Health benefits boost board compensation
By Brad Branan, Sacramento Bee
Most people elected to special district boards receive no compensation to oversee the agencies that provide services such as water or local park maintenance.
But some district directors receive annual salaries approaching $20,000 and health benefits for a position that has few requirements besides preparing for and attending meetings.
Of the nearly 1,000 special district board members in the capital region, about 70 percent received no compensation, the Sacramento Bee found in an analysis of 2013 salary data recently released by the California State Controller’s Office.
The other 30 percent, however, received an average of $4,300 in total compensation. All of the two dozen directors who received the most compensation – $15,000 or more – served districts in the Sierra foothills or around Lake Tahoe, in particular water districts with a long history of providing health coverage to board members and their immediate family members.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District had four of the five highest-paid board members in the region in 2013. They each received $4,800 in wages, but the biggest expense came from health care costs, an average of $21,585 each.
Nice to know we’re up at the top of the list when it comes to such ratepayer and taxpayer generosity. No wonder most of these board members are reluctant to leave office, after working so hard to bestow upon themselves such benevolence.
Isn’t this similar to the City Council compensation? Several thousand dollars plus healthcare?
Do the STPUD Directors or Council Members pay anything for their healthcare?
Let’s do the math. Wages ($4,800/yr.) + health benefits ($21,585/yr.) for a total of $26,385/year per director, times a four year term = $105,540 per director/term. Multiply this by 5 directors for $527,700.00 stuck to the rate payers in the district for this particular board. It must take fees from several subdivisions to cover the total price tag…but, oh wait…I forgot that we also have one of the highest rate charges in all of California for water and sewer, so this total is probably covered by me and two or three of my neighbors. So, what’s the big deal?
I have no problem offering a stipend and insurance. Do you expect to attract people to run or serve for free? You think we’re short of talent now just wait. In fact I think we should take a look at paying council members a salary and benefits. It might increase the pool of individuals who are willing to serve.
resident, you are assuming that all directors dont have their own insurance policy thru work or other areas, ie medicare, retirement ect. your numbers are worst case best case would be 1/5 your number, or a little over 100k for 5 years.
reloman, Did you read the article? It is what resident said, but they do deserve it.
Yes Lou I did, however the article does not say if all directors are getting the health insurance thru STPUD. Some may be getting it thru their employer. Unless you know that all directors are getting their insurance there, then I stand corrected.
We pay for corporate BOD compensation in all our consumption; financial services, industrial, retail, technology and energy. Median compensation in these sectors is $75,00 – $130,000 per year.
http://www.corpgov.deloitte.com/site/us/compensation-committee/director-compensation/
$21,585.00 is the average STPUD pays for insurance for it’s BOD. It would be higher if some didn’t have other insurance, like medicare.
The stats pointed out by Deloitte are generally for public companies. Public service and small utilities by virtue of the budgets they oversee do not usually have director compensation in the ranges Deloitte shows.
It is interesting that the highest director costs in CA are for Tahoe and the Sierra foothills. I doubt that it is significantly more difficult to furnish water and sewer in our area compared to many other areas in the state.
That being said, STPUD has not kept rates adjusted for the costs involved, and we are now about to be inundated with higher rates to raise the money to meet the regulations and demands of providing water and sewer services to the district.
Clearly the costs of the services are not well understood by the average citizen who is more interested in the premium wages the District pays its workers, and tend to falsely attribute the increased rates to raises in wages/salaries. They forget, or never thought about it, that pipes, pumps and all the other required equipment do not last forever.
The district also got a black eye for the office building construction a few years ago. I think the fanciness of this (and therefore the costs) could have been toned down considerably, to the benefit of the Districts reputation and satisfaction level in the community.
The saga continues and all of the comments and points of view expressed here will not affect anything at STPUD.
I see on the news last night a Bay Area water supplier actually raising the price of the water because the residents have been conserving water so well that the usage $ have impacted the water companies income.WOW!
Thanks for the venting forum. Kiwi
rediculous