[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.