example, June than it does in the beginning of December. Director Comstock said this cash essentially
functions as an “operating reserve” and should be described in the district’s
financial reserve policy; he said it is important to state that the district
does not have to expend its designated reserves to meet cash flow requirements
because it’s operating reserves are adequate to meet the district’s budgeted expenses,
which is a very good thing. He commented
that the district also should articulate its goals for the minimum amount of
reserves to be maintained in the operating reserve account. Director Comstock said it will be helpful to
include a description of which reserves the Board has discretion to move around
vs. which reserves are dedicated/legally obligated for other purposes.
Discussion
ensued about the overall approach to take with the financial reserve policy. Staff described exemplars obtained from other
districts, as well as from ACWA and other special district associations, all of
which are very different. The directors
requested that staff recommend general formulas for the district’s reserve
minimum balances and goals for future contributions rather than delineate
specific dollar amounts; the policy should provide direction to but also
flexibility for the district. The
Committee agreed to schedule a meeting prior to the next regularly scheduled
Finance Committee meeting for the dedicated purpose of further developing the
five-year capital plan and the financial reserve policy (and defer discussion
of the draft 2015-16 budget to the regularly scheduled meeting). The Committee tentatively agreed to next meet
on February 24th, subject to a review of the members’ respective personal
calendars.
Director
Comstock inquired about the current status of the district’s budget-to-actual
expenditures. Staff said that based on a
draft of the second quarter financials prepared by the district’s bookkeeper
(which cannot be finalized until the County posts certain information about the
district’s accounts there), the district is on track with regard to
expenditures so far this year. Staff
anticipates that the second quarter financials will be finalized by the next
Board meeting. Director Comstock asked
if the solar projects continue to “pay for themselves” as anticipated when the
district financed the projects in 2008 via the CREBs; staff said that both
projects are on track financially and directed the Committee’s attention to a
spreadsheet prepared by director Smith that specifies the variables and
assumptions behind the 17-year financing plan.
Staff noted that the district has received all of the rebates to which
it is entitled under the California Solar Intiative; the final rebates were
paid in 2014.
5.
Community Expression
None.
6.
Adjournment
1:06 p.m.