HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07072015 - D.10RECOMMENDATION(S):
RECEIVE report and CONSIDER approving recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors
Compensation:
Adjust the Board of Supervisors base salary by 12% spread over three years. Make no other salary adjustment
until July 1, 2018 except taking any proportional reduction by ordinance to correspond to any general county
employee salary and/or benefit reduction.
1.
Eliminate intra-County mileage reimbursement for Board members, making the auto benefit “$600/mo. plus
out-of-County mileage reimbursement” only.
2.
Establish an ongoing Board of Supervisors compensation review committee, composed of impartial citizens, to
review the Board's compensation triennially. This Committee should adopt a peer county review methodology
that includes quantifying total compensation and factoring in geographic cost of living differentials. The Board
should consider using this methodology in reviewing elected department head salaries.
3.
FISCAL IMPACT:
100% County General Fund. The recommended increase to base salary would result in a total increased payroll cost
of approximately $91,540, of which $22,560 is employer retirement cost. The average annual incremental cost is
$30,500.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/07/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea
925.335.1077
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 7, 2015
, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc: County Administrator, County Counsel
D.10
To:Board of Supervisors
From:David Twa, County Administrator
Date:July 7, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMPENSATION
BACKGROUND:
On February 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors considered several options for setting Board member salaries, as
well as the possible salary level. Following its deliberations, the Board directed the County Counsel to prepare
two ordinances for possible introduction on March 3: one authorizing a 7% increase to the Board of Supervisors
member salaries to the level of $104,307, and an alternate ordinance that additionally links the Board's salary level
to that of 56.5% of a Superior Court Judge's salary. The 7% increase was based on a 4% general COLA (Cost of
Living Adjustment) granted to employees on July 1, 2014 plus a 3% COLA that employees received on July 1,
2015. The Board, on March 3, decided to introduce Version A of Ordinance No. 2015-05 and also directed the
County Administrator to convene an ad hoc committee to study the Board of Supervisors' compensation. The
Board's 7% salary increase took effect on June 1, 2015.
The Board specifically defined the composition and charge of the Ad Hoc Committee as recommended in
Resolution No. 2015/67 of March 3, attached hereto for reference. The Ad Hoc Committee, led by facilitator
Stephen L. Weir, refined its study methodology over a series of nine meetings, culminating in the attached report
and recommendations before you today. While the Committee meetings were publicly noticed and held, and while
the proposed recommendations were scheduled for discussion at three meetings, the meetings were only
occasionally attended by labor and press representatives. Detailed meeting minutes were published on the
County's website following each meeting. Only two members of the public subscribed to receive Committee
agendas.
Each of the Committee members brought a valuable perspective to the discussions, which informed the
Committee's methodology and recommendations. I am very appreciative of their professionalism and willingness
to devote many hours of reading, research, discussion, and deliberation in order to complete the Committee's
charge within the requested time frame.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Should the Board elect to not approve the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, the status quo would be
maintained.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
ACCEPTED the report; DIRECTED the County Administrator to return to the Board with information related
to mileage information by the end of the summer; CONCURRED that at that meeting the Board will provide
direction on specific recommendations and the drafting of a salary ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation
Powerpoint Presentation: Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation_Final Report
Archived Resolution 2015/67 Creating Ad Hoc Cte on Board of Supervisors Compensation
Final Report and Recommendations
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors Compensation
Prepared by the
Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation
Rick Wise, East Bay Leadership Council, Chair
Margaret Eychner, Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association, Vice Chair
Michael Moore, Member, Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, Secretary
Margaret Hanlon‐Gradie, Central Labor Council of Contra Costa County, AFL‐CIO
Stuart McCullough, Contra Costa Human Services Alliance
Facilitator: Stephen L. Weir, Contra Costa County Administrator's Office
July 7, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Adjust the Board of Supervisors base salary by 12% spread over three years. Make no other salary
adjustment until July 1, 2018 except taking any proportional reduction by ordinance to correspond
to any general county employee salary and/or benefit reduction.
2) Eliminate intra‐County mileage reimbursement for Board members, making the auto benefit
“$600/mo. plus out‐of‐County mileage reimbursement” only.
3) Establish an ongoing Board of Supervisors compensation review committee, composed of impartial
citizens, to review future compensation adjustments. This Committee should adopt a peer county
review methodology that includes quantifying total compensation and factoring in geographic cost
of living differentials. The Board should consider using this methodology in reviewing elected
department head salaries.
FISCAL IMPACT
100% County General Fund. The recommended increase to base salary would result in a total increased
payroll cost of approximately $91,540, $22,560 of which is the County contribution to retirement cost.
The average annual incremental cost of the proposal is approximately $30,500 through 2018.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Committee's analysis has taken into consideration that some counties are more or less generous
with benefits than Contra Cost County. Therefore, the Committee has worked to quantify and compare
total annual compensation as opposed to limiting its review to just base salary data. In addition, we
have worked to account for differences in cost of living between Contra Costa and its peer counties.
This Committee has met 9 times and has reviewed over 500 pages of documentation. Agendas, Record
of Action notes, and background materials are all available publicly at:
http://64.166.146.155/agenda_publish.cfm?mt=BOSCOMP
Attachment “A” shows our calculation adjusting for differences in cost of living in the seven peer
counties in terms of purchasing power in Contra Costa County.1 Attachment “B” shows the Total Annual
Compensation, as so adjusted, and ranked by both average and incremental percentiles for each of the
seven peer counties.
1At the June 11, 2015 Committee Meeting, the Committee decided to exclude the City and County of San Francisco
from the peer county review as it was deemed not to be comparable to other peer counties nor to Contra Costa
County.
1
Attachment “C” illustrates the implementation of the proposed salary in three annual increments, the
incremental salary percentage against base salary, and how the cumulative increase impacts Annual
Total Payroll costs. The Committee recommends that each adjustment to base salary take place on
January 1 of 2016, 2017, 2018. Those adjustments are to be at rate of 3.855% each year, which equates
to 12% over three years as a result of compounding.
The Committee would like to note that, prior to June 1, 2015, the Board had not had a raise since July,
2007 (see Attachment "D"). When taking the 7% salary increase that became effective June 1, 2015 into
account, the recommended 12% increase, in effect, amounts to a 20% increase over five years from the
2007‐2014 salary level of $97,483.
BACKGROUND
At the Board’s March 3, 2015 direction, the County Administrator invited the following organizations to
nominate a member to the Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation: East Bay
Leadership Council (Rick Wise, selected as Chair); Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association (Margaret
Eychner, selected as Vice Chair); Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Member (Michael Moore, selected as
Secretary); Central Labor Council of Contra Costa County (Margaret Hanlon‐Gradie); and Contra Costa
Human Services Alliance (Stuart McCullough). This Committee met on April 9, April 16, April 23, May 7,
May 12, May 28, June 11, June 18, and June 25, 2015.
A more detailed discussion on the progression towards the Committee’s final recommendations is
contained in the remainder of this report.
2
DETAILED REPORT OF THE
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION
This Commission was asked to (a) review the compensation of the Board of Supervisors; (b) recommend
any adjustment to the compensation; (c) recommend a methodology and process by which any future
increases would occur; and (d) prepare recommendations in time for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors at its July 7, 2015 meeting.
If one looks only at base salary for members of the respective Boards of Supervisors in the nine Bay Area
counties, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors’ salary appears to be well below average (See
Attachment "E"). However, early on, this Committee concluded that such a review (whether comparing
Bay Area salaries or those of the Urban Counties in the State) should be made on total compensation,
not just on base salary data. Our review indicated that the benefits accruing to members of the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors are more generous than those of many of the counties that were
reviewed. While quantifying total compensation is not a precise science, we believed that looking at
total compensation for comparable counties merited further investigation.
The Committee identified five guiding principles in our pursuit of a salary review:
1) The salary must be fair and equitable.
2) The salary should be high enough to attract good candidates and should not be a barrier to elected
public service.
3) A process should be designed to de‐politicize the practice of setting a salary for Board members.
4) The salary setting mechanism should be designed to "share the pain" when budget considerations
require salary and/or benefit reductions for County employees.
5) Any major adjustment to salary should be phased in over time.
During our review of Board salaries, we noted that the 7% increase to the Board’s salary effective June
1, 2015 was on top of a restoration in 2013 of a previous 2.75% voluntary reduction that had been taken
by the Board (see Attachment "D"). While the 2.75% decrease was negotiated as a permanent
reduction for employees, the Board matched the reduction by voluntarily waiving that portion of their
salary effective October 1, 2011. The voluntary waiver by the Board ended on July 31, 2013, at which
time the Board’s salary effectively increased by 2.75%. The current effective increase of the 2.75%
restoration plus the 7% increase amounts to 9.75%. We also noted that the Board voluntarily waived
2.31% between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011 to match temporary salary reductions taken by
employees through Agreed‐upon Temporary Absences (ATAs) during the same period.
Compensation Model
During our first two meetings, the Committee debated whether Board members should receive a salary
with benefits like County employees or simply receive only a salary. In addition, the question arose as to
whether the office of County Supervisor should be considered as a full‐ or part‐time position. The
3
Committee also discussed the common practice of pegging the Board's salary to another position, like
that of Superior Court Judge or County executive, an approach which we concluded did not make sense,
as the jobs were not truly comparable.
We discussed the merits of having Board members receive a flat salary (no benefits). We did not find a
model for compensating a Board member with a flat salary for comparison purposes. If a Board
member is a County employee, (i.e. granted a salary with benefits), this places the Board member into a
potential conflict of interest, since the Board would be giving themselves benefits for which they have
bargained with employee labor groups. Conversely, it was argued that by having the same benefits as
their employees, Board members would know how it feels to live within those benefits. Recognizing
that the complex day‐to‐day operations of the County are vested with the County Administrator, the
position of County Supervisor is, nonetheless, a complex and challenging job. The Committee,
therefore, considers the position of elected office of County Supervisor to be a full‐time job meriting
both salary and benefits.
There was a general discussion about job performance. While the Committee acknowledged that
special knowledge, some gained while serving, is required for Board Members, the consensus of the
Committee was that its role was to determine a salary for the position and its job description, rather
than to address job performance, which is determined by the election process.
Who Should Determine the Board's Compensation?
The Committee recommends that a salary commission be established to address future salary
adjustments (up or down). We recommend that this Commission be selected from civic associations
and composed of impartial citizens. While there are relatively few examples of salary commissions at
the county level, we note that the City and County of San Francisco model addressed our five guiding
principles including: setting a fair and equitable salary; addressing salary levels to attract good
candidates; removing the salary setting process from the political agenda; providing that the Board
"share the pain" during downturns in the County's budget; and allowing for incremental adjustments
when warranted. The Committee favors having any downward adjustment in the Board's salary take
place by ordinance rather than by voluntary waiver of salary.
Our investigation identified other salary commissions. Apart from the City and County of San Francisco
(set by charter amendment November 5, 2002), we reviewed the California Citizens Compensation
Commission (established by Proposition 112, June 1990 statewide ballot); and commission in
Multnomah County, Oregon (established by Charter Amendment in 1984).
In the California examples, there were statutory provisions for giving the salary commission actual salary
setting authority, something that apparently is not available in Contra Costa. The Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors could legislate that authority to an independent commission, but it cannot bind its
successors to uphold that authority into perpetuity. Nevertheless, Committee members believe that the
advantage of an impartial review of the Board’s compensation would provide sufficient incentive to
maintain the practice.
The two California salary commissions have granted pay increases and also, during hard times, pay
decreases. Several counties, including those with salary commissions, include a Cost of Living
4
Adjustment (COLA) periodically. We recommend against establishing mid‐salary review COLAs, as we
are making a clear distinction between the role of the Board as legislators and policy‐makers and the
role of County employees, whose salaries are negotiated through collective bargaining. We believe that
the three‐year salary review cycle we are recommending for the Board will be sufficient to keep the
Board’s compensation current.
Elements of Compensation for Comparison
We began our research by agreeing that we would use the nine Bay Area counties as the basis for any
comparison and that we would try to quantify total compensation for any such comparison. After
reviewing population, budget, number of employees, and general complexity of service, such as having a
county hospital, of the nine Bay Area counties, we decided to compare Contra Costa to only Alameda
and San Mateo Counties1 (see Attachment "F"). Over several meetings, staff worked to quantify total
compensation for each of the three counties. It appeared to us that Contra Costa County is more
generous with its benefits granted to Board Members than the other two counties, but the other two
counties have significantly higher base salaries.
To estimate "Annual Compensation” for the purpose of our study, staff added to the "Annual Base
Salary" the following other elements of compensation:
County Health/Dental Contribution. In order to compare the same benefit across peer counties,
the Committee used Kaiser Single Coverage plus Dental, which was a plan common to all of the
peer counties.
Auto allowance. This is an allowance per pay period in lieu of a County vehicle. In Contra Costa
County, this also includes reimbursement for all business mileage.
Other. This may include professional development allowance, flexible spending allocation,
wellness allocation, cafeteria benefit supplement, and/or other cash allowance.
To determine “Total Compensation” for the purpose of our study, we added the following elements to
Annual Compensation:
County Pension Contribution Based on Normal Cost Only. The Committee determined that total
County contribution to a Board member’s pension was not a true measure of employee benefit
because a county's contribution rate is heavily influenced by the general health of a county's
retirement system. County retirement systems that have higher levels of unfunded accrued
actuarial liabilities will necessarily have higher contribution rates. Higher contribution rates,
however, do not necessarily translate to better employee retirement benefits.
To create a more valid comparison of the pension benefit, the Committee chose to use only a
county's contribution to the Normal Basic rate plus COLA. In Contra Costa, that figure is 14.99%
for County General Tier 32. (Actual retirement contribution by the County is 36%3, which includes
paying down unfunded liabilities.)
1 The Committee later decided to expand the list of peer counties, which is discussed further on is this report.
2 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation Report, December 31, 2013.
3 CCCERA Contribution Rate Packet for FY 2015/16.
5
Pension Enhancement/Deferred Compensation. This is a county’s contribution to a deferred
compensation account in Contra Costa County and for most of the peer counties.
We also gathered data to compare other elements of compensation that did not lend themselves to
being included in Total Compensation but are nonetheless significant elements. For example, we
estimated what the annual retirement benefit would be for board members in each county based on
their pension benefit formula at a retirement age of 55 with eight years of service (two elective terms of
office) at Contra Costa's salary plus cash benefits. Contra Costa is right at the average for peer counties.
We excluded statutory benefits, e.g., unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, social
security, and Medicare from Annual Compensation. (For actual total salary impact on the County
Budget, see Attachment "B".)
At our second meeting, the Committee asked staff to quantify any additional income available to the
Board to try to determine total compensation. Specifically, staff was asked to quantify stipends for the
various boards and commissions assigned to Board members. California Form 806 (Agency Report of
Public Official Appointments), which is to be filed yearly, showed the Board assignments and the yearly
reimbursement if all meetings are attended. According to the latest filing for Contra Costa County (2‐10‐
15), Board Members average a maximum yearly stipend of $7,500 (See Attachment "G"). The following
is the total available for each Board Member assuming they attend every meeting: Gioia, $3,600;
Andersen, $7,800; Piepho, $7,440; Mitchoff, $9,300; and Glover, $9,240. These assignments can rotate
yearly.
A review of similar Form 806s for peer counties does not provide complete data. It is evident that urban
counties are likely to have more boards and commissions than other peer counties. For example, in
addition to many local boards and commissions, the Bay Area has several "regional" boards including
ABAG (Association of Bay Area Counties); BAAQMD (Bar Area Air Quality Management District); BCDC
(Bay Conservation and Development Commission); MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission); etc.
The Committee considers the stipends for Board members to be significant. However, the Committee
chose to exclude stipends from the compensation review because precise data was not readily available
from the peer counties and also because the stipends per committee assignment appeared to be similar
among the peer counties, irrespective of total compensation from stipends.
Adjusting Compensation for Geographic Differences in Cost of Living: Expanding the Peer County Base
The Committee also considered simpler salary setting methodologies such as taking the nine Bay Area
counties, disregarding the lowest and highest salaries and setting the Board's salary at the average of
the remaining salaries or, alternatively, summing the two highest and two lowest salaries and dividing
by four. A quick calculation indicated that the current base salary for the Board was almost 16% below
the average of the nine Bay Area counties. This begged the question before the Committee, how do we
quantify total compensation for peer counties and what does it really mean in terms of this County's
compensation?
At our third meeting, staff had found a similar salary review ad hoc committee effort that was just
concluded in Santa Barbara County. This effort was directed by the County HR staff and included six
6
members of the public. That committee identified nine peer counties for review. After eliminating the
highest and lowest salary counties, seven peer counties remained for comparison. That committee then
factored in for the difference in the cost of living between Santa Barbara County and its seven peer
counties using a Cost of Living Composite Index from Relocationessentials.com.
The Cost of Living Composite Index at RelocationEssentials.com represents the differences in the price of
goods and services for the subject market(s). The Composite Index is made up of six universally
accepted major categories. The six categories, shown with their percentage representation are: Food &
Groceries (16%), Housing (28%), Utilities (8%), Transportation (10%), Health Care (5%), and
Miscellaneous (33%).
To check the veracity of the data at RelocationEssentials.com, we compared the Median Household
Income reported by RelocationEssentials.com with that of the U.S. Census for 2013 for the selected peer
counties and found them to be consistent.
The Cost of Living Composite Index gave our Committee the tool to make meaningful compensation
comparisons between Contra Costa County and "peer" counties both within and outside the Bay Area.
Clearly, there is a significant difference in the cost of living between Contra Costa and San Mateo
Counties, for example, even though both are Bay Area counties. After reviewing Santa Barbara County’s
methodology, we chose to expand our peer county base. Using the criteria of county population,
unincorporated county population, and budget, and giving preference to the most comparable Bay Area
counties, we selected the following counties as "peer counties": Alameda (4 criteria), San Mateo (4
criteria), Sacramento (2 criteria), Fresno (2 criteria), Kern (2 criteria), Ventura (2 criteria), Sonoma (2
criteria), and San Francisco (2 criteria). (See Attachment "H".) The Committee later decided to remove
San Francisco County from the analysis because of its City/County governing structure and because it
has 11 County Supervisors instead of 5.
Adjusting the Annual Compensation for the peer counties by the Cost of Living Composite Index, we
arrived at the "Adjusted Annual Compensation" (See Attachment "A"), to which we added County
contributions to post‐employment benefits (pension and deferred compensation) to arrive at the
Adjusted Total Compensation for each peer county. Using the Adjusted Total Compensation, we
prepared scenarios that calculated average compensation, and compensation calculated at the 25th,
37.5th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles. (See Attachment “B”.)
Guiding Principles for the Committee's Analysis and Recommendations
By the fourth meeting (May 7, 2015), the Committee established the following points of consensus:
1) The job of County Supervisor should be compensated as a full time job.
2) The salary should not be tied to a judge or any position not related or comparable to a County
Supervisor.
3) The salary should not be tied to another County job classification.
4) An independent commission should review the Board's salary at regular intervals.
7
5) The Board's salary should be based on the duties and responsibilities of the position rather than on
performance of the official (performance to be decided by the electorate).
6) While salary is not the guiding factor for Supervisorial candidates, it should not be so low as to be a
barrier to public service and should be high enough to attract good candidates.
7) The methodology for future salary setting should embody the leadership principles of sharing the
pain during tough times.
8) The methodology for future salary setting should attempt to de‐politicize the determination of
Board compensation.
9) The following counties should be used for comparison, on the basis of general population,
unincorporated area population, and budget: Alameda, San Mateo, Sacramento, Fresno, Kern,
Ventura, Sonoma, and San Francisco. (San Francisco County was removed from our analysis at the
June 11, 2015 meeting.)
10) Compensation for other counties should be corrected for geographical cost of living differences.
11) The following quantifiable elements of compensation should be compared: base salary, county
normal basic contribution to pension, county contribution to health/dental coverage for a common
plan, county contribution to a deferred compensation account or like benefit, auto allowance, any
other cash benefit. The estimated annual pension benefit (e.g., at age 55 with 8 years of service),
the retiree health benefit, and life insurance benefits will be excluded but may be considered on a
qualitative basis.4
12) A commission should review the Board's salary every three years.
13) No automatic salary escalator, such as CPI or general employee wage increase, should be applied
between BOS salary reviews.
14) The Committee should schedule its draft report and recommendations for discussion at a minimum
of two committee meetings prior to finalizing them for Board consideration. Those meeting dates
were later scheduled for June 11th, 18th and 25th.
At the Committee's fifth meeting (May 12, 2015), the Committee added:
15) The Board’s total annual compensation should be paid at a percentile of market commensurate
with County employees, provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison.
16) The Board should receive only out‐of‐county mileage reimbursement in addition to the monthly
auto allowance, and should not receive reimbursement for intra‐County mileage.
The Committee, at its June 11th meeting, gave direction to staff to prepare a compensation and salary
analysis at the 37.5% percentile of peer counties. This factor was arrived at based on advice that many
4 Our Committee performed a comparison of retirement formulas and retiree health benefits on a qualitative basis.
8
of Contra Costa County's employees are paid below the 50th percentile (median) of market salary. The
County Administrator has estimated that most County employees are paid between 8% and 18% below
the median base salary for public employees. The Committee also asked that staff prepare a schedule
for the raise to take place in equal installments over three years: January 1, 2016; January 1, 2017; and
January 1, 2018.
The analysis (Attachment “B”) shows that the 37.5th percentile of total compensation (adjusted for cost
of living differences between Contra Costa County and its peers), indicates a total compensation level of
$162,341. The salary that is derived from that total compensation level is $116,840, which maintains
the same level of health/dental, deferred compensation, auto allowance, and professional development
benefits and also maintains the same ratio of County contribution to pension at 14.99% of salary. The
recommended salary level of $116,840 would place the Board at the 21st percentile for base salary,
using peer county base salary figures that were likewise adjusted for differences in cost of living.
Attachment “B” also shows the total impact of the recommended salary of $116,840 to the County
payroll cost (the data most commonly reported on government compensation transparency websites).
Once the salary increase is phased in at 12%, the average annual payroll cost per Board member is
estimated to increase by $18,308 (from $185,994 to $204,308). The total annual fiscal impact for all five
Board members is $91,540. During the three‐year phase‐in period, that average annual incremental
cost would be approximately $30,500 through 2018.
Recommendations
1) Adjust the Board of Supervisors base salary by 12% spread over three years. Make no other salary
adjustment until July 1, 2018 except taking any proportional reduction by ordinance to correspond
to any general county employee salary and/or benefit reduction.
2) Eliminate intra‐County mileage reimbursement for Board members, making the auto benefit
“$600/mo. plus out‐of‐County mileage reimbursement”.
3) Establish an ongoing salary review committee, composed of impartial citizens, to review future
salary adjustments. This Committee should adopt a peer county review methodology that includes
quantifying total compensation and factoring in geographic cost of living differentials. The Board
should consider using this methodology in reviewing elected department head salaries.
9
ATTACHMENT "A"CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION TO PEER COUNTIESAlameda Contra Costa San Mateo Sacramento FresnoKernVentura Sonoma San FranciscoAdjusted Total Compensation$194,425 $147,929 $145,648 $146,870 $162,973 $170,685 $162,131 $194,376 $98,558Retirement System Assumed Rate of Return:7.60%7.25%7.25%7.88%7.25%7.50%7.75%7.50%7.50%County Pension Contribution % of Normal Cost for Basic + COLA9.41%14.99%10.30%12.43%17.04%6.41%8.31%12.32%8.60%County Pension Contribution $ Based on Normal Cost Only14,960$ 16,784$ 14,755$ 13,429$ 20,281$ 7,870$ 11,113$ 18,880$ 9,534$ Pension enhancement18,338$ 13,020$ ‐$ 1,015$ ‐$ 6,937$ 3,876$ 8,308$ ‐$ Adjusted Annual Compensation1$161,128 $118,125 $130,893 $132,425 $142,691 $155,877 $147,142 $167,188$89,025COL Adjustment Factor2‐3.15%0.00%‐12.47%12.26%14.32%21.55%4.03%5.00%‐24.72%Total Est Annual Compensation166,369$ 118,125$ 149,538$ 117,959$ 124,820$ 128,242$ 141,443$ 159,228$ 118,263$ Annual Salary147,680$ 104,307$ 129,917$ 101,536$ 110,766$ 105,107$ 129,227$ 138,459$ 110,858$ County Health/Dental Contribution ‐ Kaiser Single Coverage7,393$ 6,155$ 6,283$ 9,923$ 5,798$ 5,460$ 7,716$ 5,979$ 7,405$ Auto allowance8,296$ 7,200$ 13,338$ 6,500$ 6,156$ 7,164$ 4,500$ 8,340$ ‐$ Other3,000$ 463$ ‐$ ‐$ 2,100$ 10,511$ 6,450$ ‐$ Annual Pension Benefit:Based on 8 years service @ Home County Salary (2 terms of office)17,627$ 16,689$ 20,246$ 15,823$ 17,723$ 8,325$ 15,404$ 27,692$ 13,303$ Annual Pension Benefit:Based on 8 years service @ Costa Costa Salary (2 terms of office)12,450$ 16,689$ 16,255$ 16,247$ 16,689$ 8,261$ 12,433$ 20,861$ 12,517$ Pension Formula & Vesting Tier 2A is 1.492% @ 55; Tier 4 is 1.3% @ 55; Tier 1 & 3 Enhanced is 2% @ 55 < 8/7/11 = 1.948% @ 55 1.947%@55; 5 years to vest 2% @ 55;5 years to vest0.99% @ 5510 years and age 50 to vest1.49% @ 55; 10 years and age 50 to vest2.5% @ 55; 10 years and age 50 ORreach age 70Misc Plan A8.5871.5% @ 55;5 years to vest10
ATTACHMENT "A"UPDATED 6‐16‐15CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMPARISON OF TOTAL COMPENSATION TO PEER COUNTIESRetiree Health County provides none. However, ACERA provides partial benefits with 10 years svc credit. 3,321‐6264 SamCERA: Sick leave does not get added to retirement base. Instead, banked sick leave can be "spent" on retiree health premiums. 8 hours buys $700. $650/annually while an active employee Stipend of $477/year for single coverage and $738/year for family coverage.County contributes to HRA only while an active employee. (No post retirement contribution) All Board members elected as of Jan. 1, 2009 receive $2400 contribution to an HRA after 2 years of service. Then, $110 per month contribution after that, as long as they remain in active status. No contribution once they retire or leave County service, but HRA is portable.Yes, active employees pay 2%, 5‐20 years to vest.1Excludes statutory benefits: FICA, worker's comp, unemployment insuranace2COL Adjustment/Factor is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and reflect the increase/decrease in wages needed to support a comparable standard of living in Contra Costa County.11
ATTACHMENT "B"
Agency
Partial Annual
Compensation
(Excluding
Pension & Def Comp)
CCC Partial
Annual
Compensation
Equivalency
COL Adjusted2
Partial Annual
Compensation
COL Adjusted1
Add Back
Pension &
Def Comp
Total
Compensation
COL Adjusted1
Sonoma 159,228 112,501 167,188 27,188 194,376
Alameda 166,369 121,968 161,127 33,297 194,424
Ventura 141,443 113,550 147,141 14,989 162,130
Kern 128,242 97,183 155,876 14,807 170,683
Fresno 124,820 103,331 142,690 20,281 162,972
Sacramento 117,959 105,220 132,426 14,444 146,870
San Mateo 149,538 134,951 130,893 14,755 145,648
Average 141,086 148,192 19,966 168,158
25th Percentile 126,531 137,558 14,781 154,500
37.5th Percentile 131,542 143,803 14,853 162,341$
50th Percentile 141,443 147,141 14,989 162,972
75th Percentile 154,383 158,501 23,735 182,530
Contra Costa 118,125 118,125 29,804 147,929
% from Average ‐19%‐25% 33%‐14%
% from 25th Percentile ‐7%‐16% 50%‐4%
% from 37.5th Percentile ‐11%‐22% 50%‐10%
% from 50th Percentile ‐20%‐25% 50%‐10%
% from 75th Percentile ‐31%‐34% 20%‐23%
Deriving the annual salary level from total compensation, using 37.5th percentile as selected by the Committee:
Current COL Adjusted VAR
147,929$ 162,341$ 14,412$ 9.7%
104,307$ 116,840$ 12,533$ 12.0%
16,784$ 18,663$ 1,879$
6,155$ 6,155$ ‐$
13,020$ 13,020$ ‐$
7,200$ 7,200$ ‐$
463$ 463$ ‐$
To derive total payroll from annual salary:
185,994$ 204,303$ 18,308$ 9.8%
104,307$ 116,840$ 12,533$ 12.0%
8,530$ 9,489$ 959$
40,143$ 44,654$ 4,512$
9,341$ 9,341$ ‐$
2,375$ 2,642$ 267$
335$ 372$ 38$
7,200$ 7,200$ ‐$
13,764$ 13,764$ ‐$
*Excludes Prof Dev Allowance
*Excludes life insurance and statutory benefits: FICA, worker's comp, unemployment insurance
Group Insurance
Worker's Comp @ 2.13%
Unempl Insurance @ 0.3%
Supplemental (Auto Allowance)
Other (Def Comp, Life Insurance)*
Retirement @ 36%
Total Compensation of Peer Counties
Cost of Living Adjustment Method 1
Board of Supervisors Salary Comparison
Total Payroll*
Salary
FICA @ 7.65%
Auto allowance
Professional Development
1 Annual Compensation COL Adjusted is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and reflects
the compensation needed to support a comparable standard of living in Contra Costa County.
2 CCC Annual Compensation Equivalency COL Adj is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and
reflects the compensation that would be required in that county to maintain the same lifestyle as in CCC at the $147,929
total compensation level. Amount adjusted is $118,125, which excludes pension and deferred compensation contributions.
http://relocationessentials.com/aff/www/tools/salary/col.aspx
Total Est Annual Compensation*
Annual Salary
Normal % Contrib to Pension @ 14.99%
Kaiser+Dental Single Coverage
Kaiser Single Coverage
Deferred Compensation
12
ATTACHMENT "C"Suggested Methodology to Phase in Recommended Salary IncrementBased on Method 1 Using Total CompensationIncrementsCurrent Salary 3 @ 3.855%Increase from 6/1/15Annual Base Salary: $ 104,307 11/1/2016 $ 108,328 3.9%21/1/2017 $ 112,504 7.9%31/1/2018 $ 116,841 12.0%Annual Salary w/ Additional Compensation $ 147,929 $ 162,341 9.7%Annual Total Payroll Cost $ 185,994 $ 204,303 9.8%Method to Arrive at 37.5th Percentile13
ATTACHMENT "D"CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSALARY HEALTH PLAN SUBSIDY ADJUSTMENTS FOR A SAMPLING OF GROUPSFiscal YearBoard of SupervisorsMgmt/ UnrepresentedLocal 1DSA ManagementBoard of Supervisors &Mgmt/Unrepresented Local 1DSA2004‐053% 10/04 3% 10/04 5% 10/0480% of Kaiser premium 80% of Kaiser premium87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2005‐0600080% of Kaiser premium 80% of Kaiser premium87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2006‐0759.5% 2/07 $1500 11/06*02% 10/0680% of Kaiser premium80% of Kaiser premium87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2007‐08 2% 7/07 2% 7/07 2% 7/072% 10/07 & 2% 3/08 80% of Kaiser premium 80% of Kaiser premium87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2008‐09Waived 2.31% to match ATA***2% 7/08 2% 7/08080% of Kaiser premium 80% of Kaiser premium87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2009‐10Waived 2.31% to match ATA000Capped at 2009 rate +50% of increaseCapped at 2009 rate +50% of increase87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2010‐11Waived 2.75% to match negotiated wage reductions00 0Capped at 2009 rate +50% of increaseCapped at 2009 rate +50% of increase87% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area Premium2011‐12Waived 2.75%‐2.75% 10/11 $500 5/120Capped 2011Capped 2011Capped 1/12 + 75% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area increase2012‐13 Waived 2.75%0‐2.75% 7/12$500 5/13‐2.81% 7/12Capped 2011Capped 2011Capped 1/12 + 75% of PERS Kaiser Bay Area increase2013‐14Waived 2.75% for 7/13 and discontinued waiver thereafter2% 8/13$750 5/143% 1/14Capped 2011Capped 2011Capped 11/13 + 50% of increase for all plans2014‐15 7% 6/152% 8/14 $1000 ** 4% 4/14 ; $750 5/153% 7/14Capped 2011Capped 2011Capped 11/13 + 50% of increase for all plans2015‐163% 7/15 3% 7/15 3% 7/15Capped 2011Capped 2011Capped 11/13 + 50% of increase for all plans* Management Resolution 2006/709** Management Resolution 2013/318*** ATA is Agreed‐upon Temporary Absence, which was a negotiated absence without pay.Health Benefit ChangesSalary Adjustments14
Attachment
October 21, 2014 Item D.6
3915
AlamedaContra Costa San MateoTOTAL EST VALUE206,229 166,163 183,523 Annual Salary147,680 104,307 129,912 Pension Contribution28,916 40,429 40,272.72 Pension & Vesting Tier 2A is 1.492% @ 55; Tier 4 is 1.3% @ 55; County pays employer share only; avg contribution is 19.58% Tier 1 & 3 Enhanced is 2% @ 55;County contributes 38.8% < 8/7/11 = 1.948% @ 55;County contributes 30‐31% Health/Dental90% of premium50‐60% of premium75‐85% of premiumOther insurance‐ 1,164 ‐ Pension enhancement18,338$ 12,600$ ‐$ Auto allowance8,296$ 7,200$ 13,338$ Other3,000$ 463$ ‐$ Retiree Health County provides none. However, ACERA provides partial benefits with 10 years svc credit. 3,321‐6264 8,553 SamCERA: Sick leave does not get added to retirement base. Instead, banked sick leave can be "spent" on retiree health premiums. 8 hours buys $700. 16
Agency Boards and Commissions
Name of Appointed
Person (Last, First)
Name of Alternate
(Last, First)
Appointment
Date
Length of
Term (in
years)
Per
Meeting
Estimated Annual
Salary/Stipend
ABAG Executive Board (Seat 1) Mitchoff, Karen John Gioia 7/1/2014 2 150.00$ 1,800.00$
ABAG Executive Board (Seat 2) Andersen, Candace Piepho, Mary N.7/1/2014 2 150.00$ 1,800.00$
ABAG Regional Planning Committee Mitchoff, Karen N/A 1/6/2015 1 150.00$ 1,800.00$
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board
of Directors #1 Gioia, John N/A 1/8/2013 4 100.00$ 1,200.00$
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board
of Directors #2 Mitchoff, Karen N/A 1/6/2015 1 100.00$ 1,200.00$
Bay Conservation & Development Commission Gioia, John Glover, Federal D.1/6/2015 1 100.00$ 2,400.00$
CCCERA (Contra Costa County Employees
Retirement Association) Board of Trustees
Candace Andersen;
(Mitchoff, Karen
through 2/28/15; )Holcombe, Jerry 3/1/2015 -1 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Board of Directors Seat #1 Andersen, Candace N/A 1/6/2015 1 50.00$ 1,200.00$
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Board of Directors Seat #2 Mitchoff, Karen N/A 1/6/2015 1 50.00$ 1,200.00$
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA)
Board of Directors Andersen, Candace Mitchoff, Karen 1/8/2013 2 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of
Directors Seat #1 Glover, Federal D. Gioia, John 1/6/2015 2 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of
Directors Seat #2 Mitchoff, Karen Andersen, Candace 1/8/2013 3 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of
Directors, Second Alternate (Seat 1) Andersen, Candace N/A 1/6/2015 2 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of
Directors, Third Alternate (Seat 1) Piepho, Mary N. N/A 1/6/2015 2 100.00$ 2,400.00$
Delta Diablo Sanitation District Governing Board Glover, Federal D. Mitchoff, Karen 1/6/2015 1 170.00$ 2,040.00$
East County Water Management Association
Board of Directors Piepho, Mary N. Glover, Federal D.1/6/2015 2 170.00$ 2,040.00$
Hazardous Waste Management Facility
Allocation Committee Mitchoff, Karen Andersen, Candace 1/6/2015 1 150.00$ 900.00$
Local Agency Formation Commission Glover, Federal D. Andersen, Candace 5/6/2014 4 150.00$ 1,800.00$
Local Agency Formation Commission Piepho, Mary N. Andersen, Candace 5/6/2014 4 150.00$ 1,800.00$
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Glover, Federal D. N/A 1/6/2015 4 100.00$ 1,200.00$
Tri Delta Transit Authority, Board of Directors
(Seat 1) Glover, Federal D. N/A 1/8/2013 4 100.00$ 1,200.00$
Tri Delta Transit Authority, Board of Directors
(Seat 2) Piepho, Mary N. N/A 1/8/2013 3 100.00$ 1,200.00$
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
Management Authority Board of Directors Glover, Federal D. Gioia, John 1/6/2015 1 50.00$ 600.00$
17
ATTACHMENT "H'SELECTION OF PEER COUNTIESCountyAnnual SalaryAnnual Salary COL Adjusted5% Variance From CCCCounty Population6Pop RankUI Population6UI % of Total # of CitiesFTEs Funded/Adopted3FY 2014/15 General Fund FY 2014/15 Total Govermental Funds FY 2014/15 Total All Funds Fund RankBA Santa Clara 147,680 134,989 29.4% 1,889,638 1 87,182 4.6% 15 16,216 2,973,221,915$ 3,840,012,040$ 5,892,779,051$ 2B UI P BA Alameda 147,680 143,027 37.1% 1,594,569 2 146,787 9.2% 14 9,518 2,312,146,120$ 2,786,115,563$ 3,296,908,180$ 4B P Sacramento 101,536 113,988 9.3% 1,470,912 3 573,313 39.0% 7 11,726 2,201,593,739$ 2,625,328,802$ 3,722,736,822$ 3BUIPBAContra Costa 104,307 104,307 0.0% 1,102,871 4 168,323 15.3% 19 8,921 1,435,174,537$ 1,938,177,513$ 3,171,226,845$ 5UI P Fresno 110,766 126,625 21.4%972,297 5 170,459 17.5% 14 7,120 1,395,216,330 2,045,821,381$ 8B P Kern105,107 127,758 22.5% 874,264 6 309,050 35.3% 11 9,142 787,447,450$ 1,934,781,396$ 2,649,205,958$ 6UI P Ventura129,227 134,434 28.9% 848,073 8 97,497 11.5% 11 7,624 946,653,621$ 946,653,621$ 1,881,456,411$ 9PBASan Francisco 110,858 83,450 ‐20.0% 845,602 7N/AN/A1 28,435 4,270,953,200$ 8,581,831,912$ 8,581,831,912$ 1BPBASan Mateo129,917 113,718 9.0% 753,123 9 64,615 8.6% 20 5,458 1,494,908,690$ 1,826,306,636$ 2,209,518,947$ 7UIBA Sonoma 138,459 145,380 39.4% 496,253 10 152,918 30.8% 9 4,074 419,507,162$ 889,930,234$ 1,457,085,749$ 10BA Solano 97,843 104,810 0.5% 429,552 11 18,790 4.4% 7 2,816 218,445,708$ 870,217,528$ 922,572,425$ 11BA Marin 108,784 103,838 ‐0.4% 258,972 12 68,488 26.4% 11 2,131 408,200,968$ 569,311,594$ 605,147,181$ 13BA Napa 84,198 85,013 ‐18.5% 140,362 13 26,899 19.2% 5 1,411 209,451,517$ 505,434,230$ 624,414,293$ 125COL Adjustment/Factor is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and reflect the increase/decrease in wages needed to support a comparable standard of living in Contra Costa County.6CA Dept of Finance for 1/1/15*Filters: B‐Budget, UI‐Unincorporated Population, P=County Population, BA‐Bay Area CountyFilters*COMPARISON DATAFiscal Year 2014‐201518
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATIONBOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATIONJuly 7, 2015
BACKGROUND•Board directed CAO to form a committee to review Board member compensation and methodology, composed of representatives nominated by these organizations:•Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury•Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association•East Bay Leadership Council (formerly the Contra Costa Council)•Contra Costa County Central Labor Council•Contra Costa County Human Services Alliance•Board directed Committee to hold open meetings and report its recommendations to the Board on July 7July 7, 20152
COMMITTEE COMPOSITIONEast Bay Leadership Council Contra Costa Taxpayers' AssociationContra Costa County Civil Grand JuryContra Costa County Central Labor CouncilContra Costa County Human Services AllianceFacilitatorRick Wise, ChairMargaret Eychner, Vice ChairMichael Moore, SecretaryMargaret Hanlon-GradieStuart McCulloughSteve WeirJuly 7, 20153
CONTEXT•Data at that time showed the Board salary, at $97,483, lowest among urban CA counties and second-lowest among Bay Area counties•Board salary had not been reviewed since 2007•The Board approved a salary increase of 7% to $104,307, eff. 6/1/15, following the repeal of an ordinance that would have raised the salary to $129,227 and tied the salary to 70% of a superior court judge’s salaryJuly 7, 20154
GUIDING PRINCIPLES•Board of Supervisors Member is a full-time job•Salary should not be tied to a judge or any position not comparable to a County Supervisor•Salary should not be tied to another County job classification•Salary should be based on job duties and responsibilities rather than performance (which is determined by the electorate)•Salary should not be a barrier to public service•Methodology should attempt to de-politicize the salary determination•Board salary level should be commensurate with County employees in terms of relationship to market compensation•Board should share with County employees the pain of any future salary reductions•Board salary should be reviewed triennially with no increases applied between reviews•Significant increases should be phased in over two or three yearsJuly 7, 20155
COMMITTEE REVIEWDuring nine public meetings, Committee reviewed:•information related to Board salaries, duties, and salary-setting methodologies•characteristics of potential “peer counties” such as total and unincorporated county population, number of cities, budget, number of employees, median household income, median home value, and extraordinary features•base salary and other compensation of counties selected as peer counties•Contra Costa compensation compared to peer counties based on average, 25th, 37.5th, 50th, and 75thpercentilesJuly 7, 20156
PEER COUNTY SELECTION:POPULATIONJuly 7, 20157
PEER COUNTY SELECTION: BUDGETJuly 7, 20158
FINAL PEER COUNTY SELECTIONCounties were identified as peers if they were a close match to Contra Costa in at least two of these four attributes:BA: Bay Area countyP: Population UI: Unincorp. PopltnB: BudgetJuly 7, 20159
OTHER COMPENSATIONThe Committee included the following non-salary compensation in its analysis:•County pension contribution of Normal Cost for Basic + COLA•County contribution towards health/dental coverage based on Kaiser Single coverage•Deferred Compensation contribution•Auto allowance•Other cash payments (professional development, flexible spending or other cash payments)July 7, 201510
OTHER COMPENSATIONThe Committee also considered these additional benefits on a qualitative basis:•Pension benefit, e.g., X% at 55, based on eight years of service (two terms of office)•Retiree health benefit, if anyJuly 7, 201511
GEOGRAPHIC COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIALThe Committee used a cost of living composite index from RelocationEssentials.com to adjust the salary and other compensation (excluding pension and deferred compensation) in order to estimate the compensation that would be needed to support the same standard of living in Contra Costa County as is supported by the compensation in each peer county.July 7, 201512Example:
PRELIMINARY PEER COUNTY COMPARISON1Total Compensation COL Adjusted is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and reflects the compensation needed to support a comparable standard of living in Contra Costa County.2CCC Total Annual Compensation Equivalency COL Adj is based on Cost of Living factors from www.relocationessentials.com and reflects the compensation that would be required in that county to maintain the same lifestyle as in CCC at the $147,929 total compensation level. Amount adjusted excludes pension and deferred compensation contributions.July 7, 201513
FINAL PEER COUNTY COMPARISONJuly 7, 201514The Committee decided to exclude San Francisco from the array, leaving seven counties for comparison.
DERIVING BASE SALARY FROM TARGET TOTAL COMPENSATIONJuly 7, 201515
ESTIMATING TOTAL PAYROLL COST AT TARGET COMPENSATIONJuly 7, 201516
PHASING THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN INCREMENTSJuly 7, 201517
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS1.Set the salary level to 37.5thpercentile of peer counties based on total compensation2.12% increase in salary from 6/1/15 level, or $116,8413.Phased in by three annual increments of 3.855% each, on January 1 of 2016, 2017, and 20184.Modify auto benefit by limiting mileage reimbursement to out-of-county mileage only (vs. all mileage)5.Target for future compensation level at the 50thpercentile (median), along with County employeesJuly 7, 201518
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS6.Convene a compensation committee to determine Board’s salary every three years, next time in 2018; and consider extending this methodology to compensation for all County elected officials7.Apply no COLA or other increases to the Board’s salary between the independent salary reviews 8.Apply to the Board’s salary via ordinance any permanent salary reduction taken by County employeesJuly 7, 201519
QUESTIONS?AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD COMPENSATIONJuly 7, 201520
ARCHIVED DOCUMENT