HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUDGET AND FINANCE AGENDA 12-03-12Jl Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Chair McGill
Member Nejedly
Monday, December 3, 2012
3:00 p.m.
Executive Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
JAMES A. NEJEDLY
President
DA V7D R. 97LLIAMS
President Pro Tem
BARBARA D. HOCKETT
MICHAEL R. MCGILL
MARIO M. MENESINI
PHONE: (925) 228 -9500
FAX.• (925) 676 -7211
www.centralsan.org
Anyone wishing to address the Committee on an item listed on the agenda will be heard when the
Committee Chair calls for comments from the audience. The Chair may specify the number of minutes
each person will be permitted to speak based on the number of persons wishing to speak and the time
available. After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the
Committee for discussion. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless invited by the
Committee.
ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
In accordance with state law, the Committee is prohibited from discussing items not calendared on the
agenda. You may address the Committee on any items not listed on the agenda, and which are within their
jurisdiction, under PUBLIC COMMENTS. Matters brought up which are not on the agenda may be
referred to staff for action or calendared on a future agenda.
AGENDA REPORTS
Supporting materials on Committee agenda items are available for public review at the Reception Desk,
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. Reports or information relating to agenda items distributed within 72 hours
of the meeting to a majority of the Committee are also available for public inspection at the Reception
Desk. During the meeting, information and supporting materials are available in the Conference Room.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and state law, it is the policy of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District to offer its public meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone,
including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require special accommodations to participate,
please contact the Secretary of the District at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 229 -7303.
Budget and Finance Committee
December 3, 2012
Page 2
Call Meeting to Order
2. Public Comments
3. Old Business
*a. Review staff's response to the Committee's request for additional
information regarding Expenditures reviewed at previous meeting
• Check #192499 paid to Peterson Power Systems for $399.40
*b. Review staff's response to the Committee's concerns regarding the cost of
ergonomic task chairs purchased for staff
Staff Recommendation: Review staff's responses.
4. Risk Management
*a. Review Loss Control Report and discuss outstanding claims
Staff Recommendation: Review the report, discuss outstanding
claims and provide direction if needed.
*5. Review Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) Draft Report follow -up and Andrew
Brown of HighMark Capital Management's response to the report regarding the
use of POBs to fund Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association
(CCCERA) Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL)
Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide input if needed.
6. Review the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as of June 30, 2012
for submission to the Government Finance Officers Association (Item 3.d. in
Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review and recommend Board approval.
*7. Review memo regarding suggested changes to the Travel and Expense
Reimbursement Policy No. BP 008
Staff Recommendation: Review and provide input.
Budget and Finance Committee
December 3, 2012
Page 3
8. Review October 2012 Financial Statements and Investment Reports (Item 3.c. in
Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review and recommend Board approval.
9. Expenditures
a. Review Expenditures (Item 3.b. in Board Binder)
Staff Recommendation: Review and recommend Board approval.
*b. Review Legal Expenditure Summary
Staff Recommendation: Review Legal Expenditure Summary.
10. Reports and Announcements
11. Suggestions for future agenda items
12. Adjournment
* Attachment
c!/,'• o
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
December 3, 2012
TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 61W VIA: ANN FARRELL, GENERAL MANAGER
FROM: THEA VASSALLO, FINANCE MANAGER
SUBJECT: EXPENDITURE FOLLOW -UP
At the November 13, 2012 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, staff was asked to
provide additional information on the following:
Check# Date Amount Vendor
192499 11/01/12 $399.40 Peterson Power Systems
Per Nick Wright, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Supervisor, the vehicle shop
made several in house attempts to repair the HVAC system on a heavy duty vehicle.
The vehicle shop does not have a heavy duty scan /diagnostic tool to diagnose heavy
duty vehicles. The shop is currently in the process of demoing a heavy duty diagnostic
tool with various vendors and plans to purchase one in the near future. The estimated
cost of the diagnostic tool is in the range of $1,200 to $7,500. Nick is currently checking
with other agencies to see what other shops use. A copy of the Peterson Power
Systems invoice is attached for your convenience and review.
Invoice No:7535
INVOICE
Page 1 of 1
t
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITRY
5019 IMHOFF PL
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
2718 TEAGARDEN ST.
SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577
www.patersontrucks.com
Toil Free: (888) 818 -1806
SERVICE ADVISOR: 4378 PATRICK M COLLINS
YEAR MAKE /MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
12 INTERNATIONAL 7500 1 HTWKAZRXCJ553168
REPAIR DRN DEfl
WRITTEN DATE READY TELEPHONE NO. CUSTOMER. NO. TAG
28SEP12 01OCT12 925 - 228 -9500 632 T5475
UNIT a DELIVERY DATE
272 1 07JUL11
Cell: LICENSE MILEAGE IN / OUT PO NO.
Email:
1157850 14270 \ 14270 039830 \
LINE OPCODE TECH TYPE HOURS LIST TOTAL
A AC VENTS NOT SWITCHING FROM AC TO DEFROST
01 A/C
3920 CS1 350.00
1 2611234C1 MOTOR 43.10 37.56
PARTS: 37.56 LABOR: 350.00 OTHER: 0.00 TOTAL LINE A:
14270 Brought truck up to the shop and got downloads, and confirmed
a active code for ac vent door jammed, removed interior panel and found
the actuator for the vents broken and the left side of the hvac box was
loose and caused the vent control system to fall out of time, ordered
and replaced the broken actuator, and retimed the control system, and
now all the vents were working correctly, reinstalled interior panel.
parked truck in the ready line.
CUSTOMER PAY SHOP SUPPLIES FOR REPAIR ORDER
350.00
37.56
387.56
CEN'AAL CCNTRA COSTA
SANNT0 1Y DIV-, n _
ACCOCVTN iR�
Wt
a Vi h,,Tll
TOTALS
torah [n he done eons with the .- Iu,
LABOR AMOUNT
matanat and agree that yo t are nor mspons,blo
TC'rAL
b
IN JO'CE ACCURACY CH EC <E D
APPP ' D RY:
OATE: w� ~�
ROVED EM
DATE.
lhtpment! by the supplier or tran.paner I
7.75
REMIT TO: PETERSON TRUCKS, INC. P.O. BOX 1508, SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 Customer Copy
I hereby atah.,ae the rmat, work hermn .rt
DESCRIPTION
TOTALS
torah [n he done eons with the .- Iu,
LABOR AMOUNT
matanat and agree that yo t are nor mspons,blo
for Ines or damage to veh¢ a er art21n! left m
veh¢te m case of lira their or env Diner cause
PARTS AMOUNT
$ 37.56
beyond your Control or for any detAye Cauled
by unavailability of pans or delaye In part!
GAS, OIL, LUBE
$ 0.00
lhtpment! by the supplier or tran.paner I
SUBLET AMOUNT
Q,QO
hereby grant you and /o, your empoyees
permislion to operate the vehicle hero n
MISC. CHARGES
7.75
d"Cribed on streets highways or olsnwhere
for the purport! of test rag andPor �nsnecbnn An
TOTAL CHARGES
395.31
express mecharoc's On s hrmbv
acknowledged on above vehicle to secure the
amount of repairs thereto
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A
LESS INSURANCE
$ 0.00
SALES TAX
9
COPY HEREOF.
PLEASE PAY
THIS AMOUNT
$ 399.40
JrLISTOMIR
REMIT TO: PETERSON TRUCKS, INC. P.O. BOX 1508, SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 Customer Copy
1b
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
November 30, 2012
TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE PA' VIA: ANN FARRELL, GENERAL MANAGER
FROM: STEPHANIE KING, PURCHASING & MATERIALS MANAGER
SUBJECT: ERGONOMIC TASK CHAIRS
There has been ongoing concern at the Budget & Finance Committee meetings
regarding the cost of the ergonomic task chairs purchased for staff. The question has
also been raised on whether we can recognize savings by buying these chairs in bulk
and stocking them in the warehouse. This memo will address these concerns and
questions.
We are currently standardized on an ergonomic task chair approved by Safety. The
average cost of our chairs based on the past twelve month's usage is $375 plus tax.
This price includes delivery and assembly. We are using CMAS (California Mulitple
Award Schedule) contract pricing that extends to us a discount of 59.6% off list price. In
the past twelve months, we have bought 32 ergo task chairs, totaling $13,040.40, this
amount includes delivery, assembly and tax.
The chair is a good quality ergonomic task chair made for 8 hour work days. These
chairs have held up well at the District and we have had minimal complaints /issues from
staff. Also, the warranty we receive on them is as follows: Gas cylinders, controls, and
functional parts are warranted for ten (10) years; arm caps, casters, and backliners are
warranted for five (5) years; and upholstery materials (foam, mesh) are warranted for
three (3) years.
1 did a quick poll of just over 10 other public agencies to find that the price range they
typically pay for an 8 -hour ergonomic task chair is between $250 and $700, which helps
to substantiate that the price we are currently paying is reasonable. Less expensive
chairs are available and we can research further should the Committee want us to
pursue this. However, less expensive chairs may not be of the same quality, so they
may not hold up as well and may need to be replaced sooner.
There are many variables to consider when selecting a task chair, including the length
of time the person will be in the chair, the individual's stature (height, weight, etc.), and
the type and number of features that allow the chair to be adjusted for best fit.
Currently, employees go through the Safety division to get fitted for an appropriate
chair. Chair options are addressed at this time, such as back size, seat slider, cylinder
size, adjustable arm rests, etc.
1.
Because each chair is specific to the individual, stocking a "one- size - fits -all" chair in the
warehouse would not be advantageous or recommended. Stocking a chair would also
add carrying and inventory costs incurred by the warehouse. Based on an approximate
annual usage of $13K, there are no price breaks beyond the 59.6% off list even if we
were to buy all 32 chairs at one time. In addition, I have found that it is common in
public agencies to have their safety or risk management department approve select
chairs and order on an as needed basis to ensure a good fit for each employee. The
cost of a quality chair that correctly fits the employee's ergonomic needs is far less than
the cost of a worker's comp claim, particularly since many of the employees sit in these
chairs long hours on a daily basis.
These chairs last on average about 10 years. The District's workforce consists of
approximately 155 office staff who need an ergonomic task chair. This means that on
average we can expect to be purchasing 1 to 2 chairs per month. However, we have
hired a good number of new employees, which explains the higher quantities of chairs
being purchased during the past 12 months.
We also may see chair expenses that run more than the average we noted. This may
be due to an employee that exceeds the standard weight limitations of the chair, 24/7
chairs that are used in the control room, and also specialty chairs, such as the executive
chairs in the board room.
In conclusion, my recommendation is to continue our current process for buying
ergonomic task chairs for staff.
O
W
n.
d
l0
0
0
cc
IL
Z
d
N
cc
UI
U)
U)
•`o
a
o�
O
N
W �
a e
a`) E
s
s
N
O
J �y
O
0 r
N
r
CD A
CL
iH S.
N
a
a
N
� r
H 7E
7 fA
U
CD
O
N
W).
N
LL
O
�o
1°-
CC
W
2
H
O
cn
z
W
0
z
On
Q
J
O
W '
0_
rte+
W
C!
0
CD
d
d
cc
�l
o
0
� O
C c, d
m Ln
� o m
.
4
t! °C c
N
CD cn C9
m N O N
C.
co N ^ r
Qj O
r
f9
o �
N
i
W
p
Q
O
cn
0
o
Q
of
cl
cu
0
MMd
l.�
m
E
O
J
O
N
N
L
°m
C
0 I-
O
O
Q
i
N
N 1
r
N
O
Cl
N
U)
W
65
�i
n,
OI
U)
O
J
O)
CO
O
T
1
N
T
O
N
O
c
cn
U
U
U
ca
a
Fn
6%
fH
U
3
L
CISL
U �
�
c
jZ m
z
W
$
o
W
m
0 D>
.= Y
lc
d J
7
N
N
W
0=
m
2
f0
d'1
f9
-W
0
MWM
2
V
z
~
'
Y
C
a
.2
J
C U
a
C
,C
D
z
a
U
CL
z0
N
m
0
0
O!
a�
LU
p
a
O
O
W
n.
d
l0
0
0
cc
IL
Z
d
N
cc
UI
U)
U)
•`o
a
o�
O
N
W �
a e
a`) E
s
s
N
O
J �y
O
0 r
N
r
CD A
CL
iH S.
N
a
a
N
� r
H 7E
7 fA
U
CD
O
N
W).
N
LL
O
�o
1°-
CC
W
2
H
O
cn
z
W
0
z
On
Q
J
O
W '
0_
rte+
W
C!
0
CD
d
d
cc
�l
o
0
� O
C c, d
m Ln
� o m
.
4
t! °C c
N
CD cn C9
m N O N
C.
co N ^ r
Qj O
r
f9
o �
N
i
W
p
Q
a
cn
0
o
of
cl
cu
0
o
ai
m
E
a
C
cD
J
O
N
N
N
N
° �
°m
0 I-
O
C7
Q
i
N
N 1
r
N
O
Cl
N
.-
W
65
�i
n,
OI
a)
o
U
H
z
W
0
U
}z
F
a
W
CL
O
CL
0
A
a
a)
TO
O
O
w
a
0°
Z °o
al N
N
a
aCi
0
W
y m
t 0
s
N
D °
CD CL
.°i , a
Q N cla
0
N
m
N c
CL
O
fo
0
0
0
0
La0
O
CM
N
a
O.
0
a
R
1°-
H
z
W
0
U
z
0
_
Q
m
°
cl
Q
°m
0.
m
0 OR
n
O)
O
N
N
�
O
N
o
ca
a
Fn
6%
fH
40
3
�
c
$
o
m
lc
y
7
N
N
W
0=
E9
f0
d'1
f9
-W
0
I
2
d
~
o
v
a
Q
U
CL
N
m
N
O!
a�
0
C
p
a
.0
a
0
CD
E
�
E
W
mm
C
C
O
0
o
cc
0
J
Ch
CD
To
R I
J
2
J
i
0
E
E
0
N
d
~
E
c
a)
cc
a-
IL
3
m
=
cu
H
°
rn
O
L
r0
C7
J
M0uj
_r
N
N
r
O
•(�
0
Q
N
N
N
U
_N
co
Vi
,�
e7
J
C
_O
U
o�gaQal
s_
Co
N
N
4f
>+
C3
°Igr°ie°�
U
cm
cm
N
�a-
L
yk
U
r
N
m
a.
W
C
NI
O'D
y
y
C
d
�
((//}}
v
v 16I
Z
N M
o
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
December 3, 2012
TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
VIA: ANN FARRELL, GENERAL MANAGER k THEA VASSALLO, FINANCE MANAGER<4�
SUBJECT: PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS FOR FUNDING OF CCCERA UAAL
DRAFT REPORT FOLLOW -UP
At the November 13, 2012 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, staff was asked to
contact Andrew Brown, CFA, Vice President, Senior Portfolio Investment Manager for
the District's GASB 45 OPEB Trust with HighMark Capital Management, in order to get
another opinion on the Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Draft Management of Pension
Liabilities and Impact on District Cash Balances and Financing Capacity Report.
Andrew Brown has reviewed staffs basic concept chart, the Pros and Cons chart, and
the Fieldman Draft Report. Attached are Andrew Browns' comments for your review. In
summary, he states "there are more Cons vs. Pros for doing this transaction," referring
to the sale of Pension Obligation Bonds. Staff concurs with this assessment.
If the Budget and Finance Committee also concurs with this assessment, staff would
recommend calling this analysis complete and not bringing it to the full Board for
consideration at this time.
Thea Vassallo
Subject: FW: Fieldman draft report 11- 2012.docx
From: Andrew Brown [mailto: Andrew .Brawn @highmarkcapital.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:54 AM
To: Thea Vassallo
Cc: Mitch Barker
Subject: RE: Fieldman draft report 11- 2012.docx
Thea-
Good morning-
I spent some time this weekend reviewing the memorandum from Fieldman Rolapp & Associates, as well as your other
attachments. Before I provide any comments, let me fully disclose that while I have no connection with CCCERA, I do
manage the OPEB Plan for the County of Contra Costa. I know a few members on the Board, but I have no great insight
into their work, nor do I have any idea whether they will be able to achieve 7.75%, or if they might amend their targeted
allocation target.
I would initially offer that I think you have captured the majority of the Pros /Cons of doing this deal, in your excel
attachment. From your standpoint, and from mine, I would offer that there are more Cons, vs. Pros for doing this
transaction.
PROS
All of your arguments for doing the deal seem to have merit. If I understand the potential savings, based on the data on
Page 9 of Fieldman's report, the savings could be sizable if CCCERA hits their investment targets. If the returns are at, or
in excess of 7.75%, the savings could be substantial at a variety of levels between $30 -75 million of POB issuance. If the
returns are less than this amount, then the savings are less. And if I understand correctly, if the returns are below
4.15%, then this transaction might lead to an additional cost to the District. Speaking only for me. I don't find 4.15% a
terribly daunting investment target for a pension plan to achieve over a long -term horizon. Given the current asset
allocation stance of CCCERA, I would offer that the probability is reasonable that CCCERA could attain this
target. However, achieving a target of 7.75% seems to be the real goal in terms of the District achieving real
savings. Certainly I have no ability to accurately predict CCCERA's future returns. However, comparing the two exhibits
on page 9, where Fieldman shows the benefits from 7.75% and the benefits from a 5% return, seems to be useful. My
guess is that the actual returns will likely fall somewhere in the middle. If this were to be the case, then how much
benefit would the District necessarily reap?
CONS -
I list below your current highlighted "cons ", with commentary if applicable.
Lack of good press - I would agree that POB's have not garnered much positive press. The head of my tax - exempt bond
department shared with me however that much of the negative press recently stems from Stockton. I think that is
more of an issue with the municipality rather than the nature of POBs.
Agencies regret issuing POBs- I don't have much insight on this. I would offer that in my mind the main source of regret
potentially for the District is if the returns from CCCERA fall short of the target. I do feel that the District is one of my
more conservative oriented clients. Doing an issuance like this doesn't entirely follow the risk /reward constructs that I
have informally formed regarding the members of the District that I have worked with over time. While the savings are
tremendous if the investment targets are realized, if returns are sub -par, then there could very well be some regret.
CCCERAs returns - I provided some commentary above on this topic. I would offer that while I think 4.15% is not a
daunting target, capital markets will be volatile going forward (as they always are), and this volatility will stretch into
both equity and fixed income markets. For Bonds, sometime in the near future, we would expect interest rates to
rise. CCCERA currently does have a significant allocation to fixed income. While historically this has helped reduce the
risk to the Plan, in the future the opposite could be true. Additionally, sometime in the future, America has to come to
grips with our budget deficits, potential entitlement reform, an aging population, and other challenges. Historically
America has proven to be resilient and up to most challenges we have faced. But of course past performance is no
guarantee of future behavior.
4.15% - A con? Could rates go much lower?
District has no control over risk factors — True. But this is true whether you do the deal, or you don't do the deal. You
cannot control CCCERA's investment choices.
California's economy may be sluggish - This could go either way. Yes, California's economy has been sluggish for some
time now. Will this always be the case? Are things getting better? If they are in fact getting better, and more
specifically, if things are getting better in the District's territory, then this could potentially be categorized as a
"PRO ". However, post -Prop 30, the State does face a potential risk in establishing an economic environment where a
significant amount of the residence may get fed up with the tax environment. And many may seek to move out of the
state. If more higher tax bracket residence move out of the state, then we will have in fact hollowed out a significant
revenue source for the state, and this could leave us in a bad situation. Will they leave District's boundaries? Maybe,
maybe not. I will forward an article that came out last week that discusses this idea.
Debt service should be saved for CIP financing - I don't feel I should comment on this.
I hope some of these comments help the District. If I have missed the mark entirely, then please call me, or Jim can call
me if he likes. Additionally, Mitch has a contact who has a deep background in issuing POBs. I believe Mitch offered to
put you in contact with this person. I would encourage you to take him up on that offer.
Best,
Andrew
From: Thea Vassallo rmailto:TVassallo 0centralsan.or41
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Andrew Brown
Subject: Fieldman draft report 11- 2012.docx
Hi Andrew
Attachments
File 1- Bond cost chart attached is basic concept
File 2 - Attached is Fieldman's draft report. FYI Pg 10 chart is incorrect, chart is for a different `Yo than noted. losses
should be much higher.
File 3 - Is a list of pro and cons that were considered by the District
Any comments would be great. The main question is "in your opinion would you invest your own $30 -$50M to pay
down an unfunded liability given the report info ?" and given what you know about the investment market and the
economy?
In our review the District found many risk factors associated with issuing POB's that are not controllable by the
District. Nejedly was really interested in what your personal thoughts are. We can discuss if you want after you review
the info.
Interested in your comments.
Thanks a bunch,
Thea Vassallo
925 335 -7740
m
N
U)
CO
N
L
m
v
cv
G.
N
CL
U
N
0
c v)
m m
U) O
M
0
O ° CD
U °
cv U)
c j
O N
�O
�a
U Z
\0
0
Ln
ti
a
C
N
7
u
0
U')
II
N
r-+
R
"O
N
E
N
°
m
9
w
U
U
tq �
m �
O °'
U
O n
o�
U')
ti
ti
0
CO
0
M Ln
O
O
0 0 0
O L ) Lt) )
O �- T-
O d
0 0
0 i Ul O
U*) )
N CA
0 0 0
Ln U-) o
rl- -r-- C�
N 4 co
flp o
tL
o a c o 0 0
> CO r ti
O
d y Y M li (�
O {Q
U �
m
O O O
LO LO O
I,, 7 OA
It It CO
0 0 o
LO LO O
Ln d m
I
w
U
0.9)
UO
3a U
O °
6 U H
0
ti
N
V
U)
U)
O
U
c
CU
N
Y
t�
v
m
0
LO
ti
A
O
U
M
tQ
m
0
N
m
a
c
O O O
LO LO O
I,, 7 OA
It It CO
0 0 o
LO LO O
Ln d m
I
w
U
0.9)
UO
3a U
O °
6 U H
0
ti
N
V
U)
U)
O
U
c
CU
N
Y
t�
v
m
0
LO
ti
A
O
U
0
fd
U
U
m
Q)
M
M
m
d
L
�0
N
Q
a
a
N
IL
C,
a
t
R
Z
e
l
i
c
u
c
w
m
ea
m
L
U
C
U
En
d
a
L
t
U
7
N
O
t
O
c
C
7
N
C
.O
C
l0
m
.n
Y
v
U tCi
p O
� m
O L
m N
m
O
U �n r
(YLo u, 00
O A
d
f0 Q 0 la
a)Oa' E
U a. a m
NI
0
a
W
Z
O
U
2
LO
ti C
w
0
w
U
m
n.
C
m
fl.
U
m
s
A
a
m
m
m
U
107
U
m
O
a
0
U
c
m
_
U
y
c
O
0
n.
O
O
rn
c
v
a)
U
O
C
a)
m
2
U)
(1)
U
C
m
m
U
m
U
O
O
C
O
U
N
O
E
U)
m
.0
U
U)
l,w
c
m
r
a)
L_
.0
U)
v
a)
_
a)
m
L
is
U
a)
U
c
CD
O
C
a)
LL
CD m
(T
m 0
L O
Y
Y m
O O
m C
O 0)
> m
C
O L O
m
m f
(D
O
L �
a) 0 p
U - O
a) a) O 0 N
N U N N
O O C
CL CL.
3 E x
x
Ua)
a)
L N m O
3 y m
o c
�U
c
m
C
T
CD
rn
a)
c
3
A
a)
m
LO
m
O
a
E
a
U
a)
U
N
N
m
U)
a)
3
O
:--
-C
CD
to
m
U
V-
0
s
U
U
a)
U
0
a
U
bo
O
a
0
O
U
a
v
O
Y
U
O
J
U
a)
U
O
U
C
()
E
U
a)
to
C
O
m
_
U
Lo --
0 m
U Y
m
Y E
A
'C �
o
o
0U
U
o U
c �
U
m U)
t N
U �
M
N .0
m
a)
3
a)
c
CD
L
Y
a)
O
U
N
L
N
O
U)
70
O
U
()
O
a
is
c
O
c
a)
.0
3
CD
c
.E
0
c
O
U
a)
t0
O
ru
U
O
a)
U
a)
m
U
U)
a)
a)
rn
c
U
c
m
c
W-
IL
U
O
v
m
rn
a)
'o
75
O
.0
rn
U
m
In
0
m
0
N
O
N
O
N
r
r
2
Q
N
C O
3 n
a
0 U c
a
6 r
U
s (D a
OQ CO
�' cONOdOdrrrrr
N V'Il- MC0c0Orr r V ti O
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ o
M Lo M r V M M V r LO V' M
c6 CD O ti (D (D O (D (D M r I-
r r N r N r r r
O r 3 (D O (D CO r C) r 0 1-
Nqqr I- qt I- LO LO r r M N
I�
U V' I-CC) V V'MNONON V'
C CD C) OMr V'CDMOO VM
p N N N N N N N N N M M
m
a)
CL
of
O NM V)0r- MOOrNM
00OOOCOrrr-
m oNC) AOI,w06�CV
0000000d
ddoo0000O000
(A N N N N N N N N N N N N
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
November 30, 2012
TO: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: ANN FARRELL, GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO TRAVEL AND EXPENSE
REIMBURSEMENT POLICY NO. BP 008
Staff is suggesting two changes for consideration
First, the Travel Policy currently requires the use of a travel agent to book all airline
flights. The $20 cost of each transaction is then billed to the District. With the
availability of airline search engines on the internet, our actual airline booking practice
has evolved to individuals searching for the best flights and then giving that information
to the travel agent for booking with the agent not providing any added value. Therefore,
staff is suggesting that the use of a travel agent for booking airline travel no longer be
required.
Second, it has been District practice to issue cash advances for hotel costs to
individuals traveling on District business who do not have or do not choose to use their
personal credit card. Some of these individuals do have District procurement cards.
Staff is recommending that such individuals be allowed to use their District procurement
card for hotel charges in lieu of requesting a cash advance, when such use is of the
procurement card is approved by their supervisor.
If these two changes are acceptable to the Committee, staff will draft a position paper
for consideration at a future Board meeting to make these changes and a few other
minor changes resulting from changes in the organizational reporting structure.
As previously requested by the Board, staff is evaluating Board policies in general and
will be coming back to the Board to discuss policies versus procedures and what items
in current policies would more appropriately be contained in administrative procedures.
At that time, there may be additional recommended changes to the Travel Policy.
A
i
cc
E
E
3
V)
d
i
C
d3
CL
K
W
4i
J
G
Z
LL
W
U)
Z
W
CL
x
W
0
Z
Z
Z
C
CD
CL
x
CD
0)
CD
CD
.a
U
C
C
O
O
.a
N
U
N
..O
O
as
N
E
E
O
U
LL
co
m
N
co
co
T
CD
C
I
N
r
O
N
N
r
T
CD
C
a