Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07282015 - D.4RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE supplemental information requested by the Board on July 7, 2015 regarding the auto allowance for Board members and CONSIDER action to be taken on Board compensation. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% County General Fund. The July 7 recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation to increase the Board’s base salary would result in a total increased payroll cost of approximately $91,540, of which $22,560 is employer retirement cost. The average annual incremental cost would be $30,500. The fiscal impact of the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendation to eliminate mileage reimbursement from the monthly auto allowance benefit will vary depending on the number of miles driven per month by individual Supervisors and whether or not they would choose to use a County fleet automobile in lieu of other compensation. BACKGROUND: During its July 7 deliberations on Board of Supervisors compensation, the Board asked for the following information with regard to its auto allowance: The history of the automobile and mileage allowance Actual mileage reimbursement history for each Supervisor The comparable cost of a County fleet automobile APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/28/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: David Twa 925-335-1080 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 28, 2015 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:July 28, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION FOLLOW-UP BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > History of the Automobile and Mileage Allowance. The Executive Automobile Allowance was first granted on August 1, 1979 (Resolution Nos. 79/781 and 80/214) at the rate of $150/mo plus $0.17/mile (IRS mileage rate) to any elected official or appointment department head who had been assigned a county automobile and elected to turn it in and use his/her private automobile instead. That Resolution also permitted department heads who had not previously been assigned a county automobile to receive the allowance if they agreed to a corresponding reduction of $100/mo in their proposed salary increase. The Board increased the auto allowance gradually over time and the mileage reimbursement rate continued to be indexed to the Internal Revenue Service mileage rate: Effective Allowance Authority 1/1/1990 $400 plus mileage Res. 89/77 10/1/1998 $450 plus mileage Ord. 98-15 12/14/1999 $550 plus mileage Ord. 99-57 7/1/2007 $600 plus mileage Ord. 06-70 In 1986, the Board passed Resolution No. 86/702, which permits individual members of the Board of Supervisors to arrange for use of a County-owned, maintained, and insured automobile for County business in lieu of receiving the auto allowance. Actual Mileage Reimbursement History for Each Supervisor. Individual members of the Board of Supervisors may submit monthly demands for reimbursement of personal costs incurred in the conduct of County business. Summarized below is the 16-year history (FYs 2000-2015) of mileage claimed by each Supervisor. Comparable Cost of Arranging for a County Automobile in Lieu of Auto Allowance. The County provides automobiles through the Fleet Internal Services Fund (ISF). Charges to departments for maintaining an automobile in the ISF include a fixed monthly charge for depreciation and insurance, and a variable per mile charge for preventive maintenance. The standard sedan of the County fleet is the Ford Fusion. For the purpose of comparing the cost of the Board’s auto allowance benefit with the cost of providing an automobile from the County’s fleet, we have used the upgraded Ford Fusion Hybrid in observance of the Board’s low emission automobile policy. In the table on the following page, the initial purchase price of the automobile is amortized over the 84-month automobile life, after which the depreciation charge drops out and the automobile can be replaced at no additional charge through the ISF (replacement cost is funded through vehicle depreciation). COUNTY FLEET ISF VEHICLE: Ford Fusion Hybrid $ 31,000.00 Tax and License 3,290.00 $ 34,290.00 Amortized over 84 months $ 408.21 Average mileage allowance over 84 months until replacement review at 90,000 miles 1,071 Purchase Price, Tax and License $ 408.21 Depreciation over 84 mos (7 years)284.83 Preventive Maintenance @ .167/mile for 780 miles/mo 130.26 Fuel assuming 27 MPG @ $3.50/gal 101.11 Monthly Cost, Years 1-7:$ 924.42 Monthly Cost, Years 8 and forward:$ 516.20 CLERK'S ADDENDUM RECEIVED the supplemental information regarding auto allowance for Board members; DIRECTED the County Administator to return to the Board with an ordinance to provide a 12% salary increase spread over three years beginning January 1, 2016, continuing the auto allowance at its current rate and limiting mileage reimbursement to out-of-district mileage; and further DIRECTED the County Administrator to return with a management resolution to make the auto allowance an equal amount amongst all elected department heads. I'm here to speak to the facts, not opinion. Note that the discussion today relates to reimbursement for expenses borne in the pursuit of job duties, this is NOT compensation. The Compensation Committee did a great job as we have all acknowledged, but when the looked at the mileage reimbursement issue, they looked at County policy comparisons statewide, not actual implementation here in Contra Costa. Nor did they Committee seek input during their process from Supervisors, or look at mileage data like that included in today's Board agenda documentation, that I had to request after the meeting. I do not believe that the recommendations coming out of the Committee intend to cost Board Members directly and if implemented would create true costs of employment with service and employment to the County for employees. There is an undue burden of the proposal that impacts some Districts more than others, and that is inequitable. In the recommendations for the new policy to exclude mileage reimbursement to Board members, there was no consideration given for existing practice or Supervisorial District size. And every District is different. I find that when people ask me when I'm in the office the most and I say not much, I'm mostly driving from meetings to meetings. My office, relatively speaking, is my car. My mileage and meeting reports, the public record, bears that out. I would like to believe that the Committee never intended for this policy proposal to not reimburse employees for true and actual County costs. Both the state and federal governments have legal standards that require employees to be properly reimbursed for actual expenses of their employers. Fair and reasonable reimbursement. Any wholesale change in our policy should be considered by County Counsel to ensure we are meeting those legal requirements. I'm afraid this new proposal does not meet that legal standard. At least with my own service and work performance. I have several issues at play here and I will determine my action based on our discussion. A major component of the issue was omitted from the recommendations, namely the District III Supervisor more than doubles the District IV mileage. The monthly reports and history again indicate this reality. I attend twice the meetings my colleagues attend, as reflected in my monthly records published in these agendas. This is work performance that costs me personally to perform should the mileage policy be implemented as the Committee suggests. Contrary to media reports, mileage is a real expense that we bear every day in performance of our duties. It's again an expense that state and federal law requires an employer to fully reimburse and employee for. Because we have an auto allowance and mileage reimbursement, there is s perception that we are gaining in compensation. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm going to share my personal vehicle costs and recognize that these numbers will be different for all of us as we all drive different cars. But one thing is consistent, the mileage totals. According to Kelly Blue Book, my personal vehicle depreciates $11k a year, $916.67 per month. My fuel costs exceed $145.83 per month. Insurance $60. And general maintenance $83.33. This is $1,205.83 per month. On average I have received reimbursement of $441 per month for mileage expenses, creating an already personal monthly deficit of $164 to perform my duties. An annual personal expense of $2,000. Again, this is with the current policy of reimbursement. If you subtract the auto allowance of $600 per month I'm at a monthly deficit of $605.83 that the IRS mileage rate is intended to cover and comes close to covering today. But I still pay more than I receive in reimbursement under the existing policy. The proposal from the Committee would eliminate mileage reimbursement for my work and cost me personally over $600 per month, $7,200 per year. And please note my mileage numbers are not complete. They exclude a few boards I serve or have served on like the Bay Area Air Board, Delta Conservancy, DPC and DSC that require significant travel. And, it has been acknowledged I travel the most dangerous roads in the County. For my colleagues that have this District and meeting imbalance, this is something we need to be mindful of. Again, the issue at hand here is reimbursement for actual and real costs of County service for employees of the County. The biggest mistake we can make is for this issue to be considered as compensation, which it is not. I have a few suggestions: 1. Implement the policy as proposed for mileage at the beginning of the next election cycle. This is the law for our elected seats and we can apply it to our own. 2.Implement the policy at the end of the raise implementation so the personal costs of the new mileage policy will be covered by then total increase in monthly compensation. 3.Implement the new policy with an amendment that out- of-District travel will be covered in reimbursement and in-District travel would not. This is something that was suggested at the last meeting. If number three is selected, please note that this would still cause greater personal costs to some District Supervisors than others. Again, an inequitable and unfair situation. Mr. Chairman, in the discussion and deliberation today I ask you and my colleagues to consider the imbalance and expense this revised policy will create for the District III Supervisor.