[0:02] Good evening everyone. I'm I'm going to

[0:05] call the board of directors meeting of

[0:07] the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for

[0:11] January

[0:12] 26 to order. Um before we begin the

[0:18] regular items for the board, Director

[0:21] Wiltshshire

[0:23] uh is ill this evening and has asked to

[0:27] participate via Zoom and due to new

[0:30] Brown Act regulations because we have

[0:33] not published her address on the agenda.

[0:36] Uh we need to have a motion and a an

[0:40] action from the board to allow her to

[0:42] participate virtually. I'll move for

[0:44] approval for for participation.

[0:47] >> Second.

[0:47] » Second.

[0:48] >> We have a motion and a second. Um Madame

[0:51] » We have a motion and a second. Um Madame

[0:51] Clerk, since we have one director on

[0:54] virtual, then we'll need a roll call

[0:56] vote whenever we take a vote.

[0:58] >> Director Wright,

[1:00] » Director Wright,

[1:00] >> yes.

[1:00] » yes.

[1:00] >> Director Walshshire,

[1:01] » Director Walshshire,

[1:01] >> yes.

[1:02] » yes.

[1:02] >> Secretary Uten, I mean Perry, sorry.

[1:04] » Secretary Uten, I mean Perry, sorry.

[1:04] >> Yes.

[1:05] » Yes.

[1:05] >> Vice President Utton, yes.

[1:07] » Vice President Utton, yes.

[1:07] >> President Mike Schaefer,

[1:08] » President Mike Schaefer,

[1:08] >> yes. Thank you.

[1:09] » yes. Thank you.

[1:09] >> Okay, so with that, uh Nicole, you are

[1:12] » Okay, so with that, uh Nicole, you are

[1:12] eligible.

[1:13] Okay. Um, at this point, I'd ask

[1:16] everyone who's able to please rise and

[1:19] join me in a salute to the flag.

[1:24] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:27] United States of America and to the

[1:29] republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:33] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:36] justice for all.

[1:38] >> Vice President Utton, words of wisdom

[1:41] » Vice President Utton, words of wisdom

[1:41] for us this evening? Yep. Please join

[1:43] me. Uh, God grant me the serenity to

[1:46] accept the things I cannot change,

[1:48] courage to change the things I can, and

[1:51] the wisdom to know the difference. Amen.

[1:54] >> Thank you, sir.

[1:59] » Uh, I think we've already done this, but

[2:01] may we have an official roll call,

[2:03] please?

[2:03] >> Sure.

[2:04] » Sure.

[2:04] >> Director Cheyenne Wright

[2:06] » Director Cheyenne Wright

[2:06] >> here.

[2:06] » here.

[2:06] >> Director Nicole Wshshire,

[2:07] » Director Nicole Wshshire,

[2:08] >> here.

[2:08] » here.

[2:08] >> Secretary Arthur Perry

[2:10] » Secretary Arthur Perry

[2:10] >> here. Vice President Robert Uten

[2:12] » here. Vice President Robert Uten

[2:12] >> here.

[2:12] » here.

[2:12] >> President Michael Schaefer

[2:13] » President Michael Schaefer

[2:14] >> here.

[2:15] » here.

[2:15] >> Um

[2:17] » Um

[2:17] late communications. I have one late

[2:19] communication and it's just an item um

[2:23] for all of you. I'm going to ask that

[2:25] the board adjourn the meeting this

[2:28] evening in memory of a departed uh

[2:32] special district member who I think most

[2:34] of us up here know, Director Paul Mesmer

[2:37] from the Rossmore Community Services

[2:39] District. Uh gentleman who's been very

[2:41] active in ISDOCK. He was the currently

[2:45] the the second vice president of the

[2:48] special districts association. Paul

[2:51] passed away suddenly and unexpected

[2:53] unexpectedly

[2:55] and so we will be adjourning the meeting

[2:57] this evening in memory of of Paul Mesmer

[3:00] really great guy and will be missed in

[3:03] the special district.

[3:05] Okay. Uh any other

[3:07] >> Mr. President could we uh let the record

[3:09] » Mr. President could we uh let the record

[3:10] reflect that director uh

[3:14] Wilshshire is participating pursuant to

[3:16] government code section 54953.8.3

[3:19] 8.3 subsections C for illness.

[3:23] >> Thank you. Thank you, council. Uh, other

[3:26] » Thank you. Thank you, council. Uh, other

[3:26] late communications?

[3:28] >> Uh, there was an executive memo for item

[3:31] » Uh, there was an executive memo for item

[3:31] H2 presented from director Wright that

[3:33] was added to the dis and available for

[3:35] the public.

[3:38] >> Um, also one last late communication.

[3:41] » Um, also one last late communication.

[3:41] I've distributed to the members that are

[3:43] here and we'll make sure director

[3:46] Wilshshire gets a copy. We will be

[3:48] conducting the general manager's

[3:50] performance evaluation soon. So I've

[3:53] given you a work all a worksheet uh to

[3:55] help us with those and we'll be using

[3:59] those when we when we meet officially

[4:02] with the the general manager. Okay.

[4:06] Uh any ceremonial matters or

[4:08] presentations? Madam clerk?

[4:10] >> No, Mr. President.

[4:15] » Public comments. This is the uh time set

[4:18] aside for folks in the audience to make

[4:21] comments within our jurisdiction

[4:24] which are not on the agenda this

[4:26] evening. Um we have

[4:30] Sue Lester I think Sue.

[4:36] » Thank you President Schaffefer um and

[4:38] the board. I this counts for any

[4:40] comments I make tonight. I'm here

[4:41] representing myself as a rateayer and a

[4:43] resident even though I am the

[4:45] chairperson of the CAC. My opinions do

[4:48] not reflect that of any of the other

[4:50] members or the um the body itself. Um,

[4:54] my comment tonight for public comment

[4:57] relates to past compensation for board

[5:01] members. And what prompted that was a um

[5:06] staff meeting that came out January 13th

[5:09] that wasn't handled at a board meeting

[5:13] um that stated that meetings with GM PDM

[5:16] weren't covered. um that meetings with

[5:20] staff members weren't covered and that

[5:22] meetings with um other board members

[5:26] weren't covered. Um so I looked up the

[5:30] operations code to kind of read what it

[5:32] said. I looked up your ordinance number

[5:34] 55 that is referenced on the expense

[5:36] sheets and the one that you guys have

[5:39] online is actually not up to date with

[5:41] the one that you use now. I couldn't

[5:43] find it. It has like half the amount of

[5:46] meetings. So, I'm sure I just didn't

[5:48] find it. So, if someone could direct me

[5:49] to that after, that would be great. Um,

[5:53] what I did is I I looked up every single

[5:56] compensation sheet of every board member

[5:59] of the five people who are currently on

[6:01] the board and the last two members of

[6:03] the board from December 15, 2025 board

[6:08] meetings back through 7:26 21 because

[6:11] that's as far back as I could go online.

[6:14] And um I went through all the sheets and

[6:18] found a lot of sheets where general

[6:20] manager meetings were um compensated. I

[6:25] found past Ecoex Expo meetings that were

[6:28] compensated that have recently been said

[6:30] that you couldn't be compensated for

[6:31] them. Um there were there were a lot of

[6:34] things in relation to the statement um

[6:38] on the September the January 13th

[6:43] report from the attorney that made me

[6:45] curious like how did this start? I I

[6:48] think that it started many years ago but

[6:51] I wasn't able to keep going until I

[6:52] could find where it didn't happen

[6:53] anymore. I think it started because

[6:56] board members were and this is

[6:58] assumption were going to so many

[6:59] meetings that they just listed all the

[7:01] meetings by date and then they got

[7:04] compensated for six and I think that

[7:06] created some confusion. I think that and

[7:08] I mentioned this before if you're going

[7:10] to be compensated for six meetings then

[7:12] it should just say that six meetings on

[7:14] there so there's no confusion as to

[7:17] what's an eligible meeting and what

[7:18] isn't. I don't think at any time that

[7:21] any member of this board or any member

[7:23] of the previous board was trying to get

[7:26] paid for something they weren't entitled

[7:27] to. So I want to be really clear on

[7:29] that. That is not what I am saying here

[7:31] at all. But what I am saying is I went

[7:33] through I highlighted any time something

[7:36] showed up that according to the

[7:38] statement that came out

[7:39] >> you have one minute miss left

[7:40] » you have one minute miss left

[7:40] >> shouldn't have applied and I found 151

[7:43] » shouldn't have applied and I found 151

[7:43] instances where those things were listed

[7:45] on sheets that if you multiplied $295

[7:50] it's over $44,000. Now the good news is

[7:53] is that I don't think some of those

[7:56] matter because there were enough

[7:57] meetings to compensate for the things

[7:59] that were listed. But I did find 78

[8:02] instances um that are valued at over

[8:05] $2,300,000.

[8:07] And I think somebody should look into it

[8:10] and I don't know who should look into

[8:11] it. Um the board submitted,

[8:16] approved, and accepted the compensation.

[8:19] I don't think you did it with any

[8:21] malice. And if there are in fact

[8:24] meetings that were compensated that

[8:25] shouldn't have been, I I would like to

[8:28] see the board take some kind of action

[8:30] to recoup that money because it's

[8:33] district money that shouldn't have been

[8:34] paid if that is in fact what happened.

[8:37] And I don't know what the process is. I

[8:39] looked in government code like what if

[8:41] there's an overpayment and it doesn't

[8:44] say on any of the things that are

[8:46] references referenced as it relates to

[8:48] compensation. And I think it's because

[8:50] this kind of stuff isn't supposed to

[8:51] happen, but it I'm fairly certain that

[8:55] it did based on what I have read so far.

[8:58] >> The time is concluded.

[8:59] » The time is concluded.

[8:59] >> That's it. Okay. Well, I I have more if

[9:01] » That's it. Okay. Well, I I have more if

[9:02] anybody's interested and I have copies

[9:04] to share if I can help you.

[9:07] >> Thank you. Um any other public comments?

[9:10] » Thank you. Um any other public comments?

[9:10] Seeing none, we will move to the consent

[9:14] calendar. Um, I'm going to We have

[9:17] questions on the consent calendar for

[9:20] item four. So, I'm going to pull item

[9:22] four.

[9:24] And that is all.

[9:26] >> Move for approval of the other items.

[9:28] » Move for approval of the other items.

[9:28] >> Second.

[9:29] » Second.

[9:29] >> All right. We have a motion to accept

[9:31] » All right. We have a motion to accept

[9:31] the consent calendar except for item

[9:34] four. And

[9:37] there's no discussion. We'll have a roll

[9:39] call vote, please.

[9:40] >> Thank you. Director Wright.

[9:41] » Thank you. Director Wright.

[9:41] >> Yes.

[9:42] » Yes.

[9:42] >> Director Wilshshire.

[9:43] » Director Wilshshire.

[9:43] >> Yes. Secretary Perry.

[9:45] » Yes. Secretary Perry.

[9:45] >> Yes.

[9:46] » Yes.

[9:46] >> Vice President Utton.

[9:47] » Vice President Utton.

[9:47] >> Yes.

[9:47] » Yes.

[9:47] >> President Schaefer.

[9:48] » President Schaefer.

[9:48] >> Yes. Okay. Item four, um, which is

[9:53] » Yes. Okay. Item four, um, which is

[9:53] director compensation and reinbursement

[9:55] of expenses. We have public comment from

[9:58] Sue Lester. You're up again.

[10:02] >> Um, I'd like to ask for a minute. I I

[10:06] » Um, I'd like to ask for a minute. I I

[10:06] can't get on my um I can't get on the

[10:08] Costa Mesa Sanitary District website. I

[10:11] would like to have staff help me get on.

[10:15] I usually can, but for some reason

[10:17] tonight I can't.

[10:19] >> Yeah, when I tried to log in, it said it

[10:20] » Yeah, when I tried to log in, it said it

[10:20] wasn't an approved site.

[10:23] >> Oh, no.

[10:25] » Oh, no.

[10:25] >> I was able to go through.

[10:26] » I was able to go through.

[10:26] >> Sorry, Sue.

[10:30] I have paper copies of most of the

[10:33] items, but

[10:39] » Oh, that's the maybe that was the

[10:41] reason. Oh, you know what it is? It's

[10:42] not on the It's been deleted from the

[10:45] list.

[10:47] >> See,

[10:51] » nice having our grandkids here to help

[10:53] us with computers, isn't it, Bob?

[10:57] Were you talking to me?

[10:58] >> No.

[11:00] » No.

[11:00] >> Sorry.

[11:03] » Sorry.

[11:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[11:05] » Okay. Thank you.

[11:05] >> Yep. That's it. And we are

[11:12] » Okay. Thank you.

[11:14] >> Great. Thank you, Nolan. All right. So,

[11:16] » Great. Thank you, Nolan. All right. So,

[11:16] I'm sorry for the interruption. Go right

[11:18] ahead.

[11:18] >> No, no. Um my um question suggestion I

[11:24] » No, no. Um my um question suggestion I

[11:24] guess is because there's

[11:28] all this conversation coming up about

[11:31] what is an appropriate expense and again

[11:35] there are two expense sheets submitted

[11:37] one by President Schaefer and one by

[11:39] Nicole Wilshshire that just says meeting

[11:41] with Scott meeting with GM and since

[11:45] that hasn't been addressed yet and

[11:47] because of the concern concerns I

[11:49] brought up with past expenses. I would

[11:52] ask the board to wait um on approving

[11:57] these two

[11:59] expense sheets until it's determined

[12:02] what exactly is supposed to be happening

[12:05] because looking at the um

[12:09] the staff report from January 13th and

[12:12] then looking at the staff report for J

[12:14] tonight tonight that's later on in the

[12:15] agenda. addressing these things and if

[12:19] you vote whatever you vote on tonight um

[12:22] I can't imagine it would change what

[12:24] happens in the past but I don't know um

[12:27] so I would I would just think that not

[12:30] approving the expenses with meetings

[12:32] with the GM when you have a staff report

[12:34] that says they don't qualify um would be

[12:36] a smart thing to do that's all thank you

[12:42] » I would like to ask

[12:44] to provide I if you have that material

[12:48] on on the first item that you spoke to,

[12:51] I I would like a copy of that. Um, and I

[12:55] I I think it's

[12:58] um

[13:00] hopefully it's appropriate because she

[13:02] said she had x number of meetings that

[13:05] she thought uh did not meet the the

[13:08] present criteria.

[13:10] Uh, and I I just I've been on the board

[13:13] for a long time. I can't imagine

[13:18] more than a few instances where

[13:20] directors ask for compensation

[13:22] and

[13:24] um

[13:26] each time it was granted

[13:29] a limited number. So, M Sue Sue has

[13:36] um gone through her own personal idea of

[13:40] what the meetings are and I I would like

[13:43] to see a copy of that. Um

[13:49] >> no.

[13:52] » Well, I'd like it, you know, some you we

[13:54] can meet after the meeting, but

[13:57] >> Yeah. Um

[13:58] » Yeah. Um

[13:58] >> because I because I think because I

[14:00] » because I because I think because I

[14:00] think it's a serious accusation.

[14:04] Um

[14:06] >> can we debate or can we discuss

[14:08] » can we debate or can we discuss

[14:08] >> we can discuss but we're not going to

[14:10] » we can discuss but we're not going to

[14:10] we're not going to get involved with a

[14:12] debate with a member

[14:13] >> just as it comes to approving this

[14:16] » just as it comes to approving this

[14:16] compensation form since we're obviously

[14:19] going to talk about it even further

[14:21] later in the meeting. Um, I feel

[14:23] comfortable approving this compensation

[14:26] form in its state

[14:28] uh based off of our existing ordinance

[14:31] under um item 28 which provides that any

[14:36] other meeting which directly involves

[14:37] the district can be claimed for

[14:39] compensation. And I believe that that's

[14:41] the that's the way I was trained when I

[14:43] was onboarded that those meetings fall

[14:46] under that as it is with the d the

[14:49] general manager of the district. So,

[14:51] >> I'll second the motion.

[14:52] » I'll second the motion.

[14:52] >> We have a motion

[14:54] » We have a motion

[14:54] >> to accept number four.

[14:55] » to accept number four.

[14:55] >> To accept number four and a second. Um,

[14:58] » To accept number four and a second. Um,

[14:58] roll call, please.

[15:01] >> Yes.

[15:03] » Yes.

[15:03] >> Director Wright,

[15:04] » Director Wright,

[15:04] >> yes.

[15:05] » yes.

[15:05] >> Director Wchair,

[15:06] » Director Wchair,

[15:06] >> yes.

[15:07] » yes.

[15:07] >> Secretary Perry,

[15:08] » Secretary Perry,

[15:08] >> yes.

[15:09] » yes.

[15:09] >> Vice President Utton,

[15:10] » Vice President Utton,

[15:10] >> yes.

[15:11] » yes.

[15:11] >> President Schaefer,

[15:12] » President Schaefer,

[15:12] >> yes. Okay. So, consent calendar item

[15:15] » yes. Okay. So, consent calendar item

[15:15] number four is passed.

[15:20] That will take us to

[15:23] my computer now.

[15:24] >> Public hearing. Public hearing.

[15:25] » Public hearing. Public hearing.

[15:25] >> Yeah, there are no public hearings this

[15:26] » Yeah, there are no public hearings this

[15:26] evening. And so we'll go to uh section

[15:30] E, the general manager report. Item one.

[15:33] Scott.

[15:34] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Dana Wick will

[15:35] » Thank you, Mr. President. Dana Wick will

[15:35] be giving his report.

[15:39] » Good evening, Mr. President and board.

[15:42] Can you hear me? Okay.

[15:44] The new mics. Okay.

[15:47] >> [clears throat]

[15:47] » [clears throat]

[15:47] >> At the December 9th uh 2025 study

[15:50] » At the December 9th uh 2025 study

[15:50] session, the board reviewed background

[15:53] and fiscal considerations related to the

[15:56] possible reinstatement of Kalpers's

[15:58] administered health benefits for board

[16:00] members. That discussion included PEPA

[16:04] authority, historical district

[16:06] participation,

[16:07] benchmarking of comparable special

[16:09] districts, and long-term cost

[16:11] projections. The board requested

[16:14] additional clarification on policy

[16:18] compliance and they had administrative

[16:20] questions. This report responds to those

[16:23] requests based on staff's current

[16:25] preliminary understanding.

[16:28] I do want to say this report

[16:30] isformational only. The information has

[16:32] not been reviewed by by [clears throat]

[16:35] the district's labor and employment

[16:37] council.

[16:39] So the board requested information

[16:41] information on the section 125 cafeteria

[16:45] plan. The district section 125 plan is

[16:48] structured for employees only. Board

[16:51] members are are not included and

[16:54] expanding the participation could

[16:56] introduce administrative and compliance

[16:59] issues. Under the current structure,

[17:02] board member premium payments would

[17:04] generally be post tax.

[17:07] The board requested additional

[17:09] clarification regarding Kalpers's rate

[17:12] setting and the potential impact of

[17:14] current of the current federal

[17:16] environment. Kalpers premiums are

[17:18] determined using historical claims and

[17:21] cost trends. Premium increases have

[17:24] occurred historically under different

[17:25] federal policy environments and no

[17:28] specific federal changes are anticipated

[17:31] at this time that would alter Kalpers's

[17:34] rate setting approach

[17:36] at the study session. The timing of

[17:38] board compensation and the advanced

[17:40] payment of the health premiums was also

[17:43] discussed. Health premiums are paid in

[17:45] advance while board stipens are paid on

[17:48] a monthly basis.

[17:51] This timing mismatch may create

[17:53] temporary shortfalls. Administrative

[17:56] options could include a defined grace

[17:58] period or repayment process supported by

[18:01] whatever the direction the board would

[18:03] give on this.

[18:05] Uh the board requested clarification on

[18:07] providing defined dollar contributions

[18:10] toward health coverage outside of

[18:12] Kalpers's health plans. And under PMPA,

[18:15] employer contributions for participants

[18:18] in the Kalpers's health program must be

[18:20] applied exclus exclusively to Kalpers's

[18:23] administered plans. Cash payments or

[18:26] defined dollar contributions outside of

[18:28] Kalpers would typically be treated as

[18:30] taxable compensation.

[18:32] Alternative coverage arrangements may

[18:34] raise PEMPA participation and

[18:36] administrative concerns. The board also

[18:40] requested information about HSAs and HAS

[18:44] and HSAs are limited to individuals

[18:46] enrolled in qualifying high deductible

[18:49] plans and are not available to those

[18:51] enrolled in Medicare.

[18:53] HAS are employer funded and require

[18:55] separate administration. Has may be a

[18:58] potential limited supplemental option

[19:00] subject to further evaluation.

[19:03] Uh with these considerations in mind,

[19:06] staff eval evaluated the potential

[19:09] financial impacts using conservative

[19:12] planning assumptions. Public agencies

[19:15] must evaluate long-term fiscal impacts,

[19:17] not just initial costs. The analysis

[19:21] assumes full participation by all five

[19:23] board members to remain conservative.

[19:26] Monthly benefit levels analyzed were

[19:28] from 680 to $850

[19:32] per month as directed by the board

[19:36] costs are not included in the adopted

[19:38] fiscal year 2526 or the fiscal year 2627

[19:43] budget. [clears throat]

[19:45] So, with the $680 monthly benefit option

[19:49] for fiscal year 2526, which would be

[19:52] just February through Jer June, um it

[19:55] would cost $3,400 for one board member

[19:59] and $17,000 for all five. Staff

[20:03] anticipate sufficient unspent funds to

[20:06] cover these costs, barring any

[20:08] unforeseen emergencies.

[20:10] And for the f fiscal year 2627,

[20:14] the annual cost would be $8,300 for one

[20:17] board member and $41,300

[20:20] for all five board members.

[20:23] Looking at the $850 a month benefit

[20:28] option for fiscal year 2526, again,

[20:30] February through June, it would cost

[20:33] $4,300

[20:34] for one board member and 21,300 for all

[20:37] five. For fiscal year 2627,

[20:41] the annual cost would be $10,300 for one

[20:44] board member and $51,600

[20:47] for all five. Staff believes existing

[20:50] funds are sufficient for one to four

[20:53] board members. Again, barring any

[20:55] unforeseen emergencies. If all five

[20:58] members wanted to participate, staff

[21:00] projects a budget shortfall of up to

[21:03] $25,080

[21:05] in the wastewater fund. staff

[21:07] anticipates a fiscal year 2526 surplus

[21:11] could be appropriated to offset this

[21:13] shortfall. And again, I want to emphas

[21:15] emphasize that this item is being

[21:18] presented prior to completion of legal

[21:20] review and all information is pre

[21:22] preliminary subject to change. So staff

[21:26] just is recommending that the board

[21:28] would receive this follow-up information

[21:30] and direct staff on whether and how to

[21:33] continue evaluating health benefits for

[21:35] board members. Um, I'm available for

[21:39] questions. Caitlyn Tran, finance

[21:40] manager, is also online if if you would

[21:43] like to direct any questions to her.

[21:46] Let me start, let me lead off. Um,

[21:51] ever since I was elected to this board

[21:54] the first time,

[21:56] the definition of an employee has always

[21:58] evaded me.

[22:00] >> We're not considered employees.

[22:04] » We're not considered employees.

[22:04] uh in one sense, but yet we get a W2 at

[22:09] the end of the year, which W2s are

[22:13] usually used for salaried employees,

[22:17] right? As an independent contractor,

[22:20] when I was working, I received a 1099

[22:23] for my compensation, which indicated,

[22:26] you know, I was not officially an

[22:28] employee. We also participate in the

[22:32] empower

[22:34] deferred compensation program. We all

[22:37] do.

[22:38] So

[22:40] generally speaking, those are offered to

[22:42] employees. So I'm really struggling with

[22:45] this idea of whether we're employees or

[22:48] not. And I want to know if we do know

[22:52] who defines whether we're an employee or

[22:54] not. Is that is that a legislated

[22:57] idea or is it just we assume we're not

[23:00] employees because we don't have to show

[23:02] up for regular hours to a certain

[23:04] extent? Um

[23:08] why are we not employees if we're

[23:11] getting a W2?

[23:17] I and I can I mean I can I can turn I

[23:18] could

[23:19] >> I'll turn over to district council but

[23:20] » I'll turn over to district council but

[23:20] maybe before I I can tell we had a

[23:22] discussion at a board meeting and I

[23:24] could in a future board meeting or or a

[23:26] week I can send that staff report to all

[23:28] the board members where district council

[23:30] determined it's been uh elected

[23:32] officials are not employees. We've had

[23:34] that discussion in the past.

[23:35] >> Well I I know we've had the discussion

[23:37] » Well I I know we've had the discussion

[23:37] in the past but what overriding

[23:39] legislation or what overriding authority

[23:42] says I'm not an employee of the

[23:44] district? the the law, the statutory

[23:46] schemes for every subject is different

[23:48] and there's different uh definitions of

[23:51] employee depending on whether it's

[23:53] you're dealing with taxes, whether

[23:54] you're an employee for workers comp,

[23:56] whether you're an employee for the

[23:58] retirement system and all of them. The

[24:01] most recent one is the whole thing with

[24:04] Uber Eatats and the those people in that

[24:06] industry and that's a very u defined

[24:11] definition but that's dealing with

[24:12] whether or not you have to pay all the

[24:14] benefits and the workers comp and all of

[24:16] that. So it changes depending on the

[24:18] statutory scheme

[24:19] >> and we are covered by our workers

[24:21] » and we are covered by our workers

[24:21] compensation while we're in the course

[24:24] of our duties as a board member. We are

[24:26] covered by workers compensation

[24:28] >> and that's a separate category. I know

[24:30] » and that's a separate category. I know

[24:30] then employees. Um I I do know I don't

[24:34] think that you can serve on a board and

[24:35] be an employee of the organization, but

[24:37] I I and I know I've read this, so I'll

[24:39] have to look like Scott said, we'll have

[24:40] to come back with that.

[24:42] >> Okay. Okay, that's fine. Um

[24:45] » Okay. Okay, that's fine. Um

[24:45] >> I I went online and and um board

[24:49] » I I went online and and um board

[24:49] members, at least

[24:52] the things that I read, said the board

[24:55] members are not employees. But I I I

[24:59] understand director Schaefer's director

[25:02] President Schaeer

[25:03] >> Mike is question.

[25:05] » Mike is question.

[25:05] >> Um you know and it deserves an answer.

[25:10] » Um you know and it deserves an answer.

[25:10] Um

[25:14] there was a question at the last

[25:18] discussion of this about what we had

[25:20] done previously and in my tenure as a

[25:24] director we have had one director who

[25:27] was covered by medical. We put him on

[25:30] the medical but he paid the entire

[25:32] premium himself. Is that isn't that

[25:34] correct?

[25:35] >> Yes.

[25:37] » Yes.

[25:37] I think it just gave him the ability to

[25:40] um have the insurance option.

[25:44] >> Um

[25:44] » Um

[25:44] >> I remember now where where that

[25:46] » I remember now where where that

[25:46] definition was and basically it comes

[25:50] from the the I think the fourth

[25:52] amendment of the constitution of the

[25:54] United States. Uh I was looking at due

[25:58] process

[26:00] um information.

[26:02] Um and I think I think that's where the

[26:05] definition

[26:07] where I got that definition. Although, I

[26:09] was looking at a lot of different

[26:10] articles.

[26:13] » Um, the other thing that struck me in

[26:15] your report,

[26:17] being on Medicare myself, it says HS

[26:20] HSAs are not eligible for employer, I'm

[26:24] sorry, Medicare is a non-qualifier for

[26:27] an employer HSA contribution.

[26:31] So, if we don't have an employer,

[26:35] then do we fall into the being eligible

[26:38] for an HSA? Because in one hand, we're

[26:40] saying we're not an employee, but that

[26:44] one says an employer can't give his

[26:47] employee an HSA contribution. Well, if

[26:51] we're non-employees, we could then get

[26:53] an HSA contribution.

[26:59] or am I just mixing up words?

[27:01] >> Well, that's why I would like to wait

[27:03] » Well, that's why I would like to wait

[27:03] for uh LCW to review this this report.

[27:08] This is justformational. It's not um

[27:10] that's why I was hesitant to even

[27:12] include that, but I did want to come

[27:14] back with you

[27:15] >> to you with the information that you

[27:16] » to you with the information that you

[27:16] requested, whatever I could find. C

[27:19] >> certainly appreciate that and that's a

[27:21] » certainly appreciate that and that's a

[27:21] great answer. I mean, let the legal

[27:23] people look at it

[27:25] >> as far as I'm concerned. So, anyway,

[27:27] » as far as I'm concerned. So, anyway,

[27:27] I'll open it up. Anybody else?

[27:29] >> I'm ready.

[27:30] » I'm ready.

[27:30] >> Go ahead.

[27:32] » Go ahead.

[27:32] >> Well, as you know, I love sharing my

[27:34] » Well, as you know, I love sharing my

[27:34] memos with you guys, but I didn't get

[27:35] this one done in time to get it in front

[27:37] of you, but I um yeah, I really

[27:41] appreciate the report and I have kind of

[27:44] like

[27:46] a checklist of questions for each one.

[27:49] Um for context though I do feel like

[27:52] some components of the previous report

[27:55] would have been helpful for members of

[27:58] the public to see which is uh

[28:01] contextually every other elected body in

[28:04] the city of Costa Mesa provides their

[28:07] elected officials with benefits. Um, in

[28:10] addition, we looked at 13 of the other

[28:13] special districts in Orange County, and

[28:15] 11 out of 13 of them provide benefits.

[28:19] Then staff showed us um on the high

[28:22] range $1,200 a month and showed us some

[28:27] of our neighboring uh governing bodies

[28:30] are receiving over 2,200 a month. And so

[28:34] I did try to be really intentional

[28:37] and um reserved about that 650 to 800

[28:42] range. And um I really appreciate your

[28:45] guys' support in understanding where I

[28:47] was coming from with that. It also is

[28:50] the minimum amount to cover one the

[28:54] lowest plan for one person.

[28:56] Um, so I think that would have been help

[28:59] like helpful context to add into the

[29:01] report just in the future when we have

[29:03] like compounding

[29:05] uh items like this to make sure that

[29:08] anybody that's accessing it today can

[29:10] also see all the history of like past

[29:12] reports we've received. I think that

[29:14] would be smart. Also, you guys put all

[29:16] that work and research into it anyways.

[29:18] So, okay. So, let's go item by item. So,

[29:21] section 125, the cafeteria plan. So my I

[29:25] actually went the o the opposite. My

[29:27] understanding was that we were proposing

[29:29] to not add board members to the existing

[29:31] employee plan, but that we would rather

[29:34] establish a separate policy and Kalper's

[29:37] resolution specific to the board as if

[29:40] we're our own cohort. Do you recall that

[29:43] discussion in the past?

[29:46] >> I don't recall that the board wanted to

[29:47] » I don't recall that the board wanted to

[29:48] do a whole separate one. No, that's I

[29:49] think that's kind of

[29:52] >> what we're looking for is is is what you

[29:54] » what we're looking for is is is what you

[29:54] do want.

[29:55] >> Yeah. So that was my understand.

[29:58] » Yeah. So that was my understand.

[29:58] >> Yeah. So that was my understanding in

[30:00] » Yeah. So that was my understanding in

[30:00] our past meeting was we're our own like

[30:02] employee pool in a way. However you want

[30:04] to categorize us. Um and so if that is

[30:08] the case, I don't see the section 125

[30:11] plan as a limiting factor uh in

[30:13] proceeding with the Kalpers's benefits

[30:15] for board members. But what I'm a theme

[30:18] I'm hearing with this item is we need to

[30:21] clarify some administrative direction so

[30:23] that they can form a policy. It seems

[30:26] like as they were researching how to do

[30:28] this for us, they ca they came across a

[30:30] lot of forks in the road of like should

[30:32] we do this or that.

[30:33] >> Can I interrupt?

[30:34] » Can I interrupt?

[30:34] >> Yes.

[30:34] » Yes.

[30:34] >> Because I you bring up a really good

[30:36] » Because I you bring up a really good

[30:36] point about us having our own separate

[30:39] plan. Do you know if the other other 11

[30:44] we I'd want to know whether the other 11

[30:47] how they administer it. Do they do their

[30:49] own separate calc?

[30:50] >> I would like to know that too. They are

[30:52] » I would like to know that too. They are

[30:52] not transparency is not um

[30:55] >> so they're not [clears throat] giving up

[30:56] » so they're not [clears throat] giving up

[30:56] that information.

[30:58] >> No,

[31:00] » No,

[31:00] I know at the city level and I think

[31:02] Newport Mesa too, it's a separate plan

[31:05] from employees.

[31:08] Yeah. Um, so maybe our neighboring

[31:10] entities would give you more

[31:12] information. Um, but yeah, so I'm going

[31:15] to go through these and I'm going to

[31:16] make personal or I'm going to make

[31:18] recommendations to lead up to a motion

[31:21] of some sort because I think we do we

[31:23] should be clear. So I'm suggesting a

[31:27] separate plan, not not participating in

[31:29] the employee plan. And that makes a lot

[31:31] of sense to me, too, because we're going

[31:32] to have a much lower amount than the

[31:34] employees do. So, I don't want to make

[31:36] your job more of a nightmare by

[31:38] deviating from that. Okay, the next one.

[31:41] Kalpers rates and federal factors. So,

[31:44] um I acknowledge that the Kalpers's

[31:46] premiums can fluctuate annually based

[31:49] off of um a myriad of factors and I

[31:53] think it's consistent with how employee

[31:55] benefits are managed, but doesn't appear

[31:58] to present any unique concerns

[32:00] specific to the board participation. So,

[32:03] I think it was smart to put like a

[32:04] macroeconomic

[32:06] flag on our radar, but it's not really

[32:09] in our control what's going on on the

[32:11] federal level anyways. Um, and I know

[32:14] we're all cautiously watching our own

[32:17] premiums and all that. Um, okay. Premium

[32:20] timing and shortfalls. So, once again,

[32:23] it seems that clear administrative

[32:26] policy needs to be established in

[32:28] regards of timing of payments, grace

[32:30] periods, or repayment processes. if

[32:32] premiums are paid in advance and stipens

[32:35] are paid retroactively.

[32:37] Um, this however feels like a

[32:40] straightforward implementation detail

[32:42] that can be addressed in the final

[32:43] policy language. I really would um defer

[32:46] to you on a suggestion, but I don't

[32:48] think it's something we have a strong

[32:51] opinion on. Um, and I wouldn't want it

[32:54] to delay any approval of a benefit

[32:56] framework. But I I do think we need to

[32:57] make sure this is all in the language as

[33:00] to not cause any headaches once again

[33:03] for you guys. Um okay, contributions.

[33:07] Next one. Contributions outside of

[33:09] Kalpers and health accounts. So, uh my

[33:13] understanding is that the intent of this

[33:14] item is to provide contributions

[33:16] directly through Kalpers's

[33:18] administrative plans. That said, I do

[33:21] view the health reimbursement

[33:23] arrangements as a preferred option for

[33:25] some providing flexible and equitable

[33:28] support to board members. I would like

[33:31] to ask staff to continue looking into

[33:35] the steps that would be required toward

[33:37] implement implementing an HRA if an HSA

[33:41] seems to be too much of a conflict. Um,

[33:46] however, what I'm curious about is can

[33:48] it be phased alongside or can it follow

[33:52] the re can it come later and follow the

[33:54] reinstatement of the Kalpers plan? Like

[33:56] maybe bundling them together is too

[33:59] complicated because they would be

[34:00] treated differently. So in the meantime,

[34:03] I do believe reinstating the Kalpers's

[34:05] benefit remains uh an appropriate and

[34:08] practical first step.

[34:10] So that is my thoughts on that one. And

[34:14] then uh as far as the financial review,

[34:17] so like I already said, I appreciate

[34:19] that you guys have incorporated the

[34:20] ranges um that I had originally

[34:23] researched and recommended and I also

[34:26] appreciate the updated financial

[34:27] projections. Um

[34:31] I also really appreciate that you guys

[34:33] took the time to look into how we could

[34:36] ensure we have sufficient funds to cover

[34:39] um any partial year costs for 2526. and

[34:42] knowing 2627

[34:44] budget can accommodate participation.

[34:48] Um, and then like I said, consistent

[34:51] with our earlier discussion, I do

[34:53] support this contribution range. Um, I'm

[34:57] I want to hear what you guys think

[34:58] about, you know, the 680 versus the 850,

[35:01] but I've just kind of been uh engaging

[35:04] with this report still accepting the

[35:07] range. I can't say that I have a Yeah, I

[35:11] can't say that I have a strong opinion

[35:13] towards either or. Um, but in

[35:15] conclusion, so in conclusion, I believe

[35:19] the information before us strongly

[35:21] supports moving forward with the

[35:23] Kalpers's benefits for our board

[35:25] members. I believe this action is

[35:27] consistent with local and regional norms

[35:30] as every major local government body in

[35:32] Costa Mesa provides health benefits to

[35:35] his elected to its elected officials and

[35:37] 11 out of 13 comparable special

[35:39] districts in Orange County currently

[35:41] offer healthcare benefits. I believe

[35:44] it's clearly within the district's legal

[35:45] authority. I believe we have been

[35:47] fiscally responsible in the range we are

[35:50] requesting particularly especially when

[35:52] modeled using any realistic

[35:54] participation assumptions

[35:57] and I also believe that it is

[35:58] appropriate and deserved recognizing the

[36:00] time responsibility and service required

[36:02] of board members in carrying out

[36:04] district governance. Reinstating these

[36:06] benefits does not represent an outlier

[36:08] decision. It brings the district in line

[36:11] with standard public sector practice and

[36:14] demonstrates a reasonable investment

[36:15] into effective governance. I'm

[36:18] comfortable with staff continuing to

[36:19] finalize administrative policies, legal

[36:21] review, and I support directing staff to

[36:24] proceed toward implementation consistent

[36:26] with the range that we have previously

[36:28] discussed.

[36:29] So that is my report for you guys. Thank

[36:32] you. Um Diana,

[36:36] uh couple things

[36:38] and then Nicole, I'll I'm going to turn

[36:40] it over to you in just a second. Um

[36:44] when you when you did the financial

[36:46] review in the table and the projected

[36:50] differences from year to year, are those

[36:53] based on what we

[36:56] think we know premiums are going to do?

[36:58] or not we, but whoever's giving you the

[37:00] premiums, are those projections based on

[37:03] what they're saying or where where do

[37:05] those increases come from?

[37:07] >> I I'll let Caitlyn answer, but I believe

[37:09] » I I'll let Caitlyn answer, but I believe

[37:09] the report says um she assumed it's it's

[37:12] been about a 2.54

[37:15] increase. Is that Caitlyn what what you

[37:18] based it on?

[37:19] >> Yes. Um we uh look back a few years and

[37:24] » Yes. Um we uh look back a few years and

[37:24] um it was two it's 2.54

[37:29] um increase each year.

[37:32] Um so I just base on that increase

[37:36] starting with um the amount that you set

[37:40] 680 and 850.

[37:46] Uh, and we're not taking into account

[37:48] what's going on on the federal level

[37:50] with premiums and all of that stuff. So,

[37:54] we're just using a historical

[37:57] >> that Yes.

[37:59] » that Yes.

[37:59] >> so to speak.

[37:59] » so to speak.

[37:59] >> Yes. The previous factors that that

[38:01] » Yes. The previous factors that that

[38:01] Kalpers has used. Yes.

[38:03] >> What Kaitlin? What was 2.54?

[38:08] » Yes. 2.54%.

[38:10] >> Okay. back

[38:12] » Okay. back

[38:12] >> that's I'm sorry that's the increase of

[38:14] » that's I'm sorry that's the increase of

[38:14] the pmpka amount each year the minimum

[38:17] pmpka amount

[38:20] >> great um back to this transparency thing

[38:23] » great um back to this transparency thing

[38:23] and why the other districts if if we're

[38:25] going to have Kalpers administer it

[38:27] can't Kalpers tell you what

[38:30] >> I can't we get that opinion or that

[38:32] » I can't we get that opinion or that

[38:32] direction from Kalpers won't they say to

[38:34] us yeah we can create a separate plan

[38:37] for the board

[38:41] >> a a separate health plan

[38:43] » a a separate health plan

[38:43] >> separate policy I'm sorry

[38:44] » separate policy I'm sorry

[38:44] >> so what we would have to do first step

[38:46] » so what we would have to do first step

[38:46] is a resolution stating that um we

[38:49] elected officials will be receiving

[38:52] health care that's the first step and

[38:55] then calpers would administer the plan

[38:58] >> they're not going to do anything until

[39:00] » they're not going to do anything until

[39:00] we make a decision on whether we're

[39:01] going to do it or not

[39:02] >> right

[39:04] » right

[39:04] >> helpers um

[39:06] » helpers um

[39:06] okay

[39:07] >> wait I'm So, so what what did you want

[39:09] » wait I'm So, so what what did you want

[39:09] to know from Kalpers?

[39:10] >> When I asked, you know, what the whether

[39:13] » When I asked, you know, what the whether

[39:13] the other districts in the county had

[39:16] done a separate plan for the for the

[39:19] boards, you said that the other

[39:21] districts aren't giving up that

[39:22] information.

[39:23] >> Well, it's not been um I I would have to

[39:26] » Well, it's not been um I I would have to

[39:26] reach out and see what I can find out,

[39:28] but I don't know. I don't know if they

[39:30] give the board an extra stipend. I don't

[39:32] know how I don't know that it's it's

[39:34] necessarily Kalpers's plans that they're

[39:36] paying into. I don't know how they're

[39:38] going about it and

[39:42] Oh, that's all I'm going to say.

[39:43] >> Yeah. And they're not giving it up that

[39:45] » Yeah. And they're not giving it up that

[39:45] >> Well, let me

[39:46] » Well, let me

[39:46] >> and we don't and I and I want to do my

[39:49] » and we don't and I and I want to do my

[39:49] due diligence and do everything we do be

[39:51] the up and up. I'm not going to rely on

[39:53] what other agencies are doing.

[39:56] >> No, that [clears throat] that's

[39:57] » No, that [clears throat] that's

[39:57] terrific.

[39:58] If that if it's a reimbursement policy

[40:01] by any of those districts, it probably

[40:04] would be explained in their in their

[40:06] policy

[40:08] manuals.

[40:09] >> Well, but for employees, yes, but um for

[40:12] » Well, but for employees, yes, but um for

[40:12] elected officials, um I guess it would

[40:15] be something in operations code. Maybe

[40:16] Allan can steer me in the right

[40:18] direction with that.

[40:20] >> Well, the only thing I was going to say

[40:21] » Well, the only thing I was going to say

[40:21] is restate the obvious. It's a public

[40:23] record. Do a public records request.

[40:25] They have to comply within 10 days.

[40:27] That's

[40:27] >> as we're as we're painfully aware.

[40:29] » as we're as we're painfully aware.

[40:29] >> Thanks for reading my mind. [laughter]

[40:32] » Thanks for reading my mind. [laughter]

[40:32] >> Uh Nicole, anything just any comments?

[40:38] » Um yeah, I mean I I'm all for making all

[40:41] of this totally transparent and fair and

[40:44] in alignment with what all of the other

[40:46] agencies are doing. I don't I don't

[40:49] think that we necessarily need anything

[40:51] above and beyond. Um, it's just I just

[40:53] think that it's really important that we

[40:55] keep this role attractive

[40:57] to talent. I think it's important that

[40:59] we're attracting, you know, people who

[41:02] really want to serve. And if we don't

[41:05] make this role attractive for

[41:09] working people, if we only make it

[41:11] attractive for people who don't need any

[41:14] sort of um compensation, then it makes

[41:17] me worry about who who ultimately is

[41:20] going to be representing us. So to

[41:22] reiterate, if we don't make this

[41:25] attractive for working people, then

[41:27] we're not going to have working people

[41:29] represent us. So

[41:31] >> thank you. Um there's no other comments

[41:34] » thank you. Um there's no other comments

[41:34] from the Go ahead. Um I I think to go

[41:37] along with what Nicole, Director

[41:39] Wilshshire said is um we have we have we

[41:44] have a a benefit program u that we

[41:51] talked to pro p prospective employees

[41:55] concerning

[41:56] and we are

[41:59] and have discussed as a board um keeping

[42:04] those the employee benefits

[42:07] um in line with you know with with um

[42:11] other agencies so that we're

[42:12] competitive. So each time we we've hired

[42:16] an employee,

[42:18] um I think staff is made note of uh we

[42:23] need to have benefits in line with other

[42:27] agencies

[42:29] uh so that we can attract good staff and

[42:32] we have good staff. But um I I think

[42:37] staff

[42:38] has said on numerous occasions that we

[42:41] need we need to be competitive

[42:44] so that we get so that we can acquire

[42:47] good employees and that is parallel to

[42:50] what I think uh director Wright has said

[42:55] um concerning directors

[42:58] potential benefits.

[43:01] Um, I'm all for staying competitive

[43:05] uh w with with

[43:09] employee benefits and especially when

[43:12] we're trying to hire uh new employees. I

[43:16] I think that is something that an

[43:18] employee will look at. Um, and I think

[43:22] director Wilshshire has sort of said or

[43:25] maybe directly said exactly the same

[43:28] thing for directors.

[43:31] >> Um, before I open up for public

[43:33] » Um, before I open up for public

[43:33] comments, essentially what you're asking

[43:36] or what you're recommending to us maybe

[43:38] is that we get this legal advice from

[43:40] our before we do anything. Is that

[43:44] >> Yes. Yes. I just would like some

[43:46] » Yes. Yes. I just would like some

[43:46] direction. I think staff would and and

[43:48] if and if you're saying no to don't

[43:50] don't don't go any further in this area,

[43:52] let us know and we'll spend our time on

[43:54] the other areas or do you want us to

[43:56] continue with all of it?

[43:58] >> Um you mentioned earlier about due

[44:01] » Um you mentioned earlier about due

[44:01] diligence. You've done a lot of due

[44:03] diligence and I know the five of us

[44:06] appreciate that. So

[44:07] >> Mr. Mr. President, I think it would also

[44:08] » Mr. Mr. President, I think it would also

[44:08] be helpful to us if the board can give

[44:10] us directions. Do you prefer $680 a

[44:12] month or 8850 per month? That that would

[44:14] also help us as well. What direction you

[44:16] want to go?

[44:16] >> Marine I Okay. Yeah,

[44:18] » Marine I Okay. Yeah,

[44:18] >> I think we should go through each item

[44:21] » I think we should go through each item

[44:21] and just

[44:22] >> uh but we can do that after comment. I

[44:24] » uh but we can do that after comment. I

[44:24] have one more comment.

[44:25] >> Yeah. Um, so I was, like I said, I was

[44:28] » Yeah. Um, so I was, like I said, I was

[44:28] doing research to also prepare for the

[44:31] PDM item and

[44:34] um, it saddens me that this item has

[44:38] become, I think, quite hostile and

[44:42] assumed a malicious intent because

[44:46] uh, I I'm really passionate about fiscal

[44:49] responsibility and it's something that I

[44:51] ran on when I ran for the Mesa Water

[44:54] District Board. And as I was reading

[44:58] their current policy,

[45:00] um, under benefits other and benefits

[45:04] flex credit for a fivep person board on

[45:07] top of a almost $50,000

[45:11] salary, they're getting $50,000

[45:15] in benefits.

[45:17] That includes a 401k plan. It includes

[45:23] travel stipens, conferences.

[45:27] I'm I was very attracted to the board

[45:30] members that sit up here beside me

[45:32] because they showed so much humility and

[45:35] restraint and commitment to the values

[45:38] of good governance. Um, and

[45:44] I just want you guys to know that if

[45:46] there is a passion for fiscal

[45:48] responsibility, I'll gladly join you all

[45:50] at a Mesa water board meeting down the

[45:52] road.

[45:54] Um,

[45:56] so yeah, I have more I I also researched

[45:59] a lot about their PDM and stuff and so

[46:00] I'll share more about it later, but um,

[46:03] you know, they're right down the street.

[46:04] So

[46:06] yeah, thanks for my final

[46:07] >> thank you

[46:08] » thank you

[46:08] >> little quip there. So turning it over to

[46:11] » little quip there. So turning it over to

[46:11] public comments. Rosemary, I think you

[46:13] indicated. Okay.

[46:17] >> Thank you, President Schiffer. I just

[46:19] » Thank you, President Schiffer. I just

[46:20] wanted to say that I uh do not support

[46:22] this proposal. Um because uh Director

[46:26] Wright mentioned that Mesa is not

[46:28] fiscally responsible doesn't mean that

[46:30] this proposal is fiscally responsible

[46:33] either. Um I do um it made me think the

[46:38] discussion of what an employee is. An

[46:40] employee is somebody who

[46:43] oftentimes is trained in the um industry

[46:47] that they plan to work in. They compete

[46:50] for a position against other applicants

[46:53] and they work normally a benefited

[46:56] 40hour job uh to receive benefits such

[47:00] as medical, dental, retirement, things

[47:03] of that nature. Um, so I don't uh I

[47:07] definitely do see the distinction

[47:09] between an elected board member um who

[47:12] is from what I can tell very committed

[47:14] to the community longstanding members of

[47:17] the community. Also the distinction has

[47:20] been to learn on the job uh about um

[47:25] governing and assisting staff with some

[47:28] of these decisions. Um I don't agree

[47:31] that uh because every other agency

[47:35] receives benefits

[47:37] um requires that this uh board of

[47:40] directors receive benefits. It is a very

[47:43] small district. The scope of work is

[47:45] extremely limited. This is not OCAN nor

[47:49] is it LAN.

[47:52] Um, I am a big fan of uh fiscal

[47:55] responsibility

[47:57] uh and of course attracting uh top

[48:00] talent, but I also believe that uh

[48:04] within the community we have a multitude

[48:08] of community members who would

[48:10] definitely love to sit in your chair um

[48:13] also without benefits particularly if

[48:16] they're only having to commit to a few

[48:18] additional meetings a month. Thank you.

[48:38] A minute, folks, while I get these set.

[48:42] Um,

[48:45] Celeste, you want to speak on this?

[48:48] Great.

[48:51] Thank you. Um, and thank you, President

[48:54] Schaefer, for asking what the prior

[48:57] benefits were that were available to the

[48:59] board because I thought it was odd that

[49:01] that hadn't been included. It says that

[49:03] you're entertaining reinstating

[49:05] benefits, but it never said what you did

[49:07] prior. And so, thank you for clarifying

[49:10] that. Um, I also agree with Director

[49:13] Wright when she says it would have been

[49:15] helpful to include stuff that was

[49:18] presented at the meeting previously

[49:21] um as it relates to what other districts

[49:24] get and also the executive summary um

[49:28] and analysis that director Wright wrote

[49:30] because it's all part of the

[49:31] conversation that you guys already had

[49:33] and I don't know what the policy is on

[49:34] that but it I think it would be helpful

[49:36] for more people to understand. Um, I

[49:39] agree 100% with what Rosemary said. Um,

[49:43] I think that it's irresponsible for you

[49:46] guys to compare yourselves to the other

[49:48] districts because you are so different.

[49:51] Um, the city of Costa Mesa is

[49:54] serving

[49:56] the commercial needs and most

[49:58] multifamily homes um of solid waste. And

[50:03] I, you know, how how if you decide to

[50:06] move forward with this, which I hope you

[50:08] won't, like how would this be buil or is

[50:11] it going to be build by customer on the

[50:13] wastewater side? Is it going to be build

[50:15] by customer on the solid waste side?

[50:17] Because if you bill the solid waste

[50:18] customers for your benefits, because the

[50:20] money has to come somewhere, they're

[50:22] essentially paying for benefits for

[50:24] solid waste service they're not even

[50:26] getting because it's being provided by

[50:28] the city. Um, I think that advanced

[50:33] payments on medical is something that

[50:35] never happens in the private sector.

[50:37] People have to pay on the front end for

[50:40] the policy to cover them for that month.

[50:42] And you will run into trouble if um you

[50:47] are paying for somebody's medical and

[50:50] then deducting the expense. I think

[50:54] that's kind of a sloppy way to go. Um, I

[50:56] wouldn't advise that. I also think you

[50:59] should take into consideration that

[51:01] solid waste rates are continuing to go

[51:04] up. Um, they hadn't been raised in a

[51:07] very long time and in and they needed to

[51:10] increase. In 2017, solid waste rates

[51:13] were $216 per single family home. And

[51:17] for 2526, it's $35,852

[51:21] for a single family home, which is an

[51:23] increase of $142.52.

[51:26] the increase on the Orange County

[51:28] landfill rates that is I think it's the

[51:31] paper said it's going to hit January of

[51:33] 2026 which is going to increase by 80%

[51:36] roughly has not been factored into what

[51:40] the district is going to have to pay and

[51:42] what the district in turn is going to

[51:43] have to pass along to the rate payer. I

[51:46] think the fact that you um I think you

[51:49] guys get paid fairly $295 is fair for

[51:53] preparing for a day of work. I know it

[51:55] some items take a really long time. Um

[51:59] but this is public service. This is not

[52:03] selfservice. We have a problem in this

[52:06] country with elected officials getting

[52:08] rich because of all the benefits and all

[52:12] the compensation that they get. Clearly

[52:14] that's not what's happening here. And

[52:16] I'm not applying that. But I I don't

[52:19] think you should give yourself benefits

[52:22] um because it's what everyone else is

[52:24] getting when your agency does not really

[52:28] sync up in terms of the amount of people

[52:31] you serve and how it's split like it is

[52:35] with all the other agencies that are

[52:38] listed.

[52:38] >> You have one minute, Miss Lester. Um,

[52:42] » You have one minute, Miss Lester. Um,

[52:42] I uh don't think that you guys should

[52:46] vote to do anything other than continue

[52:49] it if that's the direction you want to

[52:50] go considering that there's been no

[52:53] legal review. Um, I think that would be

[52:57] irresponsible and I I I

[53:01] would like to think that um

[53:06] I don't know. For me personally, I

[53:09] admire public servants who get paid a

[53:12] fair wage and do it because they care

[53:15] and not because they're being offered a

[53:17] bunch of benefits, not because of what

[53:20] they're going to gain. Um, and I think

[53:24] there's too much of that. And I think

[53:26] that we should look out for people

[53:29] regardless of whether we should treat

[53:30] everybody the same, whether we like them

[53:32] or not. And that's not what's happening

[53:35] in this country. And I I really hope

[53:38] that you guys look at the bigger picture

[53:41] here. Um, I I just think that this is a

[53:44] bad time and an unnecessary expense for

[53:47] a elected position that takes a very

[53:50] small amount of time in comparison.

[53:52] Thank you.

[53:56] » Other public comments.

[53:58] Did you fill out a card?

[54:00] >> I did not.

[54:01] » I did not.

[54:01] >> Did you fill out a card?

[54:02] » Did you fill out a card?

[54:02] >> It says I did not have to.

[54:05] » It says I did not have to.

[54:05] >> Take the take the dice.

[54:15] the public comment card, but um just as

[54:18] some information points here. In short,

[54:21] I I think this is a worthy topic to

[54:24] discuss and debate, but not um

[54:30] decide tonight or even anytime soon

[54:32] because it does have some long-standing

[54:34] issues, right? Um, I've been texting

[54:36] with some fellow citizens and this

[54:42] this topic the 680 850 no one knows what

[54:47] the next year let alone the next decade

[54:48] will have it. I could see that passing

[54:51] that number for the health benefits

[54:53] passing the compensation for the

[54:54] directors in short order in less than 10

[54:57] years and and no one can say otherwise

[54:59] right for a number of reasons with our

[55:01] health care system. So you should

[55:03] consider that. But I am torn. I see both

[55:06] sides. Uh I would first and director

[55:09] writes very good comments into the

[55:10] comparables, right? Other special

[55:12] districts, other Costa Misa Costa Mesa

[55:15] officials get health benefits. But I ask

[55:18] to to her and to staff, what is the the

[55:22] per capita ratio for those other

[55:25] officials? meaning our fairly small

[55:28] district is it similar to Irvine

[55:31] Ranchwater district right something like

[55:33] that um what is the uh

[55:38] person being served ratio you know that

[55:41] that's that's important right uh again a

[55:44] big city like San or something like that

[55:46] you could you could see a bigger draw of

[55:49] resources revenues what have you let me

[55:51] just give this um the president gave a

[55:54] very asked a very good question what is

[55:55] an employee

[55:57] And I'm not an AI person, but AI I think

[55:59] of AI gave a pretty good response here.

[56:02] Uh blah blah blah. They hold have a

[56:04] unique status occupying. Okay. While

[56:07] they receive salaries and benefits, they

[56:08] are often excluded from labor laws. This

[56:11] this is elected officials

[56:14] do not have unemployment contracts and

[56:17] cannot be fired in the traditional

[56:18] sense.

[56:20] So you're unique. your public officers

[56:24] and but at the same time what director

[56:29] » Thank you. I was writing this up before

[56:31] she said it. The bottom line is if you

[56:33] compensate people better and enable the

[56:37] lower income folk to consider that

[56:40] position that's going to attract in my

[56:42] view more possible talent and and lower

[56:45] income. This is a small district. This

[56:47] is not a big national congress or

[56:50] something like that. But the bottom

[56:51] line, who has was just ranked last week,

[56:54] right? Some of the best places to work

[56:56] In-N-Out Burger. What do they do? They

[56:58] traditionally play pay 20% more to their

[57:01] starting employees and they work their

[57:03] asses off,

[57:04] >> but they get a little bit more dough to

[57:05] » but they get a little bit more dough to

[57:05] attract a little bit better talent. So I

[57:08] I'm torn, but but the bottom line is if

[57:10] you compensate the board, this board and

[57:12] future boards better, it's going to

[57:14] enable I think director Wright said some

[57:17] lower income folk to possibly consider

[57:20] serving and they're not going to get

[57:22] rich, at least on at this district,

[57:25] right? We know that. So I think that's

[57:27] my my speak for now. Thank you,

[57:30] >> Cindy. This shows that you wanted to

[57:33] » Cindy. This shows that you wanted to

[57:33] speak on H1 and H2, but you're more than

[57:35] welcome to speak on this item.

[57:50] » Good evening, director. Um, I'll make it

[57:53] brief. I am speaking tonight as a 54

[57:56] year resident and rate payer in the city

[57:59] of Costa Mesa. U my husband and I have

[58:01] had property ever since we've been

[58:03] together. So that's 1972 and his family

[58:06] moved here in ' 63 and they had

[58:08] property. So we've been rateayers and

[58:10] property owners in this city for a long

[58:11] time and I appreciate everything that

[58:13] you and the staff do. You do a

[58:16] phenomenal job and I would just I would

[58:18] like I'm not in favor of this at all. I

[58:21] don't think you guys need to get this

[58:22] compensation going right now. This is

[58:24] not the time to do it. Everything is

[58:26] going up astronomically. I agree with

[58:30] everything that Sue Lester said. I agree

[58:32] with everything that Rosemary said. Um,

[58:34] and I think that this is a very unique

[58:39] district and

[58:41] I don't know that we need to make it any

[58:43] more attractive. We have three sitting

[58:46] board members right now that have been

[58:47] on this board for a long time and were

[58:50] working when they first started on the

[58:52] board and still serving on the board and

[58:55] doing a phenomenal job as was um Arlene

[58:58] Schaefer when before she retired. She

[59:00] was working several jobs. So I I don't

[59:04] understand why we need to all of a

[59:06] sudden make it more attractive. I think

[59:08] it's a very attractive position myself

[59:10] and I think that you are very fairly

[59:13] compensated already. Um I think that uh

[59:17] this just isn't something that we need

[59:19] right now. And uh it was mentioned that

[59:22] the whole compensation and the the

[59:25] um meeting money was be becoming

[59:28] adversarial and it's because what's

[59:31] being asked for is unreasonable and I'm

[59:35] totally against it.

[59:39] Okay. Um,

[59:42] then I'll conclude public comments. I

[59:44] think it's pretty clear we want you to

[59:46] take that next step.

[59:50] » So, continue to look into each of the

[59:51] items.

[59:52] >> Well, the items that that we've brought

[59:54] » Well, the items that that we've brought

[59:54] up. Yeah. And you said with with

[59:59] our

[59:59] >> Can we go specific by item?

[1:00:01] » Can we go specific by item?

[1:00:01] >> Yeah.

[1:00:01] » Yeah.

[1:00:01] >> I want to make sure we're all on the

[1:00:03] » I want to make sure we're all on the

[1:00:03] same page.

[1:00:04] So cafeteria plan, I would say it the

[1:00:08] assignment would be is it easier,

[1:00:12] better, more compliant for us to be a

[1:00:14] separate

[1:00:15] cohort of our own board plan or is there

[1:00:19] a world where we do

[1:00:22] where we are defined as an employee?

[1:00:24] That seem to be the two

[1:00:25] >> talked about through Cal.

[1:00:26] » talked about through Cal.

[1:00:26] >> Yeah. So that's the section 125

[1:00:29] » Yeah. So that's the section 125

[1:00:29] cafeteria plan. Then it doesn't seem

[1:00:31] like there's anything applicable with

[1:00:33] Kalper's rate and federal factors. It's

[1:00:35] just she's informing us premium timing

[1:00:38] and shortfalls. I think we would need to

[1:00:40] receive a final draft policy on how you

[1:00:45] guys would suggest the timing of

[1:00:47] payments with our stipens and the

[1:00:50] premiums would be maybe pending legal

[1:00:53] review as well. And then uh a question

[1:00:56] of shortfall or surplus. We had talked

[1:01:00] about that in the past as well. Can it

[1:01:02] get pulled from our pay?

[1:01:04] Um, and we should probably put a

[1:01:06] protection in there too that says a pay

[1:01:09] up to x amount of months to make sure

[1:01:11] that there's never a deficit on the

[1:01:14] district side. Um,

[1:01:18] thoughts on Kalpers and HSA's HAS. I was

[1:01:23] leaning towards can you look into the HR

[1:01:25] since that seemed to be more simple. So,

[1:01:27] let's we'll send you in the HR direction

[1:01:30] and then I'm open to receiving a policy

[1:01:34] just related to Kalper's benefits and

[1:01:37] then just a policy related to HR. And

[1:01:39] maybe they're separate or they're in

[1:01:41] tandem, but I don't know if I want to

[1:01:43] bundle the two together and make it more

[1:01:45] complicated.

[1:01:46] >> I would rather see.

[1:01:47] » I would rather see.

[1:01:47] >> Cool. Okay. So, there's another answer.

[1:01:50] » Cool. Okay. So, there's another answer.

[1:01:50] And then 680 to 850. Do you guys want to

[1:01:54] pick the middle or do you want to go?

[1:01:57] What do you guys think?

[1:01:59] >> Whatever number we give you can be

[1:02:00] » Whatever number we give you can be

[1:02:00] adjusted if we make a decision anyway.

[1:02:03] So, use the 680.

[1:02:07] » Okay. So, so finance will calculate just

[1:02:11] at the 680.

[1:02:13] Is that what

[1:02:14] >> I mean? It's there's nothing says we

[1:02:16] » I mean? It's there's nothing says we

[1:02:16] can't adjust or look at

[1:02:18] >> Well, it's it's better if you tell us

[1:02:19] » Well, it's it's better if you tell us

[1:02:19] now because you adjust and then we can

[1:02:20] go back and do some more work. So, if

[1:02:22] you could tell us what number it is, we

[1:02:23] can come back to you and that's the

[1:02:25] number we would stick to.

[1:02:26] >> Cuz if we if we go with 680 and then you

[1:02:28] » Cuz if we if we go with 680 and then you

[1:02:28] raise it, then that information we're

[1:02:30] giving you is incorrect.

[1:02:32] >> Can I be honest? I kind of like going

[1:02:33] » Can I be honest? I kind of like going

[1:02:33] with the highest because then we know

[1:02:35] that's the greatest financial impact

[1:02:37] possible.

[1:02:38] >> Good. Excellent point.

[1:02:39] » Good. Excellent point.

[1:02:39] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[1:02:42] » Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[1:02:42] >> 850 and there will not be any higher.

[1:02:44] » 850 and there will not be any higher.

[1:02:44] There might be less. And then

[1:02:49] we are good about then you've already

[1:02:50] done budget considerations

[1:02:53] and

[1:02:55] I'm trying to think if there's anything

[1:02:57] else in the policy

[1:02:59] that we would want to make sure we have.

[1:03:01] I think that I think that dots all our

[1:03:04] eyes for the policy.

[1:03:05] >> One more eye I want dotted. If you're

[1:03:08] » One more eye I want dotted. If you're

[1:03:08] going to be talking to Kalpers and

[1:03:10] talking to the legal folks, regardless

[1:03:13] of what has been said already, I want to

[1:03:17] see a full definition of employee versus

[1:03:21] note employee.

[1:03:22] >> And are you wanting the Kalpers

[1:03:23] » And are you wanting the Kalpers

[1:03:24] definition or the because Kalpers?

[1:03:27] >> We're we're streaming towards Kalpers

[1:03:29] » We're we're streaming towards Kalpers

[1:03:29] anyway.

[1:03:30] >> Okay.

[1:03:30] » Okay.

[1:03:30] >> So, get the Kalpers. I I

[1:03:33] » So, get the Kalpers. I I

[1:03:33] >> it's one thing to to hear comment about

[1:03:36] » it's one thing to to hear comment about

[1:03:36] it. I want to see what the governing

[1:03:38] body has to say about.

[1:03:42] >> So, can I make this like a summary

[1:03:43] » So, can I make this like a summary

[1:03:43] motion? Do we need to do that?

[1:03:46] >> We don't really need we've given her

[1:03:48] » We don't really need we've given her

[1:03:48] direction.

[1:03:48] >> Great.

[1:03:49] » Great.

[1:03:49] >> That's really all we need to do.

[1:03:52] » That's really all we need to do.

[1:03:52] >> Mr. President, are we uh tableabling the

[1:03:54] » Mr. President, are we uh tableabling the

[1:03:54] item or continuing it to a day?

[1:03:56] >> Well, continuing it to as soon as you

[1:03:58] » Well, continuing it to as soon as you

[1:03:58] can.

[1:04:00] >> We're not tableabling.

[1:04:03] » We're not tableabling.

[1:04:03] >> Tabling it for tonight. We're

[1:04:05] » Tabling it for tonight. We're

[1:04:05] tableabling it for tonight, but not for

[1:04:06] the future.

[1:04:08] >> As soon as you'll come back when they

[1:04:09] » As soon as you'll come back when they

[1:04:09] have the information.

[1:04:10] >> Yeah. And and that can be at a study

[1:04:12] » Yeah. And and that can be at a study

[1:04:12] session or at a regular board meeting.

[1:04:16] >> I think it's clear we'd need all that

[1:04:17] » I think it's clear we'd need all that

[1:04:17] information to prove it. Anyways, so

[1:04:21] thank you.

[1:04:22] >> Okay. Um

[1:04:25] » Okay. Um

[1:04:25] we'll move now, Scott, to item two.

[1:04:29] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh this is

[1:04:31] » Thank you, Mr. President. Uh this is

[1:04:31] your midyear report on the fiscal year

[1:04:35] 202530 strategic plan. Uh in your staff

[1:04:38] report are the highlights that staff has

[1:04:41] achieved in the first six months of this

[1:04:42] plan. Uh I can go in more details on

[1:04:45] that if you want me to. But I

[1:04:46] [clears throat] also want to mention

[1:04:48] that moving forward uh we are going to

[1:04:50] be presenting this report to the board

[1:04:52] twice a year for instead of four times a

[1:04:54] year. We were presenting on a quarterly

[1:04:55] basis uh but now staff is recommending

[1:04:58] presenting it there midyear and an

[1:05:00] annually uh to allow for more meaningful

[1:05:02] and comprehensive updates on progress

[1:05:04] and outcome and also it does free up

[1:05:06] some of staff time uh rather than doing

[1:05:08] it quarterly versus midyear and

[1:05:10] annually. So happy to answer questions

[1:05:12] you may have.

[1:05:14] the one that brought this up and I

[1:05:17] appreciate the u you know this the staff

[1:05:21] in this in this type of report but my

[1:05:25] request was in the strategic plan

[1:05:28] there's 2025 recommendations there's

[1:05:30] 2026

[1:05:32] and so on for five years and that's all

[1:05:35] I really wanted to staff to report on

[1:05:39] there's there's I think four maybe six

[1:05:43] 2020 25

[1:05:45] uh strategic plan goals.

[1:05:49] Um and so that that's all I really

[1:05:52] wanted in this report uh was

[1:05:57] how staff is progressing if or not with

[1:06:02] the the timelines that are set in the

[1:06:04] strategic plan. So, I I appreciate the

[1:06:08] huge amount of effort in in the report,

[1:06:12] but that that is not what I was looking

[1:06:14] for

[1:06:16] and and I'm I'm open to whether it's

[1:06:18] done annually, quarterly, or whatnot.

[1:06:22] But I think with with with if it's down

[1:06:25] to four items or six items, he just

[1:06:28] either said, you know, we met the 2025

[1:06:32] goal or we didn't, you know, and and

[1:06:35] just a few sentences about we met it or

[1:06:38] we didn't meet it or that that's all I

[1:06:41] really wanted.

[1:06:44] Well, thank you for the work you put

[1:06:45] into it. It was it was illuminating, but

[1:06:49] I agree it was a lot of work. Other

[1:06:54] comments?

[1:06:55] Nicole, anything to comment on this? I'm

[1:06:58] seeing a headshake. No. So, okay. All

[1:07:00] right. Then we'll move to item three,

[1:07:04] uh, performance goals.

[1:07:06] >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I

[1:07:08] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I

[1:07:08] don't know of any other general managers

[1:07:10] or city managers that present their

[1:07:12] performance goals in an open setting

[1:07:14] like this. Uh, but I've been doing this

[1:07:16] since I've been here. Uh, just to

[1:07:18] advocate my uh, beliefs and

[1:07:19] transparency. Uh the one I do want to

[1:07:21] mention though unfortunately in the

[1:07:22] staff report um I did we did attach my

[1:07:25] 2025 goals but in the staff report it

[1:07:28] didn't identify the progress made and I

[1:07:30] apologize for that and that's why I

[1:07:32] printed up copies for you and I also

[1:07:34] made copies of this um for the public to

[1:07:36] to read and I'm happy to go down each

[1:07:39] one of these goals that I achieved for

[1:07:40] you. Um, we will update this in in the

[1:07:43] staff report. And then also in the staff

[1:07:46] report is the um 2026 performance goals

[1:07:49] uh for next year that I'm proposing. I

[1:07:50] did meet with President Schaefer on

[1:07:52] these goals and and he uh uh liked them.

[1:07:54] He approved them or at least considered

[1:07:56] moving forward and bringing it to the

[1:07:57] boards for consideration. Um as per

[1:08:00] board directions, all the goals are um

[1:08:03] identified uh with a strategic plan and

[1:08:06] it also has a deadline uh for me to to

[1:08:08] to uh try to achieve. So, um, happy to

[1:08:11] answer any questions you may have. Yes.

[1:08:13] >> Questions for the general manager? Go

[1:08:15] » Questions for the general manager? Go

[1:08:15] ahead.

[1:08:15] >> Yeah. No. Um, in this month's, uh,

[1:08:19] » Yeah. No. Um, in this month's, uh,

[1:08:19] Orange County Sand District

[1:08:22] meeting, which will occur this

[1:08:23] Wednesday,

[1:08:26] um, there is there is an example of what

[1:08:29] the general manager's

[1:08:31] 20 256 work plan and midyear report is,

[1:08:36] just FYI. and their their strategic plan

[1:08:41] is like six items

[1:08:44] and those are the six items that become

[1:08:47] the general manager's work plan.

[1:08:50] We have a 56 item

[1:08:55] elements and

[1:08:59] major difference. But

[1:09:02] so you can you can review what what Rob

[1:09:04] Thompson's

[1:09:07] work plan looks like and then and since

[1:09:10] I'm a representative

[1:09:13] appointed to the Orange County Sand

[1:09:14] District.

[1:09:17] >> We'll do. Thank you.

[1:09:19] » We'll do. Thank you.

[1:09:19] Nice pictures, by the way. Thank you for

[1:09:22] I'm sure you're the only general manager

[1:09:26] in the county that goes out and cleans

[1:09:28] up the bay in Fairview Park. So, thank

[1:09:30] you for doing that. Um, okay. The

[1:09:34] >> Can I ask questions about the process?

[1:09:35] » Can I ask questions about the process?

[1:09:35] So, I've received this. Do I fill it out

[1:09:40] now and submit it to you?

[1:09:42] >> Just going to get

[1:09:42] » Just going to get

[1:09:42] >> Oh, okay. Thank you.

[1:09:44] » Oh, okay. Thank you.

[1:09:44] Um, at this point we need to uh have the

[1:09:47] board authorize myself to meet with

[1:09:50] Scott to go over this checklist. Before

[1:09:53] I meet with Scott, I'd appreciate all of

[1:09:55] you completing this and getting it back.

[1:09:58] Okay. Uh, Scott, we can talk later after

[1:10:03] Wednesday. Uh, talk about setting up a

[1:10:05] time for you and I to sit down and go

[1:10:07] over the goals.

[1:10:08] >> When do you need these back? Uh if I

[1:10:10] » When do you need these back? Uh if I

[1:10:10] could have them no later than the middle

[1:10:13] of next week.

[1:10:14] >> You're talking about the gentleman

[1:10:17] » You're talking about the gentleman

[1:10:17] >> evaluation. This the valuation

[1:10:20] » evaluation. This the valuation

[1:10:20] >> this item that I Yeah, I gave it to you

[1:10:22] » this item that I Yeah, I gave it to you

[1:10:22] earlier this evening.

[1:10:23] >> Mr. Mr. President,

[1:10:25] » Mr. Mr. President,

[1:10:25] >> sorry. Sorry, but um you know if they

[1:10:27] » sorry. Sorry, but um you know if they

[1:10:27] were to give you the all of their

[1:10:28] information and you were to have it and

[1:10:30] then meet with Scott,

[1:10:32] >> that would be a problem with the Brown

[1:10:33] » that would be a problem with the Brown

[1:10:33] Act. I think we have to have a

[1:10:35] >> close session for that. Yeah, we have to

[1:10:37] » close session for that. Yeah, we have to

[1:10:37] close session when we Okay.

[1:10:39] >> on the application.

[1:10:40] » on the application.

[1:10:40] >> No, I'm just trying to get this filled

[1:10:42] » No, I'm just trying to get this filled

[1:10:42] out so that I can take it with me to

[1:10:44] Scott.

[1:10:45] >> Yeah, I I haven't seen what you have in

[1:10:46] » Yeah, I I haven't seen what you have in

[1:10:46] front of you, but I thought you were

[1:10:47] asking for their recommendations on

[1:10:50] thoughts. Okay.

[1:10:51] >> No, no, no.

[1:10:52] » No, no, no.

[1:10:52] >> I misunderstood that, too. I was like,

[1:10:53] » I misunderstood that, too. I was like,

[1:10:54] "All right, I'll give it to you."

[1:10:56] [laughter and gasps]

[1:10:56] >> That okay.

[1:10:57] » That okay.

[1:10:57] >> Let me see what a copy looks like.

[1:11:00] » Let me see what a copy looks like.

[1:11:00] >> You want mine?

[1:11:01] » You want mine?

[1:11:01] >> You can do it right after the meeting.

[1:11:03] » You can do it right after the meeting.

[1:11:03] >> Okay.

[1:11:03] » Okay.

[1:11:04] >> Okay. I'll show

[1:11:05] » Okay. I'll show

[1:11:05] >> I'm not sure.

[1:11:06] » I'm not sure.

[1:11:06] >> Yeah, that's

[1:11:08] » Yeah, that's

[1:11:08] >> okay. Um, we are ready to move then. Oh,

[1:11:12] » okay. Um, we are ready to move then. Oh,

[1:11:12] I'm sorry. So, I need a This is an

[1:11:15] action item to authorize me to meet with

[1:11:17] you.

[1:11:18] >> I'll move the action.

[1:11:19] » I'll move the action.

[1:11:20] >> Second.

[1:11:20] » Second.

[1:11:20] >> Motion is second. Call. Any questions on

[1:11:23] » Motion is second. Call. Any questions on

[1:11:23] that?

[1:11:23] >> No.

[1:11:25] » No.

[1:11:25] >> Are you planning Is it next week you're

[1:11:26] » Are you planning Is it next week you're

[1:11:26] planning a meeting?

[1:11:27] >> No. I want these back from all of you by

[1:11:30] » No. I want these back from all of you by

[1:11:30] next Wednesday.

[1:11:31] >> And then Scott and I will set up a time

[1:11:33] » And then Scott and I will set up a time

[1:11:33] to meet before the next board meeting.

[1:11:36] >> Very good.

[1:11:38] » Very good.

[1:11:38] >> All right. Roll call, please.

[1:11:40] » All right. Roll call, please.

[1:11:40] >> Director Wright,

[1:11:41] » Director Wright,

[1:11:41] >> yes.

[1:11:42] » yes.

[1:11:42] >> Director Walshshire,

[1:11:43] » Director Walshshire,

[1:11:43] >> yes.

[1:11:44] » yes.

[1:11:44] >> Secretary Perry,

[1:11:45] » Secretary Perry,

[1:11:45] >> yes.

[1:11:45] » yes.

[1:11:45] >> Vice President Utton,

[1:11:46] » Vice President Utton,

[1:11:46] >> yes.

[1:11:47] » yes.

[1:11:47] >> President Schaefer,

[1:11:48] » President Schaefer,

[1:11:48] >> yes.

[1:11:48] » yes.

[1:11:48] >> Motion carries 5.

[1:11:50] » Motion carries 5.

[1:11:50] >> Okay. Um, before we move to the

[1:11:52] » Okay. Um, before we move to the

[1:11:52] engineers report, I'm going to call for

[1:11:54] a eight minute break.

[1:11:58] Please,

[1:11:59] we'll meet back here at 10 minutes to 6.

[1:12:06] » Thank you, Mr. President. Um, just a

[1:12:10] couple of items. Number one, we opened

[1:12:13] bids this past period uh for project 349

[1:12:17] Mendoza pump station. Um, as you recall,

[1:12:20] we extended the gravity sewer to the

[1:12:23] Mendoza alleyway. Uh now this is the

[1:12:27] main part of the project where we will

[1:12:29] extend the sewer onto that uh into the

[1:12:31] the pump station property I'll say and

[1:12:34] then we're going to work on redundant

[1:12:36] force manes and connect an overflow from

[1:12:39] our wet well. That project will be

[1:12:41] coming for your approval to award a

[1:12:42] contract next month. Second item I want

[1:12:45] to discuss is uh there's a couple of

[1:12:47] items that I'll be bringing to you this

[1:12:49] upcoming study session. One item will be

[1:12:52] to discuss the top five or six CIP

[1:12:54] projects, why they're important, what

[1:12:56] why why I think they're the most

[1:12:58] important five or six projects and I

[1:13:01] would like uh to throughout the year

[1:13:03] bring another five or six and then

[1:13:05] throughout the year we'll we'll get

[1:13:07] through the entire list of what we're

[1:13:08] doing from a CIP perspective. Second

[1:13:11] item is I I would like to discuss with

[1:13:13] the board during the next study review

[1:13:15] session our public portal, some of the

[1:13:17] limitations we have with our current uh

[1:13:19] public portal, staff's needs and and and

[1:13:22] potentially options for proceeding. So

[1:13:25] that's something that we'll be I'll be

[1:13:27] bringing to you during the February

[1:13:29] study session. With that being said, I

[1:13:32] suspect you read my report, so I'm not

[1:13:34] going to go over too much in there, but

[1:13:35] if you have any questions or need

[1:13:38] additional information, I'm h happy to

[1:13:40] answer your questions.

[1:13:41] >> Thank you. Any questions for the Nicole?

[1:13:44] » Thank you. Any questions for the Nicole?

[1:13:44] Any questions?

[1:13:46] Seeing none. Okay.

[1:13:48] >> Thank you.

[1:13:49] » Thank you.

[1:13:49] >> Thank you. Um Mark's not Mark Davis is

[1:13:53] » Thank you. Um Mark's not Mark Davis is

[1:13:53] not with us this evening, so I assume

[1:13:54] there's no treasures reporting.

[1:13:57] So, we'll go to attorney's reports.

[1:13:59] Council.

[1:14:01] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um first item

[1:14:04] » Thank you, Mr. President. Um first item

[1:14:04] is the uh ADU AR and uh AD ADUs are a

[1:14:11] creation of the state legislature and

[1:14:14] they have uh favored them and tried to

[1:14:17] help fix our housing problem by giving

[1:14:20] him them very preferred status under the

[1:14:22] law most of the time uh to the detriment

[1:14:25] of local agency's ability to regulate

[1:14:29] and in many cases they preempted us just

[1:14:31] for the benefit of to the public. Uh, an

[1:14:33] ADU is an accessory dwelling unit. They

[1:14:35] can be attached or detached. They

[1:14:37] provide complete living facilities. Uh,

[1:14:40] they must include permanent living,

[1:14:42] sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation on

[1:14:45] the same parcel as the main residence. A

[1:14:48] junior ADU is located entirely within a

[1:14:51] single family resident.

[1:14:53] A lot of the ADUs are approved

[1:14:55] ministerally, meaning the city doesn't

[1:14:57] have much discretion to deny and uh we

[1:15:00] both have to figure out how to uh how to

[1:15:03] deal with these new creatures that are

[1:15:04] being built within our city.

[1:15:07] >> Uh

[1:15:08] » Uh

[1:15:08] >> could you again what a junior AD is? Uh,

[1:15:11] » could you again what a junior AD is? Uh,

[1:15:11] a junior ADU is located entirely within

[1:15:14] a single family residence and it may

[1:15:16] include shared sanitation facilities or

[1:15:19] separate and they're usually smaller

[1:15:23] >> 600 square feet.

[1:15:25] » 600 square feet.

[1:15:25] >> I'm sorry.

[1:15:26] » I'm sorry.

[1:15:26] >> Is it under 600 square feet or

[1:15:27] » Is it under 600 square feet or

[1:15:28] >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:15:30] » Yes. Yeah.

[1:15:30] Uh another um

[1:15:33] so the many limits on uh what we can do

[1:15:36] with ADUs and one of them is you know we

[1:15:40] have a capacity fee. Our biggest concern

[1:15:42] is capacity and our u

[1:15:46] earthwhile uh district engineer has

[1:15:49] reviewed this and we've determined we

[1:15:50] have the capacity for these although uh

[1:15:53] you know we're everyone's everyone's

[1:15:55] projecting how much how many ADUs will

[1:15:58] be built but we think we have enough. Uh

[1:16:00] the other issue is whether or not they

[1:16:01] can pay for what others have paid for,

[1:16:04] namely the uh the lions and uh what it

[1:16:07] takes to maintain the sewer system. And

[1:16:11] we generally cannot uh charge capacity

[1:16:14] fees. We can if they're over 750 square

[1:16:17] ft and it's being built with another new

[1:16:21] single family dwelling. Uh but we have

[1:16:23] to be proportionate like we have to do

[1:16:25] with all our fees we charge. So we have

[1:16:28] limited ability to charge sewer

[1:16:30] capacity. We do have um we cannot also

[1:16:33] require se separate laterals except in

[1:16:36] uh very

[1:16:38] limited circumstances namely new

[1:16:40] construction of both the single family

[1:16:42] and the ADU. Uh so we they do have the

[1:16:46] ability to be on the same line which is

[1:16:48] something we generally would prefer.

[1:16:50] They are not uh we can require uh sewer

[1:16:54] treatment transportation fees you know

[1:16:56] namely

[1:16:58] pay your cost for flushing your toilet

[1:17:00] and what that service is. So we can

[1:17:02] charge for that. We can also charge for

[1:17:04] the trash too. So this uh is an outline

[1:17:08] of our ability to regulate its meant

[1:17:10] it's kind of a living document because

[1:17:11] the laws are changing fast. gives staff

[1:17:14] a reference to uh refer to uh when they

[1:17:17] need to figure out what they're dealing

[1:17:19] with and it's been through the CAC and u

[1:17:24] it's submitted for your consideration.

[1:17:29] » I have another question. Um are you

[1:17:31] saying that the ADU if it's over 700 ft

[1:17:34] has to be attached separately to the

[1:17:35] sewer line?

[1:17:37] >> It can be if uh

[1:17:39] » It can be if uh

[1:17:39] >> can it be attached to the existing sewer

[1:17:41] » can it be attached to the existing sewer

[1:17:41] line?

[1:17:41] >> I'm sorry. Can it be attached to the

[1:17:43] » I'm sorry. Can it be attached to the

[1:17:43] existing shoreline or does it have

[1:17:44] >> no over 750? We can if it's new if both

[1:17:47] » no over 750? We can if it's new if both

[1:17:48] both structures are new, we can require

[1:17:50] that they have separate laterals.

[1:17:51] >> What if it's a new one going in with an

[1:17:54] » What if it's a new one going in with an

[1:17:54] old old one old house?

[1:17:56] >> Yes. Then you cannot require a new new

[1:17:59] » Yes. Then you cannot require a new new

[1:17:59] lateral. You have to allow them to

[1:18:00] connect to the existing letter.

[1:18:03] >> Okay. Good. Go ahead, Mark.

[1:18:05] » Okay. Good. Go ahead, Mark.

[1:18:05] >> Yeah. What um director Perry in your

[1:18:08] » Yeah. What um director Perry in your

[1:18:08] question are you asking the the size and

[1:18:12] then can that size be connected to the

[1:18:14] existing out or not? Is that what what

[1:18:16] I'm understanding? So I guess like our

[1:18:20] legal council mentioned you can tie in

[1:18:23] that system to the existing it it also

[1:18:26] depends I'm going to say on how big it

[1:18:28] is what the use is and some other

[1:18:30] things. Is there a size of the ADU that

[1:18:35] qualifies that to where it can be go?

[1:18:38] >> Uh, right now we're using the definition

[1:18:40] » Uh, right now we're using the definition

[1:18:40] the legal council is providing us. Uh,

[1:18:42] and that's is it Alan? Is it 700 or 750?

[1:18:46] >> 750.

[1:18:47] » 750.

[1:18:47] >> 7 750. So 750 and above we can do

[1:18:50] » 7 750. So 750 and above we can do

[1:18:50] something with under under that number.

[1:18:53] Um, we're we're even looking at

[1:18:54] streamlining because city of Costa Mesa

[1:18:58] is looking to do some type of a rubber

[1:19:00] stamping. uh within a two-eek period to

[1:19:02] allow building plans to move forward. If

[1:19:05] that occurs, they're moving on without

[1:19:07] us. And so and so we're I'm working with

[1:19:10] Robert and I'll be presenting something

[1:19:12] to our general manager. Is there a way

[1:19:14] we can streamline our processes for

[1:19:16] those ADUs that are exempt as as legal

[1:19:18] counsel um suggests they are from many

[1:19:21] things. So that way we can maybe keep up

[1:19:24] with the city and get these things

[1:19:25] moving forward.

[1:19:27] >> Is that happening in other cities also

[1:19:29] » Is that happening in other cities also

[1:19:29] or do you know? Uh I this is I guess I'm

[1:19:32] going to be honest. I don't know. It's

[1:19:34] too new. I haven't heard much from our

[1:19:36] sister and brother agencies uh and other

[1:19:39] other public agencies that are

[1:19:41] associated with OCN as an example. I

[1:19:44] just don't know

[1:19:46] >> if if someone is doing an ADU and they

[1:19:50] » if if someone is doing an ADU and they

[1:19:50] choose to tie into the existing system

[1:19:54] from the regular home from the existing

[1:19:57] home. Are there any fees that they get

[1:20:00] charged to tie into like any connection

[1:20:03] fees or anything for tying in?

[1:20:06] >> You know, again, it depends. If it's 750

[1:20:09] » You know, again, it depends. If it's 750

[1:20:09] or over, we can then start we can charge

[1:20:12] capacity fees and other types of fees.

[1:20:14] Um, when they're smaller than that, I'm

[1:20:17] going to say we have some limitations on

[1:20:19] what we can charge. For example, we

[1:20:21] cannot charge capacity as as legal

[1:20:23] counsel mentioned,

[1:20:24] >> but if they decide,

[1:20:27] » but if they decide,

[1:20:27] no matter what size, they decide to put

[1:20:29] their own lateral in and connect into

[1:20:33] OC Sand system, they would have fees,

[1:20:37] right?

[1:20:37] >> Well, no. Uh, first of all, most most of

[1:20:40] » Well, no. Uh, first of all, most most of

[1:20:40] the single family residential and

[1:20:42] commercial properties that we have in

[1:20:44] our service area, they don't have direct

[1:20:46] access to OC. They have access to our

[1:20:49] system. So, we're the governance of

[1:20:51] those of those um properties within our

[1:20:55] boundaries. We govern what they connect

[1:20:57] and what they can't connect to.

[1:20:59] >> The connection out in the street.

[1:21:01] » The connection out in the street.

[1:21:01] >> Yeah.

[1:21:02] » Yeah.

[1:21:02] >> That's controlled by us.

[1:21:03] » That's controlled by us.

[1:21:03] >> Yes.

[1:21:06] » Yes.

[1:21:06] >> Thank you. Go ahead.

[1:21:07] » Thank you. Go ahead.

[1:21:07] >> The the junior ADUs are basically just

[1:21:12] » The the junior ADUs are basically just

[1:21:12] an additional room on a res a residence.

[1:21:16] Um when when when we have a new

[1:21:19] residence in the district,

[1:21:23] we charge them based on the number of

[1:21:25] fix fixture fees uh or is it just

[1:21:30] charged on the basis of them being a a

[1:21:33] residence?

[1:21:34] >> Well, again, if it's under 750 square

[1:21:37] » Well, again, if it's under 750 square

[1:21:37] feet, whether it

[1:21:39] >> a new house is built

[1:21:41] » a new house is built

[1:21:41] >> Oh, yeah. When a when a whole new house

[1:21:44] » Oh, yeah. When a when a whole new house

[1:21:44] is built and an ADU, we can then

[1:21:47] proportion and and and base the charges

[1:21:50] for the ADU and the new residents based

[1:21:54] on fixtures. We can do that.

[1:21:56] >> So a 500 foot existing home or 2700

[1:22:02] » So a 500 foot existing home or 2700

[1:22:02] square foot existing home would be

[1:22:04] charged differently

[1:22:07] >> district.

[1:22:08] » district.

[1:22:08] >> Yes. Because of for several reasons. uh

[1:22:12] » Yes. Because of for several reasons. uh

[1:22:12] number of bedrooms, which is how Orange

[1:22:14] County Sanitation charges us. We we pass

[1:22:17] that cost and we we collect that for

[1:22:19] them. And the number of fixture units, a

[1:22:22] 500 ft house probably has half the

[1:22:25] fixture units of a,200 foot house as an

[1:22:27] example. Maybe maybe not quite half, but

[1:22:30] you know, it's less.

[1:22:31] >> The bigger house would get because they

[1:22:33] » The bigger house would get because they

[1:22:33] have more fixture more fixtures, would

[1:22:36] we would charge them more on the tax

[1:22:38] roles? Yes, we would charge them uh

[1:22:41] higher we would charge them more fixture

[1:22:44] fees which is really a capacity thing

[1:22:48] and then depending on uh the what we

[1:22:52] have to inspect we could charge more for

[1:22:54] inspection and plan check and those

[1:22:56] things

[1:22:59] » questions from Martin

[1:23:01] >> uh yeah I just have one comment which is

[1:23:03] » uh yeah I just have one comment which is

[1:23:03] on the can ADUs be sold separately so um

[1:23:06] there's a lot of mixed

[1:23:08] mixed messages I think between city and

[1:23:11] state law and uh just to let you guys

[1:23:14] know when we did when we got our ADU

[1:23:16] permit we actually forfeited our right

[1:23:18] to sell it separately through the city.

[1:23:21] So I think because sometimes there's a

[1:23:23] lot of confusion between are we part of

[1:23:25] the city or not, I think we should

[1:23:27] expressly state that it's not our

[1:23:30] jurisdiction to determine and you know

[1:23:33] you kind of already have it at the end

[1:23:35] pending various laws with city and

[1:23:37] state. Um I think we should just kind of

[1:23:40] evade that responsibility of that

[1:23:43] question if possible.

[1:23:45] Otherwise, it looks good to me and I I'm

[1:23:48] a big fan of the expediting process and

[1:23:53] um I'm glad we're trying to keep up with

[1:23:56] the city on that.

[1:23:58] >> Rolling questions.

[1:24:01] » Rolling questions.

[1:24:01] Uh we have public comment. Cindy, you

[1:24:03] want to speak on this item?

[1:24:09] Okay, then let's move to

[1:24:13] um

[1:24:14] nothing. you. No action you need from us

[1:24:18] >> this regulation number 140.

[1:24:20] » this regulation number 140.

[1:24:20] >> I'll move for approval.

[1:24:21] » I'll move for approval.

[1:24:21] >> I'm sorry.

[1:24:22] » I'm sorry.

[1:24:22] >> I'll second.

[1:24:24] » I'll second.

[1:24:24] >> Uh we have a motion for I'm sorry for

[1:24:27] » Uh we have a motion for I'm sorry for

[1:24:27] not bringing that regulation number 140.

[1:24:29] Um roll call, please.

[1:24:31] >> Director Wright,

[1:24:32] » Director Wright,

[1:24:32] >> yes.

[1:24:32] » yes.

[1:24:32] >> Director Walshshire,

[1:24:33] » Director Walshshire,

[1:24:33] >> yes.

[1:24:34] » yes.

[1:24:34] >> Secretary Perry,

[1:24:35] » Secretary Perry,

[1:24:35] >> yes.

[1:24:35] » yes.

[1:24:36] >> Vice President Uton,

[1:24:37] » Vice President Uton,

[1:24:37] >> yes.

[1:24:37] » yes.

[1:24:37] >> President Schaefer,

[1:24:38] » President Schaefer,

[1:24:38] >> yes. Thank you. Thank

[1:24:39] » yes. Thank you. Thank

[1:24:39] >> Thanks, Alan. Um let's move to item two.

[1:24:46] Thank you, Mr. President. Do we have a

[1:24:49] PowerPoint?

[1:25:01] As the board knows, um, directors are

[1:25:04] entitled to a paid PDM sum for each

[1:25:07] day's service they rendered rendered as

[1:25:09] a director up to six days per month.

[1:25:12] That's the authority for that is health

[1:25:13] and safety code section 6490.

[1:25:17] The statute provides that a director is

[1:25:20] entitled to be paid for each meeting of

[1:25:21] the board and for each day's service

[1:25:25] rendered as a director at the request of

[1:25:28] the board. It is the second part of the

[1:25:32] statute that we've struggled with. It's

[1:25:34] difficult if not impossible to have a

[1:25:37] request of the board in sufficient time

[1:25:39] to have the board act on it at a

[1:25:41] properly noticed board meeting. Uh

[1:25:44] that's because the you know the Brown

[1:25:45] Act requires 72 hours and a staff report

[1:25:48] has to be prepared. It just doesn't work

[1:25:49] well.

[1:25:51] So um the board uh re determined to

[1:25:57] preapprove certain meetings that recur.

[1:26:00] A list of 27 of such specific meetings

[1:26:02] was developed

[1:26:04] and these cover the vast majority of

[1:26:06] meetings that directors attend. I think

[1:26:09] those are up there right now and there's

[1:26:12] 14 and then the second slide will be uh

[1:26:15] the rest of them. Yeah, thanks.

[1:26:18] So the list worked pretty well. Um the

[1:26:21] only category

[1:26:23] uh it worked pretty well. The only

[1:26:24] category we suggest adding to this cate

[1:26:27] is the u meetings with the general

[1:26:29] manager and because everybody assumed

[1:26:32] that would be a meeting that would be uh

[1:26:35] compensated but of course we're going to

[1:26:37] have a discussion about this later

[1:26:38] because there may be other thoughts

[1:26:40] about that. So that's the one uh we are

[1:26:43] as staff recommending that be added that

[1:26:45] was left out. But there are still unique

[1:26:48] meetings that arise and need director

[1:26:51] attendance. To try to address these, the

[1:26:54] board added two provisions dealing with

[1:26:56] situations that could not be

[1:26:58] anticipated.

[1:26:59] They include any other meetings directly

[1:27:02] involving the district. That was one.

[1:27:04] That's the 27, I believe. And then 28 is

[1:27:09] uh any other meeting indirectly

[1:27:11] involving the district by subject matter

[1:27:14] provided the director submit in the

[1:27:17] request for compensation how the subject

[1:27:20] matter related to the district.

[1:27:24] Recently the form submitted for

[1:27:25] compensation did not always provide the

[1:27:27] substantiation.

[1:27:29] We believe that part of the problem is

[1:27:31] the fact our form was not clear on the

[1:27:33] requirement and we're going to propose a

[1:27:36] a fix for that.

[1:27:39] So we are suggesting that the form uh be

[1:27:43] revised to fix the problem and we

[1:27:45] believe the problem will be taken care

[1:27:47] of going forward. We also suggest that

[1:27:50] each director submitting such a form

[1:27:52] describe in a brief report at a

[1:27:55] subsequent board meeting how the meeting

[1:27:57] or event indirectly involved the

[1:27:59] district by subject matter. The same as

[1:28:01] we currently now do for reimbursement of

[1:28:04] expenses. It's in the state statute that

[1:28:06] you have to provide a brief report if

[1:28:08] you get paid your gas mileage, but it

[1:28:11] doesn't say you have to do that for

[1:28:12] getting your your daily PDM. So, we're

[1:28:14] suggesting it's not going to be much of

[1:28:16] a stretch for you to give a brief report

[1:28:19] on how attendance at that meeting

[1:28:22] advanced the district's goals.

[1:28:26] A last uh point of clarification is

[1:28:28] remote meetings. The policy does not

[1:28:31] mention remote meetings and since the

[1:28:33] COVID uh pandemic, the Brown Act has

[1:28:36] allowed certain remote meetings and

[1:28:38] attending meetings remotely has become

[1:28:40] to be generally accepted. We ask that

[1:28:42] the board clarify that remote meetings

[1:28:45] will also be entitled to compensation

[1:28:47] the same as live meetings.

[1:28:50] So in conclusion, staff suggests one,

[1:28:54] add a general manager to the meetings to

[1:28:56] the list of 27 specific categories. Two,

[1:29:00] beef up the form used to justify direct

[1:29:03] and indirect subject matter meetings so

[1:29:04] the director provides the justification.

[1:29:07] Three, have the director report on the

[1:29:09] meetings attended the next board meeting

[1:29:12] or a future board meeting. And four,

[1:29:15] clarify the remote meetings qualify if

[1:29:18] that is the intent.

[1:29:20] That is a staff suggestion and uh we'd

[1:29:24] love to answer any questions and listen

[1:29:26] to what the board has to say about this.

[1:29:29] again. I'll start this um

[1:29:35] on the list the the list of 29 or

[1:29:38] whatever it is the title like number 16,

[1:29:43] number 14, number 15. All it says in

[1:29:48] this list is City of Costa Mesa

[1:29:50] meetings, City of Newport Beach

[1:29:52] meetings, County of Orange meetings.

[1:29:57] There are a lot of meetings that the

[1:29:58] city does that have no involvement with

[1:30:02] with the sanitary district and I think

[1:30:05] we've had it's already happened where

[1:30:07] directors have asked to be predium for

[1:30:10] going to certain meetings that we've

[1:30:12] determined aren't relevant to the

[1:30:13] district by labeling these the way we've

[1:30:17] done here.

[1:30:20] It it says city of Costa Mesa meetings.

[1:30:23] Well, that could mean any meeting. So, I

[1:30:25] think we need to scope this down when it

[1:30:28] comes to that general general topic.

[1:30:31] >> Good point.

[1:30:33] » Good point.

[1:30:34] >> Um,

[1:30:35] » Um,

[1:30:35] county meetings, too. Orange. County of

[1:30:37] Orange.

[1:30:38] >> County of Orange meetings. Yeah,

[1:30:39] » County of Orange meetings. Yeah,

[1:30:39] >> same thing.

[1:30:45] » What's my mind right now? So,

[1:30:47] >> I'll I'll open it up to the rest of the

[1:30:49] » I'll I'll open it up to the rest of the

[1:30:49] board. Bob

[1:30:51] on on item or meeting that list number

[1:30:54] 28. Um

[1:30:57] I I think we need to clarify

[1:31:01] um

[1:31:03] when the board approved

[1:31:06] what meetings that encompasses.

[1:31:10] Um I I firmly believe that the eco

[1:31:15] eco conference

[1:31:17] uh should be listed on that list.

[1:31:20] Um

[1:31:22] and there's a number of other meetings.

[1:31:24] You know, I think it would probably I

[1:31:27] think I think that has that would it

[1:31:29] would be helpful if if the board members

[1:31:33] knew that the if you came to the the the

[1:31:38] eco meeting

[1:31:41] it's one of the more fabulous

[1:31:43] district meetings.

[1:31:46] um

[1:31:49] maybe compensated for. Um I I would I

[1:31:53] would like to see a list of what staff

[1:31:56] believes

[1:31:59] meetings that would fall under that

[1:32:01] topic or not. By it not being on there,

[1:32:05] I guess that would be the or not. Um and

[1:32:09] you know, I I I I guess I also believe

[1:32:12] that

[1:32:14] formally meetings with the general

[1:32:16] manager are important and that should

[1:32:20] have been compensated for and for the um

[1:32:26] since 06 when I've been on this board

[1:32:29] they have been compensated for and and

[1:32:33] so I'm not I'm not sure why it's so

[1:32:35] black and white um in in the staff

[1:32:39] report

[1:32:41] um to make that distinction.

[1:32:50] And that may be some of the items that

[1:32:53] Sue has on her list.

[1:32:58] Agree with you.

[1:33:00] >> The other question I I agree I agree

[1:33:02] » The other question I I agree I agree

[1:33:02] with Bob too. Um

[1:33:06] so with this new form about giving an

[1:33:08] iteration on on what we learned at the

[1:33:11] meeting or why we went to the meeting or

[1:33:12] whatever does that mean at the end of

[1:33:15] our agenda currently at the end of our

[1:33:17] agenda there's certain committees that

[1:33:20] get reported on like me with SDRMA ISDOC

[1:33:24] CSTA

[1:33:25] SAR we going to eliminate thing reports

[1:33:29] during the meeting now

[1:33:31] >> no I would think those would still be

[1:33:33] » no I would think those would still be

[1:33:33] there there could be some overlap, but

[1:33:35] um what you might want to do is just

[1:33:38] provide a brief report of how your

[1:33:41] attendance uh related or directly

[1:33:43] advanced the district or something like

[1:33:45] that. For the ones that are not called

[1:33:46] out, ones that are called out, you don't

[1:33:48] have to give a report at all.

[1:33:49] >> We wouldn't have to do the little

[1:33:50] » We wouldn't have to do the little

[1:33:50] written report that you're talking about

[1:33:52] adding

[1:33:53] >> or we do we have to do both.

[1:33:55] » or we do we have to do both.

[1:33:55] >> You just have to do one or the other.

[1:33:57] » You just have to do one or the other.

[1:33:57] >> Okay, that that answers my question. We

[1:33:59] » Okay, that that answers my question. We

[1:33:59] have to have a record that uh and it

[1:34:01] needs to be done before the the payment

[1:34:03] is approved.

[1:34:05] >> Right. Um the other

[1:34:10] » Right. Um the other

[1:34:10] association that's not listed on here is

[1:34:13] the Southern California Waste Management

[1:34:15] Forum which has got a annual meeting

[1:34:17] coming up in March. Um I've attended

[1:34:21] most of those forums and they have a lot

[1:34:24] of bearing on what we do from a solid

[1:34:26] weight standpoint. So that one needs to

[1:34:28] be added to the list. I believe

[1:34:34] I looking through here I I suppose it

[1:34:36] could be any other meeting directly

[1:34:38] involving the district by subject

[1:34:40] matter. I think so.

[1:34:42] >> Right. Subject matter is solid waste and

[1:34:44] » Right. Subject matter is solid waste and

[1:34:44] that's yes kind of what we're in charge

[1:34:46] of. So that if that if if number 29 in

[1:34:50] would incorporate that then we don't

[1:34:51] need to add it separately.

[1:34:55] » I would think so.

[1:34:57] Um,

[1:34:58] >> and when you fill out your

[1:34:59] » and when you fill out your

[1:35:00] substantiation for request form for

[1:35:02] compensation, you're going to add a few

[1:35:04] lines about how it helped and that's the

[1:35:06] justification you need.

[1:35:08] >> Okay?

[1:35:08] » Okay?

[1:35:08] >> So, you don't there's no need to do

[1:35:09] » So, you don't there's no need to do

[1:35:09] anything different. We will have to make

[1:35:11] it some way in which that's brought

[1:35:14] before the board before you get paid for

[1:35:16] the the day's

[1:35:18] attendance if it's not specifically

[1:35:20] listed. Also, it it says that we're

[1:35:23] entitled for expenses for doing our

[1:35:25] ethics and sexual harassment training,

[1:35:27] which is mandated by state law. Does it

[1:35:30] make a difference whether we do those

[1:35:32] virtually or live?

[1:35:34] >> Well, if you have expenses, it wouldn't

[1:35:37] » Well, if you have expenses, it wouldn't

[1:35:37] Yeah,

[1:35:38] >> I've tended to do my last couple online

[1:35:42] » I've tended to do my last couple online

[1:35:42] and you're required to have a two and a

[1:35:44] half hour. I mean, you you can finish

[1:35:47] the subject matter in 30 minutes, but

[1:35:50] you got to stay online for two and a

[1:35:52] half hours. I mean, so that those still

[1:35:55] qualify.

[1:35:55] >> Were you talking about expenses or the

[1:35:57] » Were you talking about expenses or the

[1:35:57] pdeium?

[1:35:57] >> PDM.

[1:35:58] » PDM.

[1:35:58] >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry, I misunderstood.

[1:36:01] » Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry, I misunderstood.

[1:36:01] Yeah, the pdeium. uh you could either

[1:36:03] specifically call it out or you could

[1:36:04] say it directly or indirectly involved

[1:36:07] the district because you're required by

[1:36:09] law to complete this to serve as a an

[1:36:12] officer a director.

[1:36:14] >> The public served by you having going

[1:36:17] » The public served by you having going

[1:36:17] having gone through both those courses.

[1:36:20] >> So the pdium I can't charge the district

[1:36:22] » So the pdium I can't charge the district

[1:36:22] for the electricity you computer

[1:36:26] that was a facitious remark for the

[1:36:29] record. We used to pay for toner paper

[1:36:32] lump few years ago.

[1:36:34] >> Yeah.

[1:36:35] » Yeah.

[1:36:35] >> Mike, the list I have says the solid

[1:36:38] » Mike, the list I have says the solid

[1:36:38] waste association of North America.

[1:36:41] >> That's Swana. This is the waste

[1:36:43] » That's Swana. This is the waste

[1:36:43] management form. It's a different

[1:36:44] organization.

[1:36:49] » Where's one about ethics?

[1:36:51] >> Section 301

[1:36:53] » Section 301

[1:36:53] 035 and 036.

[1:36:56] It's at the end of the the list.

[1:37:05] » You don't have that part.

[1:37:06] >> Okay.

[1:37:08] » Okay.

[1:37:08] >> I went also that class is not that easy.

[1:37:10] » I went also that class is not that easy.

[1:37:10] You have to really understand what

[1:37:12] they're doing because you have to take

[1:37:13] the test afterwards on on both

[1:37:15] >> on both of them.

[1:37:16] » on both of them.

[1:37:16] >> On both of them there is a test.

[1:37:20] » Okay. I have Yes. I'll speak on this

[1:37:22] item. Um so I think the context is

[1:37:28] in having two newer board members. You

[1:37:31] guys are right. These are in some ways

[1:37:33] these are explicitly listed but they are

[1:37:35] very broad and sort of the message I was

[1:37:39] getting was like this is the way to be a

[1:37:42] board member is go to these meetings.

[1:37:45] It's your responsibility to be informed

[1:37:48] and all these interconnected bodies. Um,

[1:37:51] but at the same time, of course, you

[1:37:53] know, even wanting to like go above and

[1:37:56] beyond, which is kind of just the type

[1:37:59] of person I am, I noticed that there are

[1:38:02] different types of meetings where I feel

[1:38:04] I'm bringing the most value to, and

[1:38:05] those tend to be more one-on-one

[1:38:08] meetings versus going and sitting and

[1:38:11] attending in a meeting. Um, and so, of

[1:38:14] course, a bunch of questions have been

[1:38:15] coming up in the last few months. Um,

[1:38:19] I listed out these are all examples of

[1:38:22] types of meetings that have come up and

[1:38:25] either been yes, no, or I don't know.

[1:38:29] And I'll I'll even just start with our

[1:38:32] existing list, which is approved

[1:38:34] conferences or organized educational

[1:38:37] activities. I would say eco expo could

[1:38:40] have fallen under organized educational

[1:38:42] activities.

[1:38:44] Um, you guys are right. City of Costa

[1:38:46] Mesa, City of Orange, Newport Beach

[1:38:48] meetings. Um,

[1:38:51] super educational, super I'm very

[1:38:53] passionate about it, very informative,

[1:38:55] but I I think we've taken it as any

[1:38:58] commission meetings apply there as well.

[1:39:02] I'm fine with leaving those on the list.

[1:39:06] My intention with this memo that I

[1:39:09] prepared for you guys is that I think

[1:39:10] there's a best use of my time as a board

[1:39:14] member that would bring the most value,

[1:39:17] but if we're more comfortable with the

[1:39:20] existing list, like that's okay with me,

[1:39:21] too. Um, and so

[1:39:25] 13 is quite broad as well, educational

[1:39:28] outreach and presentations. And then of

[1:39:30] course the the item that's or the number

[1:39:33] that's bringing us all like confusion 28

[1:39:36] and 29 because there's so many things we

[1:39:38] could argue directly or indirectly uh

[1:39:41] involve the district. So before I get

[1:39:43] into like the types of meetings I do

[1:39:45] want to say I I don't really feel like

[1:39:49] board direction in past conversations

[1:39:52] indicated that we needed more reporting.

[1:39:55] And so I do want to say I'm not really

[1:39:58] in support of having to submit more

[1:40:00] reporting for meetings we've already

[1:40:02] pre-approved.

[1:40:04] Um I think that's just we're doing our

[1:40:06] job, you know. So that's something I

[1:40:10] wouldn't agree with in the staff report.

[1:40:12] And then going into and then my

[1:40:15] understanding was that um Zoom

[1:40:17] participation was actually protected by

[1:40:19] state policy, but if we want to

[1:40:21] explicitly list that, I'm all for that.

[1:40:25] Um so yeah, let's go through my ideas

[1:40:29] that things I think should be clarified

[1:40:31] and included. Um district hosted or

[1:40:35] district funded community events such as

[1:40:37] the Eco Expo. So I think anywhere where

[1:40:39] where district funds are being spent and

[1:40:42] they have the intention of engaging with

[1:40:44] our customers, educating our customers,

[1:40:47] I think for many reasons we should go

[1:40:52] and be compensated for our time there,

[1:40:54] whether it's engaging with customers or

[1:40:56] even just fiscal oversight. You know, if

[1:40:59] we're spending a lot of money to sponsor

[1:41:00] something, I think we should all go and

[1:41:02] check it out and make sure it's a good

[1:41:04] use of our time. Um, funny enough, the

[1:41:07] same month that Eco Expo wasn't approved

[1:41:10] for you guys, uh, the Newport Mesa state

[1:41:14] of or the state of Newport Mesa

[1:41:16] breakfast got approved for me. And so, I

[1:41:20] would disagree with that. I would say I

[1:41:22] got more value connecting with our staff

[1:41:24] and coming here to the Ego Expo, a lot

[1:41:28] of people didn't even know I was a board

[1:41:29] member yet. So, everyone was being super

[1:41:31] normal, which was great. I brought my

[1:41:33] daughter. So

[1:41:35] I I kind of want to create a it's in a

[1:41:38] way it's getting more specific, right?

[1:41:39] It's not general organized educational

[1:41:42] activities or educational presentations,

[1:41:44] but if it's directly funded or sponsored

[1:41:48] by the district,

[1:41:50] I want to I want to say, you know, if

[1:41:52] we've decided it's worth our money, then

[1:41:54] it should be worth board members going

[1:41:55] to. Um here's another big one that I

[1:41:58] want to push back on. only um making the

[1:42:01] policy to just the general manager. I

[1:42:04] have a problem with that. I would love I

[1:42:08] have actually an example. So I I want to

[1:42:11] specifically highlight meetings with

[1:42:12] district staff because they are experts

[1:42:15] in their respective areas and I think

[1:42:17] encouraging like meaningful engagement

[1:42:20] with the board would make us better

[1:42:22] board members. Great example was I met

[1:42:26] with Mark and our other engineer to go

[1:42:28] over Tessa and then the the um

[1:42:32] productivity of that conversation that

[1:42:34] meeting rolled into the quarterly

[1:42:37] liaison meeting where then we talked

[1:42:39] about Tessa with the city of Costa Mesa

[1:42:42] staff and having that type of

[1:42:45] collaboration

[1:42:47] I think should be encouraged. Um, and I

[1:42:51] feel like there's always items that

[1:42:53] could be discussed more more deeply. I

[1:42:55] could be educated more on in that

[1:42:58] one-on-one setting. Like for example,

[1:42:59] walking through the entire CIP list and

[1:43:04] learning directly from Mark about every

[1:43:07] single project rather than that needing

[1:43:09] to be an agenda item at a meeting. Um,

[1:43:12] so I really don't want to explicitly

[1:43:15] exclude

[1:43:16] meetings with staff and say only with

[1:43:19] the general manager. Um, and I see that

[1:43:23] being a really productive use of like

[1:43:25] city council's time at the city level. A

[1:43:28] lot of council members will take the

[1:43:30] time to do one-on-one meetings with

[1:43:33] department staff and directors before a

[1:43:36] meeting so that they get all their, you

[1:43:38] know, preliminary questions out of the

[1:43:40] way and then are really equipped to vote

[1:43:42] on an item later on. Um, so I'd really

[1:43:46] like to push for including meetings with

[1:43:49] staff and even I wanted to share like I

[1:43:52] think it would be really cool to and

[1:43:54] this is just for me because I'm new. I

[1:43:57] would love to have like a one-on-one

[1:43:59] meeting with a new staff member on a

[1:44:00] monthly basis just to get to know their

[1:44:03] role, their specialty. What do they see

[1:44:06] as things that can be improved? What is

[1:44:08] their vision for their department or

[1:44:10] their special projects? Like when I

[1:44:13] think about what is the best possible

[1:44:16] board member, it's someone who does

[1:44:18] things like that, you know, and really

[1:44:20] invests in our staff. So, that's kind of

[1:44:23] a vision that I would have for an item

[1:44:28] like that or in a, you know, an event

[1:44:30] category like that. Um, and then we

[1:44:34] one-on-one meetings with board members

[1:44:36] was something I wanted to add on here.

[1:44:37] It's not as important to me. Um, but I

[1:44:41] could see that being also a really

[1:44:42] valuable use of our time. And then the

[1:44:45] fourth one is meetings with other

[1:44:47] elected officials, senior

[1:44:49] representatives, key partners, vendors.

[1:44:51] This could even be CAC members,

[1:44:53] one-on-one meetings with them. Uh, yeah.

[1:44:56] So, funny enough, I got uh I asked uh

[1:45:00] staff if a meeting with John Stevens

[1:45:02] would get approved as long as it was

[1:45:04] related to aka the mayor. Um, as long as

[1:45:07] it was related to business here at the

[1:45:09] district and that got approved. I

[1:45:11] haven't um filed for that yet because I

[1:45:14] haven't needed to. But I also see that

[1:45:17] as a really

[1:45:20] like good use of our time is once again

[1:45:23] relationship building that cross

[1:45:26] collaboration with all the other people.

[1:45:28] And and that's what's so funny is I

[1:45:30] could get paid to go sit in a council

[1:45:32] meeting and listen to their meeting, but

[1:45:35] is that really the best use of my time?

[1:45:39] No. As a director, as being an informed

[1:45:42] citizen, all those things, yes. And I

[1:45:44] encourage all all my friends to do that.

[1:45:46] But as a board member, um I would love

[1:45:51] to have meetings with, you know, the

[1:45:54] public works director, the solid waste

[1:45:57] director at the city, start meeting with

[1:46:00] people from CRNR, like just to learn and

[1:46:03] once again have those like collaborative

[1:46:05] meetings.

[1:46:06] Um and I think basically

[1:46:10] uh indirectly this policy

[1:46:15] sways board members to go towards what's

[1:46:18] safe and what's certain which is okay I

[1:46:20] know for sure if I go to this meeting

[1:46:23] then I will get paid and I'm not going

[1:46:24] to be in a gray area. And so it's it's

[1:46:26] almost unintentionally like dissuading

[1:46:29] from doing what I believe is more

[1:46:31] productive time, more relationship

[1:46:33] building um with of course relevant

[1:46:36] stakeholders. And so

[1:46:39] what I believe was the intention in

[1:46:42] going into this item was a lot of these

[1:46:46] vague meeting types have been coming up

[1:46:49] with two new board members and we were

[1:46:53] supposed to just discuss it. I didn't

[1:46:55] feel that we needed to add more

[1:46:58] reporting on the table. And I do think

[1:47:02] we either add some specific examples or

[1:47:04] we take these broad examples and we try

[1:47:06] to figure out how to make them more

[1:47:08] specific. Um, but yeah, I wanted you

[1:47:11] guys to know like that's my intention is

[1:47:13] I think I could be doing a lot more more

[1:47:16] impactful work and having u more of a a

[1:47:21] return on investment on my time for

[1:47:23] meetings on behalf of the district and

[1:47:25] as a board member and wanted to pitch

[1:47:27] you guys on them. Um, and then I have no

[1:47:31] intention in increasing our

[1:47:33] compensation,

[1:47:35] but I would like it to be noted for the

[1:47:37] record that we could legally increase

[1:47:39] our compensation 50% to $442 and we're

[1:47:43] not going to do that. Um,

[1:47:46] and

[1:47:48] yeah, I think

[1:47:50] >> yeah,

[1:47:51] » yeah,

[1:47:51] >> um, just to tag a couple things. Um,

[1:47:56] » um, just to tag a couple things. Um,

[1:47:56] I think the key word under district

[1:47:58] funded community events is if they're

[1:48:00] hosted by us. There was an article in

[1:48:03] the register years ago about a director

[1:48:06] from a fellow special district and the

[1:48:11] whole article was based on um

[1:48:16] who go who goes to what meetings, right?

[1:48:19] And

[1:48:20] there was a director that was pointed

[1:48:22] out for including going to dance recital

[1:48:25] that had something to do. So there's a

[1:48:28] lot of gray area in there that

[1:48:30] that needs to be vetted out and the fact

[1:48:33] that it's hosted by us I think is the

[1:48:35] key the key part of that. Um, as far as

[1:48:38] meeting with staff,

[1:48:40] um,

[1:48:42] what about times where my computer isn't

[1:48:45] working and I come in and I meet with

[1:48:47] the IT people to fix my computer?

[1:48:50] >> Yeah, I think I wrote um, we could

[1:48:53] » Yeah, I think I wrote um, we could

[1:48:54] create a structured

[1:48:56] >> Yeah.

[1:48:56] » Yeah.

[1:48:56] >> policy.

[1:48:57] » policy.

[1:48:57] >> Yeah.

[1:48:58] » Yeah.

[1:48:58] >> For one-on-one meetings because I think

[1:49:00] » For one-on-one meetings because I think

[1:49:00] you're right. Uh, a phone call with

[1:49:03] Nolani when she's helping us shouldn't

[1:49:05] qualify. I I'm hesitant to put a time

[1:49:08] restriction on it because an hour

[1:49:11] doesn't mean you had a productive

[1:49:12] meeting.

[1:49:12] >> There should not be a time. I I

[1:49:14] » There should not be a time. I I

[1:49:14] >> But I I do think like basically I wanted

[1:49:17] » But I I do think like basically I wanted

[1:49:17] to get a a temp check with you guys, but

[1:49:21] I'm I'm willing to think a little deeper

[1:49:24] about like what could qualify. I I think

[1:49:27] um meeting with new employees,

[1:49:32] I have difficulty with with approving

[1:49:34] that because we are not their employers,

[1:49:38] their employer, right? Um our charge as

[1:49:42] a board member is to set policy, not

[1:49:44] worry about personnel. Now, if we change

[1:49:47] that to a meeting with a department

[1:49:49] head, meeting with Mark to go over a

[1:49:52] project, I think is a valid reason to

[1:49:55] receive a predeem.

[1:49:57] >> Okay. Uh meeting with Diana to go over

[1:50:00] » Okay. Uh meeting with Diana to go over

[1:50:00] all the work she's doing on this health

[1:50:02] benefits to get some clarification I

[1:50:05] think is a valid reason.

[1:50:07] >> Yeah.

[1:50:07] » Yeah.

[1:50:08] >> To receive PDM. But

[1:50:09] » To receive PDM. But

[1:50:09] >> we could do leadership. it would

[1:50:11] » we could do leadership. it would

[1:50:12] >> or

[1:50:12] » or

[1:50:12] >> I know at SDRMA we we structure it with

[1:50:14] » I know at SDRMA we we structure it with

[1:50:14] our department heads.

[1:50:16] >> Okay. Going to speak to a an individual

[1:50:18] » Okay. Going to speak to a an individual

[1:50:18] employee uh might have to you would be

[1:50:22] better served going through the general

[1:50:23] manager I think. with that. Um,

[1:50:28] the one that I really have difficulty

[1:50:30] with honestly is one-on-one with board

[1:50:32] members and and the biggest reason I

[1:50:35] have uh trepidation about that is

[1:50:39] optically it doesn't look good. I mean,

[1:50:43] honestly, Art and I go to the same Lions

[1:50:45] Club meeting, right? We're in the same

[1:50:48] Lions Club here in town.

[1:50:50] Um

[1:50:52] there's no way

[1:50:54] in the green earth that I would ever say

[1:50:57] well hey are and we don't talk about

[1:50:59] district I I can stand on a Bible and

[1:51:02] tell you that we don't talk about

[1:51:05] district business. It's a social and I

[1:51:08] think the law recognizes the fact that

[1:51:10] we could all five of us go to a social

[1:51:12] function. We're not going to get paid

[1:51:14] >> but not talk about

[1:51:15] » but not talk about

[1:51:15] >> and we don't talk about it. I mean

[1:51:17] » and we don't talk about it. I mean

[1:51:17] that's to me that's Yeah, it's it's the

[1:51:20] meetings with Scott that got me thinking

[1:51:22] about that because it's funny that if

[1:51:23] there's two of us and Scott, we get

[1:51:26] paid, but if you remove Scott, then

[1:51:29] we're not paid.

[1:51:30] >> And I think that's how we should

[1:51:31] » And I think that's how we should

[1:51:31] continue.

[1:51:32] >> And that's totally fine with me. It's

[1:51:33] » And that's totally fine with me. It's

[1:51:34] the one I probably am the least

[1:51:36] passionate about because I get enough

[1:51:37] time with you guys.

[1:51:39] >> I'm totally kidding. Um,

[1:51:41] » I'm totally kidding. Um,

[1:51:41] >> thanks a lot. We all feel that way to be

[1:51:43] » thanks a lot. We all feel that way to be

[1:51:43] honest. [laughter]

[1:51:45] Um, yeah, and I think that's wiser as

[1:51:48] far as protecting the Brown Act as well.

[1:51:50] But yeah, the

[1:51:52] Yeah, if I had to pick though, I think

[1:51:54] the staff one I' I'd want to emphasize.

[1:51:58] Um,

[1:52:00] what do you guys think about the other

[1:52:02] >> I I disagree. I don't think meeting with

[1:52:04] » I I disagree. I don't think meeting with

[1:52:04] the staff I don't think one-on-one

[1:52:06] meetings are good and meetings with

[1:52:08] other elected officials, I don't think

[1:52:10] those are good for us. Let's keep it as

[1:52:13] as is the 29 that we have.

[1:52:23] » Um

[1:52:25] when I was a director for the Orange

[1:52:27] County Sand District, I rarely had um

[1:52:32] a director call me and ask for

[1:52:33] information and I don't believe they

[1:52:37] did. I don't know whether they got paid

[1:52:39] for it or not.

[1:52:44] I appreciate director writthusi

[1:52:48] and I appreciate her need and director

[1:52:52] well need and my need when I came on the

[1:52:55] district to understand policy

[1:53:00] and I I believe that uh

[1:53:06] um director right you will be a better

[1:53:09] director

[1:53:10] Um and I have no problem for her to get

[1:53:14] compensated for meeting with certain

[1:53:18] level staff. um

[1:53:22] meeting meeting with the general manager

[1:53:24] in the past,

[1:53:26] you know,

[1:53:28] I believe that um

[1:53:33] direct directors got paid for that

[1:53:35] compensation pretty much, you know,

[1:53:38] whenever whenever it came up. Um, and I

[1:53:42] believe that that that is a an, you

[1:53:46] know, I talked to Scott on the phone

[1:53:48] quite a lot. That's not what I would

[1:53:50] like to be paid for. Um,

[1:53:56] you know, I I mean, historically, I've

[1:53:58] been a a large meeting attender.

[1:54:02] Um, more recently, you know, I'm I'm

[1:54:04] down to substantially less meetings.

[1:54:09] Uh,

[1:54:12] I I like some of director Wright's

[1:54:14] comments.

[1:54:17] Um

[1:54:20] do like the district coast district

[1:54:23] funded community events. I think that's

[1:54:25] important. That's a big one because

[1:54:26] you're meeting the public. It's like eco

[1:54:28] >> esport.

[1:54:30] » esport.

[1:54:30] >> By the way, that article in the register

[1:54:32] » By the way, that article in the register

[1:54:32] where and it listed directors from the

[1:54:34] whole county. And you know who the

[1:54:36] number one guy in the county for going

[1:54:38] to meetings was?

[1:54:40] >> Me,

[1:54:42] » Me,

[1:54:42] you know, but I only got paid for six.

[1:54:44] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:54:44] » Yeah. Yeah.

[1:54:44] >> I'm still I I if I only need to put six

[1:54:48] » I'm still I I if I only need to put six

[1:54:48] down, that's one thing. But I think the

[1:54:50] public should also know that I go to

[1:54:52] >> more than six. Yeah. I go to a lot more

[1:54:54] » more than six. Yeah. I go to a lot more

[1:54:54] than six.

[1:54:55] >> Yeah.

[1:54:55] » Yeah.

[1:54:55] >> Yeah.

[1:55:00] » Um Okay, Nicole, did you have any

[1:55:02] comments?

[1:55:03] >> Yeah. Um you know, I a lot of my

[1:55:06] » Yeah. Um you know, I a lot of my

[1:55:06] thoughts echo uh Director Wright. Um I

[1:55:09] don't have the list in front of me of

[1:55:11] the meetings that are approved. Um but

[1:55:14] from what I remember, I feel like it's

[1:55:16] kind of vague. I I mean, there are

[1:55:18] obviously a lot of meetings on there

[1:55:19] that very specific. I know exactly what

[1:55:21] it is. But like for example, you know,

[1:55:23] city of Costa Mesa meetings that I think

[1:55:25] uh director Wright might have brought

[1:55:27] up. I've gone to what I thought was a

[1:55:29] city of Costa Mesa meeting and then was

[1:55:31] informed later that it, you know, it

[1:55:33] wasn't eligible. And that's fine. It's

[1:55:34] not a big deal, like one meeting. But I

[1:55:37] don't think that we need to improve our

[1:55:40] forms um for, you know, additional

[1:55:44] reporting information if we just have a

[1:55:45] list where everyone is on the same page

[1:55:48] about what meetings qualify and and what

[1:55:50] meetings don't. Um so again, I don't

[1:55:54] have that list in front of me right now,

[1:55:56] but I'd like to see if we can further

[1:55:58] clarify what's on the list right now. um

[1:56:02] divide it into what's going to need a

[1:56:05] report and what's not going to need a

[1:56:06] report just again so we're all on the

[1:56:09] same page, staff is on the same page,

[1:56:11] the public is on the same page. Um yeah,

[1:56:14] I would like to see a very specific

[1:56:15] list. And then um I have always believed

[1:56:19] this whole time that meeting with Scott

[1:56:21] was eligible for predium. So I'm I'm not

[1:56:24] sure I I I don't I didn't know if it

[1:56:26] wasn't. Um but I also think that we

[1:56:29] should be able to meet with department

[1:56:31] heads and um like you know a lot of our

[1:56:35] um a lot of our uh reports for uh study

[1:56:40] sessions and board meetings have um like

[1:56:43] big spreadsheets. I don't have a

[1:56:45] corporate background so I'm not used to

[1:56:48] reading those types of documents. And if

[1:56:50] I could get a little bit of prep time

[1:56:52] with the person who prepared it that

[1:56:54] would that would make me a better board

[1:56:55] member for sure. And you know, if it

[1:56:57] can't go through that employee and it

[1:56:59] has to go through the general manager,

[1:57:01] then I'm fine with that, too. You know,

[1:57:02] whoever can can walk me through it. But

[1:57:05] yeah, I think that we just need uh a

[1:57:08] like a a clear list of what's eligible,

[1:57:12] what's not eligible, what needs a report

[1:57:14] or a summary, and what doesn't? And is

[1:57:17] it possible that we can get that list?

[1:57:21] Yeah, we'll make we'll make

[1:57:24] >> Yeah, like soon like by the end of the

[1:57:26] » Yeah, like soon like by the end of the

[1:57:26] week by next two weeks like you know

[1:57:29] what do we need to do?

[1:57:31] >> How about tomorrow?

[1:57:32] » How about tomorrow?

[1:57:32] >> Perfect.

[1:57:35] » Perfect.

[1:57:35] >> My speaking editor.

[1:57:40] » Yeah, it's on the agenda report as well

[1:57:42] >> online.

[1:57:46] that.

[1:57:49] » Oh, I thought we'd already have the

[1:57:50] list.

[1:57:52] Talking about the the list you gave us

[1:57:54] tonight.

[1:57:55] >> Hey, Mike, how about a suggestion?

[1:57:58] » Hey, Mike, how about a suggestion?

[1:57:58] Are you going to be meeting with Scott

[1:58:00] soon? I assume. is why don't you take

[1:58:04] our ideas tonight and come back with a

[1:58:08] meeting maybe the next board meeting or

[1:58:11] the study session to go over it

[1:58:13] >> because we've talked you know has some

[1:58:15] » because we've talked you know has some

[1:58:15] ideas I'm against some of our ideas but

[1:58:17] I like some of our ideas you can

[1:58:18] summarize it with Scott and see if it's

[1:58:21] reasonable how about with Scott okay

[1:58:24] that's even better

[1:58:25] >> again mr president we have to make sure

[1:58:28] » again mr president we have to make sure

[1:58:28] we don't violate the Brown Act so if

[1:58:30] we're all giving our ideas to you and

[1:58:32] your assembly ing it. That's that would

[1:58:34] >> just from our discussion tonight. Just

[1:58:36] » just from our discussion tonight. Just

[1:58:36] from our discussion tonight,

[1:58:38] >> he can take those ideas.

[1:58:39] » he can take those ideas.

[1:58:39] >> Yeah, that's okay.

[1:58:41] » Yeah, that's okay.

[1:58:41] >> Absolutely. That's what we're going to

[1:58:42] » Absolutely. That's what we're going to

[1:58:42] do.

[1:58:43] >> That all right, Mr. General?

[1:58:44] » That all right, Mr. General?

[1:58:44] >> Absolutely. Yeah. So it sounds like we

[1:58:47] » Absolutely. Yeah. So it sounds like we

[1:58:47] have majority support for more clearly

[1:58:50] defining district hosted events

[1:58:54] leadership of sta staff leadership or

[1:58:56] department heads and then I would want

[1:58:58] to know under what

[1:59:01] rule was a city council member meeting

[1:59:05] approved previously. Um and then yeah, I

[1:59:10] think even going through city of Costa

[1:59:13] Mesa meetings and then deciding what

[1:59:15] what commission meetings, yes or no. Um

[1:59:21] surprisingly there is overlap sometimes

[1:59:24] and it's fascinating and I think it does

[1:59:26] make us better board members. We're

[1:59:28] we're collaborating but other times I

[1:59:30] agree it feels kind of like uh I could

[1:59:32] have been doing something more

[1:59:34] productive for us. I don't think we

[1:59:36] agreed on meeting with the staff. I

[1:59:38] think we meet with the general manager.

[1:59:40] >> Well, from my memory, if if if we

[1:59:43] » Well, from my memory, if if if we

[1:59:43] elected official discuss um if if if

[1:59:46] you're going to have a meeting with with

[1:59:47] a department head,

[1:59:49] >> I think it needs to go through Scott

[1:59:51] » I think it needs to go through Scott

[1:59:51] first. He needs to be aware.

[1:59:53] >> Okay.

[1:59:53] » Okay.

[1:59:53] >> Rather than us just going because the

[1:59:55] » Rather than us just going because the

[1:59:55] staff person might be intimidated. take

[1:59:57] that.

[1:59:58] >> So if it if it's part of that meeting

[2:00:00] » So if it if it's part of that meeting

[2:00:00] with the general with a

[2:00:01] >> meeting with Scott or approved by Scott,

[2:00:04] » meeting with Scott or approved by Scott,

[2:00:04] >> you need to be aware of it before we

[2:00:06] » you need to be aware of it before we

[2:00:06] even do it.

[2:00:07] >> And meeting with other elected officials

[2:00:09] » And meeting with other elected officials

[2:00:09] should be based on the business of the

[2:00:10] sanitary district, you know, not not

[2:00:13] personal business.

[2:00:14] >> Yes,

[2:00:16] » Yes,

[2:00:16] it still would need to be directly

[2:00:18] related to the directly involving the

[2:00:20] district.

[2:00:22] You want to let me know when we can sit

[2:00:23] down then with that

[2:00:25] >> then come back this week.

[2:00:28] » then come back this week.

[2:00:28] >> Are you gonna take public comments too?

[2:00:30] » Are you gonna take public comments too?

[2:00:30] >> Oh yeah. You going to be taking public

[2:00:31] » Oh yeah. You going to be taking public

[2:00:31] comments on this item?

[2:00:32] >> I'm getting there.

[2:00:33] » I'm getting there.

[2:00:33] >> Okay.

[2:00:34] » Okay.

[2:00:34] >> Is there a list of approved conferences

[2:00:37] » Is there a list of approved conferences

[2:00:37] as well?

[2:00:38] >> Um rather than the conferences, we

[2:00:41] » Um rather than the conferences, we

[2:00:41] generally go by the governing body who's

[2:00:43] doing the conference.

[2:00:44] >> Okay. For example, the CSDA conference

[2:00:47] » Okay. For example, the CSDA conference

[2:00:47] we're comp well we're compensated for

[2:00:50] but that's through CSDA the

[2:00:53] >> the swana forum is through the solid

[2:00:56] » the swana forum is through the solid

[2:00:56] waste association.

[2:00:57] >> Yeah. Yes. And those conference are

[2:00:58] » Yeah. Yes. And those conference are

[2:00:58] usually in the budget. So that's a good

[2:01:01] idea what are eligible. Now is there

[2:01:02] another conference like another CASSA uh

[2:01:06] California sanitation CASA California

[2:01:08] agency sanitation first wastewater.

[2:01:10] Anyways we used to be a member of that.

[2:01:12] uh no longer a member but if you do want

[2:01:14] to go to that conference and it's not

[2:01:16] budgeted you just let us know and we can

[2:01:18] you know try to find the money but

[2:01:20] that's another example it's it's

[2:01:21] eligible for because it is related to

[2:01:23] wastewater right so that's eligible um

[2:01:27] uh I think even uh I think the board's

[2:01:29] gotten compensation for Waco water

[2:01:31] advisory committee so if you wanted to

[2:01:33] go to aqua which is I'm sure that's

[2:01:35] eligible too so some of those question

[2:01:36] but those are typically aren't budgeted

[2:01:38] so if that's one you want to request

[2:01:40] then I I believe the board uh would uh

[2:01:44] possibly

[2:01:45] >> I could look at this list pretty much

[2:01:47] » I could look at this list pretty much

[2:01:47] and then see events that they do. Okay,

[2:01:50] cool.

[2:01:50] >> I'm looking I can give you a list of the

[2:01:52] » I'm looking I can give you a list of the

[2:01:52] budget items that the conferences that

[2:01:53] are approved in the budget for the board

[2:01:55] members are going to and there's any

[2:01:56] there's the conference in there that you

[2:01:57] don't see, let us know. You see what

[2:01:59] looking for?

[2:01:59] >> Yeah, that'd be cool.

[2:02:01] » Yeah, that'd be cool.

[2:02:01] >> All right, there's no other comments.

[2:02:02] » All right, there's no other comments.

[2:02:02] We'll go to public comments. Oh, I'm

[2:02:04] sorry, Bob. Go ahead. I'd like to see a

[2:02:06] list actually of each um when when when

[2:02:11] um

[2:02:12] Chairman Mike and the general manager

[2:02:14] meet. I'd like to see a list of

[2:02:17] everything that has been discussed

[2:02:21] tonight

[2:02:24] including director rights

[2:02:27] >> things like ecoexo the things we've

[2:02:29] » things like ecoexo the things we've

[2:02:29] talked about. Yes. We can disseminate

[2:02:32] that as

[2:02:34] >> and maybe just a better definition of

[2:02:37] » and maybe just a better definition of

[2:02:37] well I think we're headed towards

[2:02:39] needing a better definition of director

[2:02:43] said um

[2:02:46] of

[2:02:49] better definition of each of these first

[2:02:51] 31 meetings

[2:02:55] would be helpful

[2:02:58] Mike I'm sure you can do that

[2:03:00] >> sure I can

[2:03:03] » sure I can

[2:03:03] Um, okay. Public comments before I go

[2:03:06] here. There was a request from Rosemary

[2:03:10] and I don't see her in the room. Okay.

[2:03:12] So, she's not online. We know. Is

[2:03:15] Rosemary online? Okay. Then I will give

[2:03:18] her Go ahead.

[2:03:21] >> Hello, Martin. Uh, 59year resident of

[2:03:24] » Hello, Martin. Uh, 59year resident of

[2:03:24] Costa Mesa. This discussion boggles my

[2:03:28] mind.

[2:03:29] I have served for almost four decades as

[2:03:33] a an educator from the elementary to the

[2:03:37] secondary to the undergraduate and to

[2:03:40] the graduate level. I attended

[2:03:43] conferences on my own dime. I was a a

[2:03:48] member of the union board, Garden Grove

[2:03:52] Education Association. I attended

[2:03:55] meetings and conferences on my own dime.

[2:04:01] I took field trips with my students on

[2:04:05] my own dime. I spent weekends at

[2:04:08] language immersion camps on my own dime.

[2:04:12] I never once received a penny for any

[2:04:17] extra duty events. I just contacted a

[2:04:21] city council member

[2:04:23] and I learned that city council members

[2:04:27] do not get reimbursed

[2:04:29] [clears throat]

[2:04:30] for being a liaison. For example, I have

[2:04:34] served for 10 years on the active

[2:04:36] transportation committee. I was

[2:04:39] appointed by Katrina Foley

[2:04:42] and uh usually we have one to two

[2:04:44] council persons as liaison to that

[2:04:48] committee. We meet once a month. Uh over

[2:04:52] the 10 years that I've been on that

[2:04:54] committee, we I have seen lots and lots

[2:04:57] of different council members. They do

[2:04:59] not receive reimbursement for their

[2:05:03] meetings. They do not receive

[2:05:05] reimbursement for meetings which they

[2:05:08] attend other than council meetings or if

[2:05:13] they're on a board of the transportation

[2:05:16] authority, for example, the TCA. Only if

[2:05:19] they're on the board do they receive

[2:05:23] compensation. If they simply attend the

[2:05:26] meeting, they do not receive a dime.

[2:05:30] Thank you.

[2:05:36] Uh, Sue Lester,

[2:05:41] » thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[2:05:43] Um, somebody texted me and said they're

[2:05:45] watching on YouTube and it's really hard

[2:05:47] to hear Director Uten and some of the

[2:05:49] other directors when they're not

[2:05:50] speaking into the microphone. So, if you

[2:05:52] speak softly, lean forward. Um,

[2:05:56] there's a lot to unpack here. Director

[2:05:57] Uten, thank you for stating that a lot

[2:06:01] of my question that I had as it related

[2:06:03] to this statement where general manager

[2:06:05] meetings don't qualify, that is exactly

[2:06:08] where my statements came from because as

[2:06:10] a member of the public reading that

[2:06:14] it made me question all that stuff. So

[2:06:16] that is exactly where it came from.

[2:06:18] There was no malicious intent and I was

[2:06:21] not accusing anybody of anything. I was

[2:06:24] trying to understand and I still am. Um,

[2:06:28] as far as

[2:06:31] adversarial, I think if a board member

[2:06:34] thinks that a member of the public

[2:06:36] questioning the board's action is

[2:06:38] adversarial, we have way bigger problems

[2:06:41] than anything that could ever appear on

[2:06:43] your agendas.

[2:06:46] Um, as far as the reporting goes and

[2:06:48] being specific with meetings, I think

[2:06:49] you need to. It's called accountability.

[2:06:53] You guys are elected or appointed to do

[2:06:56] the public's business in public. And

[2:06:59] when you attend meetings for ISDO or a

[2:07:03] city council meeting or something like

[2:07:04] that, that is a publicly noticed

[2:07:07] meeting. Anybody else in the public

[2:07:09] could go to that meeting as well and

[2:07:13] hear what's going on and know exactly

[2:07:15] what you're hearing if you're getting

[2:07:17] paid to attend that meeting. I think if

[2:07:20] the meeting is is available in person,

[2:07:24] you should have to get off the couch and

[2:07:26] drive there. You guys aren't able to

[2:07:28] attend your meeting virtually unless

[2:07:31] you're traveling or somebody's ill. And

[2:07:34] there's rules on how many of your own

[2:07:36] meetings um or how your own meetings

[2:07:39] could be um attended virtually. So why

[2:07:42] should anyone else's be different? I

[2:07:45] will say in the last five years of

[2:07:47] expense sheets I looked at, director

[2:07:49] Perry only met with the general manager

[2:07:52] seven times and it was easy to know

[2:07:55] exactly why he met with him because he

[2:07:57] included an attachment that explained

[2:08:00] everything that he did and everything

[2:08:01] that he saw and everything that he said.

[2:08:04] And you three gentlemen also used to

[2:08:07] attach things that explained this is not

[2:08:09] a paid meeting and why this is a paid

[2:08:12] meeting. this is why I went that the imp

[2:08:14] the public isn't entitled to that as far

[2:08:18] as meeting with staff, meeting with new

[2:08:20] employees.

[2:08:23] It's micromanaging.

[2:08:25] His job is to manage the employees. You

[2:08:29] guys should go directly to him and a

[2:08:33] determination should be made whether um

[2:08:36] a a meeting about something is

[2:08:38] beneficial. They have other duties that

[2:08:41] they have to perform on a daily basis

[2:08:43] and can't be stopping what they're doing

[2:08:45] every five seconds to arbitrarily have a

[2:08:48] meeting with somebody who wants to

[2:08:49] educate themselves. Now, I'm not saying

[2:08:52] that meetings with the general manager

[2:08:53] aren't valid, but I don't think it

[2:08:55] should just be every time you you meet

[2:08:57] with a general manager, you get paid

[2:09:00] without saying something like you have

[2:09:02] been doing. That's a private meeting.

[2:09:04] You are doing the public's business. It

[2:09:07] should be public. It shouldn't be

[2:09:09] private. It shouldn't be one-on-one. If

[2:09:11] board members want to attend, meet with

[2:09:14] city council, meet with sand district

[2:09:17] individuals one on- one. That's called

[2:09:20] initiative to educate yourself and

[2:09:22] become a better board member. The city

[2:09:24] should the the residents and the

[2:09:26] rateayers should not have to fund that.

[2:09:28] And I don't agree with it. Quote,

[2:09:30] one-on-one setting is a private meeting.

[2:09:34] the public does not have the ability to

[2:09:36] know what those discussions are. Of

[2:09:38] course, there's going to be um

[2:09:42] exceptions meeting with council. There's

[2:09:45] a bomb threat. There's certain things

[2:09:47] that you guys have to meet on where the

[2:09:49] public is not privy.

[2:09:51] Totally understand that. I think that

[2:09:53] you should include a list of those

[2:09:55] things as well. Um more detail with city

[2:09:59] meetings, county meetings, like you

[2:10:01] said, I think is a great idea. I think

[2:10:03] events not so much. You're getting paid

[2:10:07] reimbursed for public meetings. Not for

[2:10:11] showing up 15 minutes at a sanitary

[2:10:15] district sponsored event, shaking a few

[2:10:18] hands, kissing a baby and leaving.

[2:10:21] Many of the people of the board attend

[2:10:23] all the meeting or attend all the

[2:10:25] events. They get there at the beginning

[2:10:27] and they stay till the end.

[2:10:30] I don't think events should be included,

[2:10:32] but if you do include them, there should

[2:10:34] be some stipulation on the duration of

[2:10:37] time that you're there. And if you're

[2:10:38] there at the event, you need to be there

[2:10:41] with 100% of your focus on the event,

[2:10:45] the people working it, and the people

[2:10:46] attending it. You shouldn't bring your

[2:10:48] family members and being eating

[2:10:50] sandwiches in the parking lot and think

[2:10:51] that you get paid for that. That is not

[2:10:54] fair to the public, and I think it's

[2:10:56] inappropriate. Um, events in general,

[2:10:59] again, I don't think they qualify as

[2:11:01] meetings and they shouldn't be uh

[2:11:04] included.

[2:11:05] >> You have one minute.

[2:11:06] » You have one minute.

[2:11:06] >> And

[2:11:09] » And

[2:11:09] um, as far as, you know, meeting

[2:11:12] reports, like [clears throat] I said,

[2:11:13] it's called accountability.

[2:11:16] If

[2:11:17] you say that you need to go to a meeting

[2:11:19] and you guys all prove that yes, that's

[2:11:22] a reasonable meeting to attend,

[2:11:25] the majority of the people on your board

[2:11:28] every week say what meeting you

[2:11:30] attended, what you learned there, how it

[2:11:31] affects the district. The ones that

[2:11:34] don't or the ones that are outside of

[2:11:36] the district and his director Perry's

[2:11:39] are better than anybody's I've ever

[2:11:41] seen. He's extremely detailed and he's

[2:11:45] always done it that way and just the

[2:11:47] last few years they aren't attached for

[2:11:49] people to see. It's all kind of dropped

[2:11:50] off. So your new format I think is

[2:11:54] beneficial to not only all of you but

[2:11:56] also to the public. So they are

[2:11:58] absolutely clear on the business that

[2:12:02] you are doing on their behalf and they

[2:12:04] have the opportunity to hear what that

[2:12:07] is, see what that is and know what that

[2:12:09] is and not pay for a private meeting

[2:12:11] with somebody meeting with a council

[2:12:12] person talking about god knows what.

[2:12:15] That

[2:12:17] is private. Hi Miss Lester.

[2:12:18] >> Thank you you uh Cindy.

[2:12:33] Good evening. I'm still Cindy Brenamman.

[2:12:35] I'm still awake, which is amazing. Um, I

[2:12:38] agree with everything that Miss Lester

[2:12:41] said and I want to thank Flo for being

[2:12:44] here and for saying what she said and

[2:12:45] for all of her service for um to our

[2:12:48] community because she's been around

[2:12:49] forever. and she reminded me that I have

[2:12:51] also donated probably over 10,000 hours

[2:12:55] that I can document to the city of Costa

[2:12:58] Mesa and um never asked for anything in

[2:13:02] return. I also remembered something else

[2:13:04] that I thought was interesting. It's the

[2:13:06] reason that I got interested in water

[2:13:07] and sanitation in 2002. I went through a

[2:13:11] program called Leadership Tomorrow and

[2:13:13] Chief Le Point was actually in my class

[2:13:15] and we went on um and I paid for that

[2:13:18] myself. I was working full-time at the

[2:13:20] time for a nonprofit. They couldn't

[2:13:22] afford to put me through the program.

[2:13:23] They said they would work with me on PTO

[2:13:25] and taking the time off that I needed.

[2:13:27] So, I was able to go through the program

[2:13:29] and worked out a nice deal. It was

[2:13:31] fascinating. I have never turned on a

[2:13:33] faucet without thinking about that

[2:13:35] class. I have never thrown anything away

[2:13:38] without thinking about that class and

[2:13:40] what I learned about sanitation and what

[2:13:42] I learned about water. And um I think

[2:13:46] it's really really important and there's

[2:13:47] ways that we can educate ourselves that

[2:13:50] the rateayers and the district doesn't

[2:13:52] have to pay for. Um I also want to uh

[2:13:57] encourage you to continue doing the

[2:13:59] documentation and the reporting out

[2:14:01] because I was sad to see that kind of go

[2:14:03] away and drop off. I enjoyed listening

[2:14:05] to you guys report about the places that

[2:14:07] you had been, the meetings you had gone

[2:14:09] to, what you learned, and how it

[2:14:11] impacted the the district as a CAC

[2:14:14] member. I'm not talking to you as a CAC

[2:14:15] member right now, but I thought that was

[2:14:17] very interesting. I'm sorry that went

[2:14:19] away. And no matter what you do with

[2:14:20] this tonight, again, I'm against it

[2:14:22] completely and agree with everything

[2:14:24] that Sue said, but um no matter what you

[2:14:26] do, I think that you should continue

[2:14:28] reporting and um I like the new system.

[2:14:31] I like the new reporting system. So,

[2:14:33] thank you.

[2:14:37] » Okay.

[2:14:39] Um

[2:14:42] the action is to add the things that

[2:14:45] Allan has already proposed.

[2:14:49] Um the other act, we don't need a board

[2:14:52] action to have that discussion about the

[2:14:54] other items that have come up. Simply

[2:14:56] tonight, we're going to take action on

[2:14:59] what council has recommended.

[2:15:01] Right,

[2:15:05] » Mr. President? I think we'll bring

[2:15:06] something back to you and that won't you

[2:15:08] may want to fine-tune it further. We're

[2:15:10] going to bring another draft back to you

[2:15:12] of an ordinance.

[2:15:12] >> You want us to just give us direction to

[2:15:16] » You want us to just give us direction to

[2:15:16] bring that back to us with with these

[2:15:18] suggestions and other things that we

[2:15:20] talked about?

[2:15:21] >> Yes.

[2:15:22] » Yes.

[2:15:22] >> Sorry everybody.

[2:15:24] » Sorry everybody.

[2:15:24] >> Oh, you okay with that?

[2:15:26] » Oh, you okay with that?

[2:15:26] >> Is that a Yankee cap you're wearing?

[2:15:31] » Is that a Yankee cap you're wearing?

[2:15:31] >> Okay, I won't go anywhere with that. All

[2:15:33] » Okay, I won't go anywhere with that. All

[2:15:34] right. So, you have direction.

[2:15:36] All right. Thank you. Um, where's my

[2:15:39] agenda? We are now at

[2:15:44] local meetings. Speaking of which, uh,

[2:15:46] Orange County Sanitation District, Bob,

[2:15:50] >> um, you know, I mentioned that the

[2:15:54] » um, you know, I mentioned that the

[2:15:54] I mentioned earlier about the the

[2:15:56] general manager's work.

[2:15:58] Um, the other non-consent item

[2:16:01] >> closer to the

[2:16:01] » closer to the

[2:16:01] >> Okay. The other non-consent item um is u

[2:16:05] » Okay. The other non-consent item um is u

[2:16:06] the same thing that the the senary

[2:16:08] district needs to go through. That is

[2:16:11] consideration of budget assumptions and

[2:16:14] budget calendar. And I'm I'm sure that's

[2:16:17] on the general manager's uh periscope.

[2:16:21] Uh the other non-conent items um I don't

[2:16:25] think we need to be aware of.

[2:16:29] >> Sorry.

[2:16:30] » Sorry.

[2:16:30] >> Okay.

[2:16:31] » Okay.

[2:16:31] meeting was last Wednesday.

[2:16:34] I'll give you the highlights. James

[2:16:36] Tyler from the Orange County Public

[2:16:37] Works presented the updates to the Sana

[2:16:39] River, the mainstream and the

[2:16:42] Westminister project status with

[2:16:44] discussion from he had a video

[2:16:46] presentation.

[2:16:48] A there are three new upgrades which are

[2:16:50] almost finishing the lower Sana River at

[2:16:53] El Prao. It's almost finished. They just

[2:16:56] completed three of the last ones. The

[2:16:58] spillway upgrade contract signed was

[2:17:01] signed last year with ECI and the cost

[2:17:04] of the new spillway is going to be 1.35

[2:17:07] billion.

[2:17:09] Uh there are some delays with the

[2:17:11] spillway to start. Um but the financing

[2:17:15] is there already and all the 112

[2:17:18] projects that have been acquired behind

[2:17:21] the dam to make this spillway higher

[2:17:24] have been uh acquired which is good.

[2:17:27] spillway will not be as big. If you go

[2:17:29] down the 55 freeway, you'll see the

[2:17:31] spillway. It's not going to be as large

[2:17:33] as the current one. And they're going to

[2:17:35] de demo the whole old spillway and

[2:17:38] they're going to make the new spillway

[2:17:39] instead of coming flat down, it's going

[2:17:41] to be in tears, slow down the water.

[2:17:46] the Westminster project uh which when it

[2:17:49] reaches one thing if a lot of people pay

[2:17:52] for insurance for the the FEMA or for

[2:17:55] the insurance companies for the uh that

[2:17:58] live in Huntington Beach, Fountain

[2:18:00] Valley, West Minister

[2:18:02] when the Westminster project comes down

[2:18:04] from the north and stops at the 405

[2:18:08] freeway, all of those people will not

[2:18:10] have to pay insurance coverage uh any

[2:18:13] anymore. That's going to be a way. It's

[2:18:15] a year away, but that's their goal. The

[2:18:19] current costs of the insurance that

[2:18:21] people play in the pay in those cities

[2:18:23] are 4.75

[2:18:26] 756425

[2:18:30] million right now. That's what they pay

[2:18:32] for insurance. The city,

[2:18:34] >> not individually.

[2:18:35] » not individually.

[2:18:35] >> No, no. Total all of the citizens that

[2:18:37] » No, no. Total all of the citizens that

[2:18:37] have to pay for the flood insurance,

[2:18:39] that's the amount. So, it's pretty a

[2:18:41] lot. We post Mesa used to have to pay it

[2:18:44] but we got out of that.

[2:18:46] Uh and then the executive director Penny

[2:18:48] Lee who's new she this is her first

[2:18:50] meeting she gave an update of all of her

[2:18:53] meetings with the Orange County Public

[2:18:54] Works and is working with the core of

[2:18:56] engineers on the east garden project

[2:19:00] uh working with the county auditor for

[2:19:02] our our audit from the SARA from the

[2:19:05] 2024 25 year is they're working

[2:19:08] upgrading and upgrading our website. So

[2:19:12] she's working on four projects. We meet

[2:19:14] every other month except for one month

[2:19:16] in the summer. So I was lucky that the

[2:19:19] meeting was last week so I could give

[2:19:21] this report to you. That that idea about

[2:19:24] not having to pay for flood insurance

[2:19:26] anymore has to be initiated by a

[2:19:29] congressional representative

[2:19:31] and in conjunction with the Army Corps

[2:19:33] of Engineers. That's what happened in

[2:19:34] Costa Mesa is our uh congressman

[2:19:39] after they did all the improvements with

[2:19:41] the concrete in the sand that we in fact

[2:19:44] I was part of that we petitioned to uh

[2:19:48] him to do it and they saved us a lot of

[2:19:51] money.

[2:19:52] >> We've been out of that paint for like 20

[2:19:54] » We've been out of that paint for like 20

[2:19:54] years.

[2:19:55] >> Um okay, number three is dock. Um, I was

[2:19:59] » Um okay, number three is dock. Um, I was

[2:19:59] not able to attend the ISDOC meeting

[2:20:03] because I was in Sacramento with SDRMA.

[2:20:06] So, I have no report to give you at

[2:20:08] ISDOC. I'm sure the topics that were

[2:20:11] brought up were obviously the the death

[2:20:13] of Director Mesmer and the lunchon this

[2:20:17] Thursday, the quarterly lunchon for ISD

[2:20:21] is this Thursday. And I believe Nolani

[2:20:24] told me that you've signed up and I've

[2:20:26] signed up. So, um,

[2:20:31] CSDA,

[2:20:33] I've noticed lately that, uh, Neil

[2:20:35] McCormack, the director, has been

[2:20:37] sending out a lot of email, more emails

[2:20:39] on changes, number one to the Brown Act

[2:20:42] and number two to legislative issues

[2:20:45] that are coming through. So, I'm sure

[2:20:47] we're going to see more with with the

[2:20:48] legislative stuff. and he's been

[2:20:51] reminding folks to sign up for uh

[2:20:55] legislative days if you want to attend

[2:20:57] legislative days in Sacramento which is

[2:21:00] in March I believe it's early March

[2:21:05] um

[2:21:07] >> May

[2:21:09] » May

[2:21:09] I'm not sure

[2:21:10] >> it may be starts with an end so it could

[2:21:13] » it may be starts with an end so it could

[2:21:13] be March

[2:21:16] >> um SDRMA we had a board meeting And out

[2:21:20] » um SDRMA we had a board meeting And out

[2:21:20] of that board meeting, we officially

[2:21:23] selected Debbie Yakakota as the new CEO

[2:21:28] of SDRMA. Uh we've been working on a

[2:21:31] contract and compensation and all those

[2:21:33] things that are entailed with that, but

[2:21:35] Debbie has officially been elected as

[2:21:39] the uh CEO. We had board elections and

[2:21:43] Robert Swan is the new president. Bob is

[2:21:47] a director of a community services

[2:21:52] district in

[2:21:56] I can't remember Groveland. Groveland,

[2:21:58] California. And I think in Groveland you

[2:22:01] could spit and hit one side of town from

[2:22:03] the other, but he's involved with the

[2:22:06] the community services district up

[2:22:08] there. Um our next boarding board

[2:22:11] meeting is next week. So I will be in

[2:22:13] Sacramento Tuesday through Thursday of

[2:22:16] next week for that board meeting. Um

[2:22:21] incidentally for that meeting for the

[2:22:23] new directors SDRMA pays me a per DM. So

[2:22:27] there is no cost. They also pay my cost

[2:22:30] for conferences that I attend on behalf

[2:22:33] of SDMA. So there's no no crossover for

[2:22:37] that.

[2:22:39] Uh, other meetings. Um, anybody want to

[2:22:41] talk about Waco?

[2:22:43] I attended Waco. Do you have a report?

[2:22:47] >> I put that in my report. That's pretty.

[2:22:49] » I put that in my report. That's pretty.

[2:22:49] >> Rob Thompson's report was

[2:22:52] » Rob Thompson's report was

[2:22:52] thorough to say the least.

[2:22:56] Other meeting. Any other meetings? Okay,

[2:22:58] seeing none, we'll go to uh no old

[2:23:01] business or new business. Closing items

[2:23:04] are oral communications and director

[2:23:06] comments. Any directors have some

[2:23:08] comments?

[2:23:12] You want me to start? Um,

[2:23:17] I think it's time as a district that we

[2:23:20] look at some issues involving the

[2:23:23] district. Um, as we move into increased

[2:23:27] solid waste costs and some of those

[2:23:29] other things, I think it's probably

[2:23:34] conducive for us to look at some things

[2:23:36] that we might want to start looking at

[2:23:38] terms of cuts in the budget and programs

[2:23:41] that we now do that um are costing the

[2:23:45] district some money that we might not

[2:23:48] need to do.

[2:23:51] There's a lot of examples of things that

[2:23:53] that uh we probably should look at. Um

[2:24:00] I think the survey how how often do we

[2:24:02] do the survey every two years? We might

[2:24:05] want to look at for example bump bumping

[2:24:07] that out to every four years to save a

[2:24:10] little bit of money. Um,

[2:24:12] >> oh there there might be exceptions to

[2:24:14] » oh there there might be exceptions to

[2:24:14] that when something you know like the

[2:24:18] WDR or the wastage

[2:24:21] >> the 1383 was a good example of when we

[2:24:23] » the 1383 was a good example of when we

[2:24:23] needed to do

[2:24:25] >> I mean maybe it's some I think it I

[2:24:27] » I mean maybe it's some I think it I

[2:24:27] think it's appropriate to set it at four

[2:24:31] years except for you know except with

[2:24:35] board approval for a particular item

[2:24:37] >> and and I think what I would encourage

[2:24:39] » and and I think what I would encourage

[2:24:39] each of us the five of us to do is to

[2:24:42] get some information to Scott on what we

[2:24:44] think are items we would want to discuss

[2:24:48] >> or or

[2:24:50] » or or

[2:24:50] maybe the staff could give us some ideas

[2:24:52] how we can cut our expenses

[2:24:55] different you know you we you know more

[2:24:57] about the internal costs maybe how we

[2:25:00] can cut because we have a lot of things

[2:25:01] popping up in the Elden station too you

[2:25:04] know it's going to be a big hit

[2:25:07] >> you know we're looking to be funded for

[2:25:08] » you know we're looking to be funded for

[2:25:08] that that's going to be a lot of

[2:25:10] >> part of that thought process too. I

[2:25:11] » part of that thought process too. I

[2:25:11] think Scott was the denial by FEMA of of

[2:25:14] your grant. You know, we're looking at

[2:25:17] having to finance that stuff and we

[2:25:20] we've been pretty active about not

[2:25:21] financing projects. So, um we're going

[2:25:25] to have to go into debt basically to

[2:25:27] have the project completed. That's we

[2:25:29] have to look at our expenses that we're

[2:25:31] paying for and having some cutbacks. I

[2:25:34] think

[2:25:37] >> I could include anything that that that

[2:25:39] » I could include anything that that that

[2:25:39] that we think, but I agree with Art that

[2:25:43] some discussion or some feedback from

[2:25:45] all of you would be a a good way to get

[2:25:48] some conversations started. And I I'm

[2:25:51] not going to sit here and tell you we're

[2:25:52] going to start chopping heads to save

[2:25:55] money. That's not the idea. But I think

[2:25:57] we've always been really good about

[2:26:00] being fiscally responsible. And I think

[2:26:03] it gives us an opportunity to to help

[2:26:06] with future future programs and future

[2:26:09] years with the district.

[2:26:11] Plus, with the increased cost of the

[2:26:13] trash falling to the dumps, it's going

[2:26:15] to be significant, too. Over a 5year

[2:26:17] period, it's going to be a lot.

[2:26:19] So, it's our it's our duty as board

[2:26:21] members to try to cut back if we can.

[2:26:25] Okay. Anything else?

[2:26:30] Nicole, anything other com closing

[2:26:31] comments or anything? Okay, I'll forgive

[2:26:35] you for the hat because it's pink.

[2:26:38] >> Uh, when did you want Scott to get that

[2:26:40] » Uh, when did you want Scott to get that

[2:26:40] list for us to take a look at?

[2:26:42] >> Let's just look at it over the next 60

[2:26:45] » Let's just look at it over the next 60

[2:26:45] days.

[2:26:48] May tail a little bit of work.

[2:26:51] >> Okay, if there's nothing else, we are

[2:26:53] » Okay, if there's nothing else, we are

[2:26:53] adjourned.

Board of Directors Regular Meeting

Transcript