2011-3086-Minutes for Meeting September 14,2011 Recorded 11/16/2011COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/16/201108:07:17 AM
111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I
2011-3088
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
4
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF ROAD STUDY GROUP
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present for a portion of the meeting were Commissioners Tammy Baney and
Anthony DeBone. Present for the entire meeting were Commissioner Alan Unger;
and members of the committee: Todd Taylor, Ben Gordon, George Kolb, Roger
Olson, Randy McCulley, Peter Russell, Steven Runner, Chris Doty, Clay Higuchi,
Mike Williams, Andy High, Bill Robie, Gordon Dukes, Tyler Deke, Jack Holt,
Hardy Hanson, and Conrad Ruel. Also in attendance for part of the meeting was
media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin.
Chair Todd Taylor opened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
1. PCI Data for County Roads.
Discussion took place regarding the Pavement Condition Index. George Kolb
said that prior to 2009, they were not doing a good job on inventory, but now it
is done every year; north on year and south on the next.
Todd Taylor asked what is considered good. Mr. Kolb said they look at cracks,
ruts, and the overall condition of the pavement. It does not deal with the life of
the road. If it is rated fair to poor, that means it needs work. Roger Olson
added that they are trying to equate this to service life, but there is nothing too
exact to help with this determination.
Mr. Taylor asked how they forecast over time based on this information, and
whether the numbers will all continue to drop. Mr. Kolb replied that over $4
million annually is needed to keep the roads in good condition.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 1 of 7 Pages
Mr. Olson added that chip seal seems to make the biggest difference. The
condition overall is good now, but it will be harder to keep up. They have
started putting their efforts into collectors and arterials. The local roads or
lower volume collectors will start to go bad first.
Mr. Taylor asked about the 723 miles, of which forest highways are about 14%.
Arterials are about 10%, collectors about 35%, and the balance is local. Mr.
Kolb pointed out that forest highway dollars have to be used for that purpose.
There is no opportunity to use that funding for anything else.
Mr. Taylor said it appears to cost about $210,000 a mile for a three-inch
overlay. Mr. Kolb stated that it depends on the width of the road and other
factors as well.
Chair Tammy Baney said the Board has met on this issue, and thanked the
group for the time they are spending on it. She stated that Mr. Kolb is an
engineer and is doing a great job trying to carry this forward. Erik Kropp is the
interim County Administrator and he also wants to see this moved forward.
She added that there are no wrong questions, no single solutions and no silver
bullet. The Board wants to convey that things are not being done wrong, but
times have changed and there may be better ways of doing things. They would
like immediate recommendations. Even small savings can make a difference.
By using public dollars, they are held to a standard of customer service. They
need to retain this while at the same time educate the public.
They would like five recommendations that can be vetted against statute,
unions, staffing issues, and so on. There should be long-term sustainable
recommendations. It is also appropriate to expand the group if it is felt that
someone else being involved would add value.
Commissioner Alan Unger said that the PCI is important, as that is often the
expected road condition. This is a good basis for the next steps.
Mr. Taylor asked Chris Doty of the City of Redmond what is optimum for the
city, and what is acceptable. Mr. Doty said that a 70 or better is desired.
Redmond is at 80 or better, mostly due to new pavement because of growth.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Jack Holt asked if the County is constricted on the use of current sources of
income, or if there are other things in the County that are perhaps a lower
consideration so that funds can be dedicated to roads. Chair Baney said they
are trying to find out if there are other ways to spend money internally. Some
funds cannot be used for this, like property taxes. Although this might be done
elsewhere and they have not been challenged.
Chair Baney added that there was almost $1 million in revenue due to back
taxes being paid and recordings because of foreclosures. This money cannot be
used as sustainable dollars. How these funds are allocated is a policy decision.
Hardy Hanson said that the money has to be sustainable. They need to come up
with recommendations on what can be done right now and what must be done
to make the funding sustainable.
2. Equipment Owned by Road Department.
Mr. Kolb introduced the fleet manager, Randy, to provide a summary of
vehicles and equipment.
Mr. Taylor questioned as to whether there is a better way to use equipment
through the various agencies. He also asked about the FTE for each location.
Mr. Kolb referred to questions #2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.
Randy McCulley said that the County has 188 pieces of equipment including
trucks, cars, and rolling stock. They also service solid waste, which has large,
specialized equipment. There are six technicians, two of which specialize on
heavy equipment. They support each other without overtime and are very
capable and experienced. They usually do not rely on the dealerships. They do
not mark up parts. The parts person is figured into labor markup, which is
adjusted annually and is a sound system.
Mr. Hanson asked if they have capacity to service others. Mr. McCulley
replied that they generally have one bay open. Everything else stays full and
they run at a fair capacity. He came from the private sector, and he is proud of
how efficiently this operates.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 3 of 7 Pages
The lube person fuels and services field equipment. The tire person does it all,
plus shop inspections and facilities repair, and a wide range of work. They
have become more efficient over time. He is comfortable with the charge-outs
of $65 to $75 per hour. They are competitive and sustainable.
Jack Holt asked if the cost of the facility is considered. If it is added, it is
expensive. At some point, subbing things out might make sense. The value of
the building is substantial.
Mr. McCulley said that Multnomah cancled their program, and has yet to see
how that has been beneficial. A lot of time has to be spent on preventive
maintenance and equipment that is affected by mag chloride. It would be
difficult to get that done in a typical shop environment. They would have to
shorten the useful equipment life.
Mr. Taylor asked how the utilization of equipment is tracked, by hours or miles.
In the private sector, it is 1,750 to 2,000 miles per year. Otherwise, they rent.
Mr. McCulley said he couldn't directly answer that question. They have to
work on depreciation and other factors to get to that number. Mr. Hanson
added that when you are dealing with snow and ice removal in particular, you
have to have enough equipment to do what you need to do at the time.
Mr. McCulley stated that they use equipment as dump trucks, then as plows.
There is a lot of dual use. Then they may be turned into sanders, patchers, or
other types of support vehicles. Some could have been simply auctioned off,
but instead continue to be used in some capacity.
Mr. Taylor said he is trying to figure out if there are any areas where there can
be cost reductions. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service costs are at $96 per
hour while Fed Ex is at $40. Mr. Holt observed that it is $42 an hour for the
County.
Mr. Taylor asked about the average equipment cost, not the whole thing. It
costs maybe $50 an hour to run. Then you add the FTE and find it is hard to
sustain. Sometimes that has to be reduced. The equipment may cost the same,
but the FTE is the big difference. It may be 70% more than the private sector.
He asked if they are proactive, or will just wait until they have to cut costs.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 4 of 7 Pages
At this time, Andy High had to leave the meeting.
Mr. McCulley stated that they try to find work that can be seasonally
performed. They also outsource some. There will have to be times where you
have to maintain the quality, skill-set and consistency. This is hard to compare
with others, as sometimes special training is needed for certain equipment.
Mr. Holt said that there are a lot of differences between cars, trucks and heavy
equipment. The County Fair has a lot of equipment. Maybe there could be
other savings by doing work locally instead of sending it to Bend.
Erik Kropp said wages and benefits are a consideration. Local 701 represents
the Road Department. They agreed to a COLA freeze. The biggest bargaining
unit, AFSCME, is tentatively changing insurance language to a percentage for
cost sharing.
Mr. Taylor stated that they need to demonstrate that each agency is working
diligently to contain costs. Labor is a big part of this. It increases over time.
The committee may want to focus on the labor side.
Mr. McCulley said that the gas tax is indexed legislatively, but there is a pro-
labor stance in the state. This makes things harder at the local level.
Chair Baney left the meeting at this point.
Mr. Kolb focused on motor vehicle revenue. It is significantly down during the
months when it should have been higher. Mr. Olson added that it is hard to
anticipate from one month to the next. Sometimes it is based on how the funds
are posted and distributed. It was down about $1 million last year alone. Mr.
Kolb added that ODOT provides a projection, but it is often off. Mr. Hanson
said that product costs keep going up.
Mr. Taylor observed that people are driving less and vehicles are more fuel
efficient. Traffic counts are down. He asked if this source is 58% of revenue, if
it is off another $1 million, will they cut projects or go into reserves. Mr. Kolb
replied that generally, they do a big overlay in the spring, but they may not have
the money to do that in the future. This year they still had forest receipts, but
might not have those funds again. The trend seems to be going downward.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Mr. McCulley said that it may level out at 5%. Gas tax and other things will
stabilize over time. However, inflation will continue. Within five years, he
sees it as flatlined. They may gain in population growth, which would be offset
by efficiencies. The cost of petroleum is hard to gauge.
9. Review of Comparable Costs.
Mr. Olson said the program used includes equipment, labor and maintenance
numbers, which are charged as a whole. It is not broken out by line item, but
all the costs are in there. Mag chloride is used to stabilize gravel roads and
keep the dust down. This is cost effective and most residents like it. It costs
perhaps $48 per ton this year. Trucks can haul 13 tons.
Mr. Taylor said that a round trip from Redmond is maybe $70 per hour. At 2.5
hours, that is $13.46 per ton, equaling $61. The numbers do not make sense.
The actual cost has to be more. He used to sell mix to the government and it
was their highest profit item. Mr. Olson said he has the dailies and can review
them.
Mr. Taylor pointed out that it is not hard to get bids today, even on small
projects. Mr. Olson said that they have to go all over the county, and this would
add costs to the private as well as public.
Mr. Taylor said that he wants the group to come back with five ideas on
possible changes, partnering and potential revenue sources. He asked if they
are maximizing grant opportunities with what is available. If they are doing a
good job with PCI's and can define it well, they should sit down with
representatives and others to show how proactive this area is, when it is rated #2
for future growth, and figure out how to get in a better position.
Mr. Doty explained that most grants are for new projects and not maintenance.
And usually a match is required. Federal grants are heavy on workload. Then
you have to maintain the new projects. They are great if they help with
modernizing what you have, be they need to be careful about the others.
Mr. Taylor stated that next time he'd like the group to think about revenue
opportunities and try to come up with numbers for savings. The group will
need to recap what was discussed today, and then go into cost savings plus
revenue opportunities.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Then they can try to figure out what is needed and what funding mechanisms
are available. It is important to show citizens as much thought is going into
savings as there is to try to find more money.
They also have to consider what to do if the funding can't be found. That
means, what is not going to be done. They need to let people know what to
expect and let the public decide whether that is acceptable.
Mr. Doty noted this involves near-term actions and long-term strategies.
It was decided that the next meeting would take place on October 5 at the same
location and time.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Nlh~ ~ U(G61t-rv 2 '-7 UfJ
U
-_CUr
V~ r ~
E w~oK
~w f G
c Q
J ~'1 flc~ti~~✓ env-, v er
~ ` C
MEETING AGENDA
September 14, 2011
1. Review PCI data for County Roads
2. Equipment owned by Road Department.
3. Vehicles serviced by the Road Department
4. How does the Road Department determine how long to keep a piece of
equipment.
5. How are vehicle charges transferred to project cost?
6. Of the total Motor Vehicle Revenue, what percentage is gas tax, DMV License
Registration, Motor Carrier Transportation Fees and Road Assessment User Fees.
7. Cost of thin lift overlays versus contracting them out.
8. What is included in reimbursement cost to cities for services?
9. Provide comparable costs for the following:
• Gravel Roads and maintenance of gravel roads
• Chip seals, cost to install
• Oil mat over full depth grinding with no cement
• Overlay
• Full Depth Reclamation
10. Discuss Washington Counties report on Financing Low-Volume Road
Improvements.
11. Hand out Jackson County information on co-location with ODOT
Road Study Committee
September 14 Meeting
2. Equipment owned by Road Department.
The Road Department owns, operates and maintains 188 vehicles and pieces of equipment. The fleet
includes many specialized units for specific road maintenance processes such as chip seal, crack seal,
paint striping, magnesium chloride application, sand application, and winter snow and ice removal.
3. Vehicles serviced by the Road Department
County Fleet Support Services maintains a fleet total of 428 vehicles and pieces of equipment. Because
our technicians have a strong dealership background, we can competently perform most major
troubleshooting and repair work in house. With high technician productivity and a strong preventative
maintenance program in place, work is performed during normal working hours with very limited
overtime needed.
4. How does the load Department determine know long to ]keep a piece of
equipment.
Equipment life is determined by:
• Depreciation
• Hours/Miles
• Operating Cost
• Utilization
The equipment has a depreciation life that is set up by equipment type. When a piece of equipment is
fully depreciated, it may still be a value to the County to operate as stated in "Utilization" below.
Hours/Miles are a factor in determining the life of the components on the equipment. It can help
determine if a piece of equipment worth investing repair dollar into major repairs or if it is time to
replace the unit.
When a units operating cost per hour/mile exceeds that of purchasing a new vehicle, it may be time to
replace that vehicle.
Utilization: If a unit is not being utilized, an attempt is made to find a need within the County fleet to
utilize the equipment more effectively. Much of the equipment has a secondary life within the
department. For example, many of our dump trucks are converted to low mile or seasonal applications
such as sanders and support vehicles after their primary life as a dump truck is complete.
S. How are vehicle charges transferred to project costs?
Equipment cost is charged to a project based on the miles or hours the equipment is used on the
project. The rate charged per mile or hour is an average of the rate for similar equipment. For example,
all 200910-wheel dump trucks have the same rate. The rate is calculated by dividing the equipment
life-to-date costs by the life-to-date usage for the equipment and is periodically updated. Equipment
costs include all maintenance costs, fuel and oil, tires, and depreciation. The maintenance costs consist
of parts, labor (see # 8 below), overhead (see # 8 below), outside repairs.
S. What is included in reimbursement cost to cities for services?
Cities and other agencies that the Road Department provides services to are charged for the labor,
overhead, materials and equipment (see # 5 above) used to perform the service. Labor costs consist of
wages, benefits (retirement, social security, health insurance, disability and life insurance), and
leave/holiday pay. Overhead includes overhead personnel wages (management and support staff),
professional and technical services, inter-fund services (Property & Facilities, Administrative & BOCC,
Finance, Legal, Personnel, Information Technology), utilities, office equipment and supplies, insurances
(liability, property, vehicle), education, travel. The overhead rate for 2011-2012 is 63%. Materials are
charged at the Road Department's cost.
Deschutes County Vehicles and Equipment
Summa
0002 Assessor
11
0008 Commissioner
1
0009 Data Processing
2
0010 Bldg Services
25
0012 Library
2
0015 District Attorney
3
0016 Juvenile
30
0020 General Health
17
0022 Human Services
25
0036 CDD
18
0050 Road Department
187
0062 Solid Waste
50
0070 Property Management
1
0071 Risk Management
3
0075 911
2
0082 Adult Correction
20
0099 Fairgrounds
31
Total
428
ir 'A
c
O
0
O.
c
L
y
LL N
I ` X
r ~ O
O
Z W Z LL C) 24 M
~
W~~ ~ ~0')
Z b ti~
Q v
a O Cfl
LU O
11
vi r O
( g {
ZZ>
O W
~ Gl O s ~ 's-
0
W
O J fa Q
o. O 0
CL a w
f
0(1)> >2
Zo a-
u. p„ 0 Q w
W
Ov0
o W
O OC
c
O
N
0 \
oc T
Q N
C
61
U
J
{If
i
Oregon
Department
of Transportation
OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTION FUND APPORTIONMENTS
RECEIPT DISTRIBUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
- Receipts
Motor Carrier Transportation Fees
Motor Vehicles Fuels Tax
DMV License Registrations and Operator Fees
Road Use Assessment Fees
~ Total Receipts
Less:ORS 366.739 71.2 million per biennium
Fee Increase ORS 366.744
Fee Increase ORS 366.74710RS 366.749
Fee Increase ORS 366.752
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.739
Jul-11 Aug-11 Year-to-Date
24,994,564.21
17,443,880.44
42,438,444.65
41,392,607.68
31,976,164.86
73,368,772.54
14,130,317.63
18,801,378.15
32,931,695.78
187,120.00
185,879.42
372,999.42
80,704,609.52 68,407,302.87 149,111,912.39
(2,965,523.51)
(2,965,523.51)
(5,931,047.02)
(7,957,324.52)
(8,361,479.59)
(16,318,804.11)
(491,004.09)
(556,109.48)
(1,047,113.57)
(22,389,419.67)
(23,158,124.42)
(45,547,544.09)
46,901,337.73
33,366,065.87
80,267,403.60
ORS 366.739 71.2 million
Less: Transfer to Debt Service Account
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.742
Fee Increase ORS 366.744
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.744
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.747
Fee Increase ORS 366.752 JTA
Less: ODOT Long Range Planning
Less: Travel Information Council-Rest Area Mgmt
4vailabie for Distribution under ORS 366.752
- Distributions -
".ounttes
4vailable for Distribution under ORS 366.739 @ 24.38%
Wailable for Distribution under ORS 366.742 @ 30.00%
4vailable for Distribution under ORS 366.747 @ 60.00%
4vailable for Distribution under ORS 366.752 @ 30.00%
Subtotal
available for Distribution under ORS 366.744 @ 25.48%
-ess: Transfer to Debt Service ORS 366.744
%vailable for Distribution under ORS 366.744 (OTIA 111)
Subtotal - Distribution to Counties
_ess:Transfer to Special County Allotment (ORS 366.772)
Subtotal - Net Distribution to Counties
2,965,523.51 2,965,523.51 5,931,047.02
(2,729,182.97) (2,729,182.97) (5,458,365.94)
236,340.54 236,340.54 472,681.08
7,957,324.52 8,361,479.59 16,318,804.11
7,957,324.52 8,361,479.59 16,318,804.11
491,004.09 556,109.48 1,047,113.57
22,389,419.67 23,158,124.42 45,547,544.09
(2,000,000.00) (2,000,000.00) (4,000,000.00)
0.00 0.00 0.00
20,389,419.67 21,158,124.42 41,547,544.09
11,434,546.14
8,134,646.86
19,569,193.00
70,902.16
70,902.16
141,804.32
294,602.45
333,665.69
628,268.14
6,116,825.90
6,347,437.33
12,464,263.23
17,916,876.65 14,886,652.04 32,803,528.69
2,027,526.29 2,130,505.00 4,158,031.29
(1,430,085.63) (1,430,085.63) (2,860,171.26)
597,440.66 700,419.37 1,297,860.03
18,514,317.31 15,587,071.41 34,101,388.72
(500,000.00) 0.00 (500,000.00)
18,014,317.31 15,587,071.41 33,601,388.72
Ruth Kirksey 503-986-3924
7FrDoeirpgaorntment
f Transportation
OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTION FUND APPORTIONMENTS
RECEIPT DISTRIBUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
Cities
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.739 @ 15.57%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.742 @ 20.00%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.747 @ 40.00%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.752 @ 20.00%
I Subtotal
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.744 @ 16.99%
Less: Transfer to Debt Service ORS 366.744
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.744 (OTIA 111)
Jul-11 AuE-11 Year-to-Date
7,302,538.28
5,195,096.46
12,497,634.74
47,268.11
47,268-11
94, 536.22
196,401.64
222,443.79
418,845.43
4,077,883.93
4,231,624.88
8,309,508.81
11,624,091.96
9,696,433.24
21,320,525.20
1,351,949.44
1,420,615.38
2,772,564.82
(271,040.41)
(271,040.41)
(542,080.82)
1,080,909.03
1,149,574.97
2,230,484.00
Subtotal - Distribution to Cities
Less: Transfer to Special City Allotment ORS 366.805
Subtotal - Net Distribution to Cities
Total - Distributions to Cities and Counties
Oregon Dept of Transportation
Highway Fund
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.739 @ 60.05%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.742 @ 50.00%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.744 @ 57.53%
Available for Distribution under ORS 366.752 @ 50.00%
Subtotal - Distribution to Highway Fund
-ess: Transfer to Special City Allotment ORS 366.805
-ess:Transfer to Special County Allotment (ORS 366.772)
Subtotal - Net Distribution to Highway Fund
Transfer to Debt Service Account
Special COUNTY Allotment Fund
Transfer In from Counties Distribution
transfer In from Highway Fund Distribution
Subtotal - Distribution to County Allotment Fund
Special CITY Allotment Fund
transfer In from City Distribution
Transfer In from Highway Fund Distribution
Subtotal - Distribution to Small City Allotment Fund
3DOT Long Range Planning
Transfer In from JTA Fee Increase
Travel Information Council-Rest Area Mgmt
Transfer In from JTA Fee Increase
rotal - Distributions to Highway Division
rotal Distributions
12,705,000.99 10,846,008.21 23,551,009.20
(41,666.67) (41,666.67) (83,333.34)
12,663,334.32 10,804,341.54 23,467,675.86
30,677,651.63 26,391,412.95 57,069,064.58
28,164,253.31 20,036,322.55 48,200,575.86
118,170.27
118,170.27
236,340.54
4,577,848.79
4,810,359.21
9,388,208.00
10,194,709.84
10,579,062.21
20,773,772.05
43,054,982.21
35,543,914.24
78,598,896.45
(41,666.67)
(41,666.67)
(83,333.34)
(250,000.00)
0.00
(250,000.00)
42,763,315.54
35,502,247.57
78,265,563.11
4,430,309.01 4,430,309.01 8,860,618.02
500,000.00 0.00 500,000.00
250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00
750,000.00 0.00 750,000.00
41,666.67 41,666.67 83,333.34
41,666.67 41,666.67 83,333.34
83,333.34 83,333.34 166,666.68
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
50,026,957.89 42,015,889.92 92,042,847.81
80,704,609.52 68,407,302.87 149,111,912.39
Ruth Kirksey 503-986-3924
ri
r0re
p
rtment
! Trarrsportatian
OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTION FUND APPORTIONMENTS
RECEIPT DISTRIBUTION TO COUNTIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
Jut-11
Aug-11
Year-to-Date
-
BAKER COUNTY
TREASURER
107,072.83
92,645.85
199,718.68
,
BENTON COUNTY
TREASURER
345,039.15
298,548.64
643,587.79
,
CLACKAMAS COUNTY
TREASURER
1,822,971.86
1,577,344.95
3,400,316.81
,
CLATSOP COUNTY
TREASURER
188,236.77
162,873.78
351,110.55
,
COLUMBIA COUNTY
TREASURER
281,885.42
243,904.23
525,789.65
,
COOS COUNTY
TREASURER
333,729.90
288,763.19
622,493.09
,
CROOK COUNTY
TREASURER
143,485.07
124,151.91
267,636.98
,
CURRY COUNTY
TREASURER
132,81617
114,921.23
247,738.20.
.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
TREASURER,
887,171.03
767;63176.
1,65004.79
.
DOUGLAS COUNTY
TREASURER
599,127.85
518,401.47
1,117,529.32
,
GILLIAM COUNTY
TREASURER
15,485.67
13,399.13
28,884.80
,
GRANT COUNTY
TREASURER
50,864.94
44,011.40
94,876.34
,
HARNEY COUNTY
TREASURER
50,504.29
43,699.35
94,203.64
.
HOOD RIVER COUNTY
TREASURER
129,241.64
111,827.64
241,069.28
.
JACKSON COUNTY
TREASURER
1,005,846.97
870,319.33
1,876,166.30
,
JEFFERSON COUNTY
TREASURER
116,289.42
100,620.61
216,910.03
,
TREASURER, JOSEPHINE COUNTY
456,114.74
394,657.93
850,772.67
KLAMATH COUNTY
TREASURER
382,791.59
331,214.32
714,005.91
,
LAKE COUNTY
TREASURER
57,080.57
49,389.55
106,470.12
,
LANE COUNTY
TREASURER
1,583,678.69
1,370,294.11
2,953,972.80
,
LINCOLN COUNTY
TREASURER
236,399.06
204,546.69
440,945.75
,
LINN COUNTY
TREASURER
611,652.63
529,238.66
1,140,89129
,
TREASURER, MALHEUR COUNTY
163,205.02
141,214.81
304,419.83
MARION COUNTY
TREASURER
1,409,244.56
1,219,363.20
2,628,607.76
,
MORROW COUNTY
TREASURER
68,866.24
59,587.22
128,453.46
,
TREASURER, MULTNOMAH COUNTY
3,063,953.40
2,651,116.86
5,715,070.26
TREASURER, POLK COUNTY
333,289.10
288,381.79
621,670.89
TREASURER, SHERMAN COUNTY
15,855.22
13,718.89
29,574.11
TILLAMOOK COUNTY
TREASURER
149,887.71
129,691.67
279,579.58
,
UMATILLA COUNTY
TREASURER
401,006.61
346,975.05
747,981.66
,
TREASURER, UNION COUNTY
150,355.22
130,096.38
280,451.60
TREASURER, WALLOWA COUNTY
53,100.07
45,945.38
99,045.45
WASCO COUNTY
TREASURER
139,736.09
120,908.08
260,644.17
,
TREASURER, WASHINGTON COUNTY
2,054,682.47
1,777,834.92
3,832,517.39
TREASURER, WHEELER COUNTY
10,325.26
8,934.04
19,259.30
TREASURER, YAMHILL COUNTY
463,323.28
400,895.19
864,218.47
Total - County Distributions
18,014,317.31
15,587,071.41
33,601,388.72
Ruth Khksey 503-986-3924
Road Use Assessment Fees, for trucks operating under single-trip, RSIZ
1
non-divisible load permits at gross weights over 98,000 pounds, ~ _
increased to 7.1 cents per equivalent single-axle load mile _,.--'tom
traveled. This fee takes the place of the weight-mile tax for the
loaded portion of the movements. As with the Table B weight-mile '
tax rates the per-mile charge is lessened as more axles are may.
added to carry the gross weight.
t ~
BACKGROUND
Since 1990, carriers with Single-Trip Permits to haul non-divisible
loads at gross weights over 98,000 pounds pay a per-mile Road Use Assessment Fee (RUAF).
Examples of these "heavy haul" loads include construction equipment, bridge beams, and electrical
transformers.
In 2009, the Motor Carrier Transportation Division issued 27,831 permits for RUAF loads, with an
average gross weight of 145,401 pounds traveling an average distance of 112 miles.
Road Use Assessment Fees are expressed in terms of permit gross weight and number of axles and,
effective October 2010, are based on a charge of 7.1 cents per equivalent single axle load (ESAL) mile
of travel. An ESAL is equivalent to a single axle carrying 18,000 pounds. Carriers are assessed a lower
per-mile charge the greater the number of axles used at any given gross weight. The fee takes the
place of the weight-mile tax for the loaded portion of non-divisible load trips.
New Road Use Assessment Fees Effective October 1, 2010
Carefully follow the new rates for Single-Trip Permits to haul non-
divisible loads
at gross weights over 98,000 pounds traveling in Oregon, beginning
12:01 a.m. October 1.
s ,
Weight-mile taxes increased an average of 24.5% so that a truck
with a declared combined weight of 80,000 pounds, for example,
now pays 16.38 cents. This affects about 21,500 motor carriers.
Most file monthly tax reports, although 6,000 qualify for quarterly
tax reporting.
Motor carriers paying the Oregon weight-mile tax include 8,500
Oregon-based ones and 13,000 out-of-staters with trucks operating
in Oregon. When they register a truck they pay a registration fee
- that is based on the truck's highest combined weight for the year
(weight of the truck plus maximum weight of the load it will haul). Their weight-mile tax is then based
on the declared combined weight(s) established for each truck combination - the heaviest weight at
which the motor carrier declares the combination will operate during a month or quarter tax reporting
period. A check of 283,145 trucks registered in July 2010 showed eight of every ten (225,742 total)
operate at just one declared combined weight (80,000 pounds for most). Only 20% of all trucks
operate under more than one declared weight.
BACKGROUND
Oregon first enacted a ton-mile tax on trucks in 1925 and replaced that with a weight-mile tax in
1947. In 1990, it implemented the first axle-based weight-mile tax for trucks over 80,000 pounds
(Table B). Over the years, weight-mile rates have been adjusted 14 times based on the results of
updated cost responsibility calculations in Oregon Highway Cost Allocation Studies.
Today, Oregon is the only state that charges heavy trucks (over 26,000 pounds) a weight-mile tax
and no diesel fuel tax. Three other states - Kentucky, New Mexico, New York - have a weight-mile
tax that they charge certain heavy trucks, but also in conjunction with a diesel fuel tax and other truck
fees.
New Weight-Mile Tax Rates Effective October 1, 2010
Carefully follow the new rates when completing tax reports
for truck travel in Oregon, beginning 12:01 a.m. October 1.
THIN LIFT OVERLAY
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
(24' width roadway)
ITEM
BID ITEMS
DESCRIPTION
QNTY
UNITS
ENGIN
ESTI
UNIT PRICE
EER'S
MATE
COST
10
Mobilization
ALL
L.S.
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
30
Temporary Protection and Direction
of Traffic
ALL
L.S.
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
40
Fla ers
30
HRS
$41.10
$1,233.00
50
Pilot Car
8
HRS
$49.00
$392.00
55
Portable Changeable Message Signs
2
EA.
$2,250.00
$4,500.00
Road work
60
Level 3 1/2" Dense Graded HMAC
1,385
TONS
$60.00
$83,100.00
70
Asphalt in Tack Coat
3
TONS
$525.00
$1,575.00
100
2' A re ate Shoulders
2,350
S.Y.
$4.75
$11,162.50
PROJECT TOTAL
$107,962.50
Cost Comparison: Contractor
Deschutes County*
$77.95/Ton
$74.56/Ton
$7.68/SY
$6.38/SY
$107,962/Mile
$943,484/Mile
*County costs include mobilization, traffic control and clean up. All at
charge out rates that include overhead
Other Construction Costs:
Gravel Road Maintenance: $5,662/mile
Chip Seal: $23,650/mile (24' width)
Oil mat over full depth reclamation: $128,075/mile
Overlay: $210,000/mile
Full Depth Reclamation: $320,000
Gravel Road Maintenance
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
Grading and Basework
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
Dust Abatement
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$1102 per mile/year
$50,000
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
L
Y
ca
m
d
c
O
co
,r
Q.
C
r (1)
Q IT
0
L
m
~
CU 4-7
W CL
O -p M
N C C
co p
.0 LL.
E cu
L c cu
a) 2
L N
o
1.0
rnN ~
c
0
o
kn
C ) j
Q~MLLU
d...
-0
o
>
; o
N
y y
N
o
t
aT+
U3~
w
N
Y3C
0
It
d•=
~
O
C
~ZO
' ~p
C ~
q v O 'O
U
U-U) co<
LL
¢f~~m
7s0
"0
c
m
=3
o
LL
cu
a
o
c
c
c
ca
U
o
0
Ur
to
0
m
a)
-C
L
O
_W
L
c
to
r_
Q
L
m
1
LL
ca
0
_
ca
L
Q
U-
>
Q
O
L)
N
a)
~
Of
'O
C
O
t
. .
N
O
a)
LL
a
ca
a)
a)
.Q
c
W
L
L
L
c
t+
0
Q
c
Q)
U) C
.
c
c
a)
0
cu
a)
E
M
U
O
C
ca
cu
a)
ca
O E
c
U
X
a)
C
M
co
CU
a)
E
cc
>
~
a)
>
a)
+r
L
-0-0
O
>
E
.c
c
0)N-
O
Q
cu
O
+
E
>
:3
U
cu
C
a)
4.1
c
cu
E
T
V
cu
L~
C
O
L
I-
C
O
L_
O
4
-
p
J
j
N cA
O
C
'O
C
a
a)
L
a)
O
L
L
D
>
L
O
`i
4.-
O
-O
'a -W
O
`
-
-0 '
N
O
U
~
fA
C
m
=
U LL
to
0
O
N U
a)
E
:3
(u a)
C Q
U)
cn
LH
L
L C
a) a)
a) C
~
~M
cm
Q1
~L
=3
4--.~
`
O
E
E
-
~p
-6
O
00
O C
0 L`'
~
a
O O
o
'
V/
a
C
a>
E
_ (a
Y'0
E
Y
)
-C
U C
ci
^ N
8 co
O
Q) O
O
0
O~
m
o ri
r°o
cc
0
- W
M
CL
- -
C
m
LL
v
i
4]
a
4a C:
-C
(
D
N
ca
E
-0
`
'
c
^m
~
0
m
~
p Y
aica
E
"
E
W
a)
cm
a)
0o
c
Uo
Q-
UU
cu
~
~
E
N
75
-
X
u
a~
co
~
o
L1
J
:3 C
o
f
Lj U
a
c
a)
Ln
0
~
m
V N
R
U O
~-0 rn
(n c
o
c
-
0)
L
co
a)
c~
U
cn
co
ca
CU
rn F-
co
:L3
ce)
F-- LL
M
Y
E
E
L
U)
N
O C
°
'
u
>
U
U. U) E-
c
n
U
Q
O rn
-4
N
O ~
Q)
00
O cif
o
cu >
N
O
c0n
N
c
a)
d
O
00
= N
:3
C
.
C
cu o
00
N
U to L
bA
O
O
cMO~
+r O
Cd v
O
0) W
vUi
'C
N
~
Q
U
°
o,o
3
~
r
o 4-5
O
F
N
O
th
p
to
M
~ U C
c)
N
:E
,4
CO
)
C
0 4
c Y
Q
4J
N
O o
-i
>
~C o
00
O V O
a
0 CA
0
Q
4.1
7d
1-4
cn
~ co
O- Q
~
p •
.U, U
D\
~ U
t~ ^C
Cd
U
CU :3 (n
O a)
N
06
0
k
rn
~
(Q
O
a
i
o
>
.o
a)
to
r.
00
0
Cl) tm 0
:3 0)4-
C(3 c^~
"Cl 0
v~
p cd
y
"C
Cl) C.) fs CL to O
Cv 0 O
U
c~ U
O
O
O
N V
0 (1)
u
U
U V
O
kri
O cu
~
r
>
O
. N
.
ai >
00
"
H 0 fa
P,
N
co Q
r
chi
C) ~
O U
0
y
j
0
O
0
O
U
0
0
O
V ~ Cl)
0
~
CA
N
M0 =
~ p
J
CAM
ca m c•') L
g o M
0 Cd
0
O t
m a)
D r, O
r
N
cu c: -C
'D
0
C-4
O
P~ p
\O
to 0
-0 co) C\l CU CO)
~
o
0,
O U) O
O "C ? p
cC M:t
U
C
~O V N
O
`
O~
U N CO a)
+
r
i
~
o zs o
X00
Q L (6
C8 4) 64
rc~
fO
O
Q)
> M
O
a)-
n
A S.
^r3 Fi
0"
C) c
L
N
to 0
O
O
i
"'a
0
CC U1
C
- o
U~ o
o
00
U
o .
Q.
>
U
N
U
w
kn
O coo
f0
u
M Q,
i
L(6 (n fn
s.
co -F=
00 ai
cq u U
U
x
>
p
u
co
r
L
0
V
0
L
O
v
y
v
f
LO
N 00 LLn
00
pU
C
LC/L
H
=i 'C
d
n F, O
M C) Ln
a)
U cn
oC
`n
V)
LJJ
m Ln Ln
L U ' I
m
kn
0 I
`4- U
N
N
N
U to
O u L.L
N
74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session
Enrolled
House Bill 3047
Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON REVENUE
CHAPTER
AN ACT
Relating to taxation for local public roads; amending ORS 368.011, 368.705, 368.710 and 376.385; and
repealing ORS 368.707.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 368.705 is amended to read:
368.705. (1) [In addition to a tax authorized by the electors of a county as provided by ORS 280.040
to 280.145 and by subsection (3) of this section, the county governing body of each county may levy an
ad valorem tax on all taxable property within the county, which shall be set apart in the county
treasury as a general road fund. The tax shall be paid in money. The tax shall be levied and collected
in the same manner as other county taxes and subject to the limits set forth in ORS 310.150.1 As used
in this section and ORS 368.710, "county road fund" means a separate fund in the county
treasury designated to receive deposit of revenues that are dedicated to roads or road im-
provements.
(2) The [general] county road fund [mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall] must be
used[:]
[(a)] in establishing, laying out, opening, surveying, altering, improving, constructing, maintain-
ing and repairing county roads and bridges on county roads[; or].
[(b) In like manner alone or in cooperation with the state on roads within the county known as
state roads, or such roads or any portion thereof built in cooperation with the United States in ac-
cordance with the Act of July 11, 1916, entitled An act to provide that the United States shall aid the
states in the construction of rural post roads and for other purposes," or any other Act of Congress,
rule or regulation of any department of the United States.]
[0 Taxes levied pursuant to ORS 369.020 may be levied under the authority of this section if the
county governing body transmits to the county assessor and county clerk with its notice of levy a cer-
tificate of the levy made pursuant to ORS 369.020 for the previous tax year together with its request
to continue the former levy for market road purposes as a levy for county road purposes.]
[(4)] (3) [No] County funds derived from any ad valorem tax levy [other than those mentioned in
subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall] may not be used or expended by the county governing
body upon any roads or bridges except:
(a) Funds derived from a levy within the permanent rate limit of section 11 (3), Article
%I of the Oregon Constitution, or the statutory rate as provided in ORS 310.236 (4) or 310237,
if a voter-approved county serial levy dedicated to road improvements was used in deter-
mining the rate limit; or
(b) Local option taxes levied under ORS 280.040 to 280.145.
SECTION 2. ORS 368.710 is amended to read:
Enrolled House Bill 3047 (HB 3047-A) Page 1
368.710. (1) The [tax imposed under ORS 368.705 shall] local option taxes imposed under ORS
280.040 to 280.145 must be apportioned as follows:
(a) Not less than 50 percent of the tax [shall] collected must be apportioned to the several road
districts, including districts composed of incorporated cities [and towns], in [such] the same pro-
portion as the amount of taxable property in each district bears to the whole amount of taxable
property in the county. The amount apportioned to any incorporated city [or town shall] must be
transferred to it to be expended under the management of its officials for the improvement and re-
pair of county roads and for the improvement, repair and maintenance of improved streets within
the boundaries of the city for town].
(b) The entire remaining revenue [shall] must be applied to roads in such locality in the county
as the county governing body directs.
[(2) No road tax shall be included in any general fund levy or in any other fund in such a manner
that it cannot be readily ascertained for apportionment as provided in this section.]
(2) If a local option tax levy is reduced due to compression under ORS 310.150, the
amounts apportioned under subsection (1) of this section must be based on the amount of
taxes actually levied under the limits of compression.
(3) A county, road districts with territory in the county and incorporated cities with
territory in the county may modify, by agreement, the apportionment of local option taxes
provided for in this section to fund more effectively and efficiently projects within the county
to construct, maintain, improve and repair public roads.
SECTION 3. ORS 368.011 is amended to read:
368.011. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a county may supersede any provision
in this chapter by enacting an ordinance pursuant to the charter of the county or under powers
granted the county in ORS 203.030 to 203.075.
(2) A county [shall] may not enact an ordinance to supersede [any of the following provisions:
This section and] a provision of this section or ORS 368.001, 368.016, 368.021, 368.026, 368.031,
368.051, 368.705, [368.707,] 368.710, 368.720 [and] or 368.722.
SECTION 4. ORS 376.385 is amended to read:
376.385. All fines and penalties collected, or security deposits forfeited, under ORS 376.990, shall
be paid by the court or judicial officer collecting the same to the county treasurer of the county
within which the violation occurred. The county treasurer shall credit moneys so received to the
[general] county road fund of the county.
SECTION 5. ORS 368.707 is repealed.
Enrolled House Bill 3047 (BB 3047-A) Page 2
Passed by House May 24, 2007
Chief Clerk of House
Speaker of House
Passed by Senate June 11, 2007
President of Senate
Received by Governor.
M............................................................ 2007
Approved:
M............................................................ 2007
Governor
Filed in Office of Secretary of State:
M.,.......................................................... 2007
Secretary of State
Enrolled House Bill 3047 (HB 3047-A)
Page 3
Jackson County / ODOT Partnering Activities
August 17, 2011
Co-Location of Facilities
• ODOT leasing office and storage space from County. All ODOT engineering,
technical, planning, construction, and District maintenance staff in Josephine
and Jackson Counties co-located with county road staff in leased space.
• Sign crews co-located and share responsibility for sign maintenance.
Formal Partnerinq
Partnering work where bills for services are usually exchanged:
• ODOT using county grinder complete pavement inlay patches. County grinds
the patch and ODOT completes the layback
• ODOT completes all signal maintenance for County
• County completing all chip seal work for ODOT's District 8 area. For the 2011
summer county completed 56 lane miles of chip seals on ODOT highways.
County billed ODOT $142,000 for work completed. Most projects were
partnership type projects where equipment and operators were a mixture of
ODOT and County.
• County sign shop fabricating signs for ODOT.
• Agreement for County to utilize ODOT geotechnical services.
• County shops doing some equipment repair and maintenance for ODOT
• ODOT buying fuel from County
• County and state exchange some spray areas for efficiency.
• County and state exchanging paint striping for roads and highways for
efficiency
In-Formal Partnering
Partnering agreement which allows the trading of equipment and personnel without
billing each party. For the 09-10 fiscal year, this resulted in 779 labor hours and 313
equipment hours of Jackson County "partnering work" where a bill was not sent to
ODOT. ODOT completed a similar number of hours for the County. Areas where
this partnering work occurred include:
• Joint snow plowing of each other's roads
• ODOT deicing County roads (billing for material cost, but not labor or
equipment)
• ODOT blowing snow on County roads
• County supplying culvert flusher and joint crews completing vactor work. The
County purchased the culvert flusher with a commitment from ODOT that they
would utilize the equipment and would be billed the equipment rental rate for
its use. The operator(s) time of the culvert flusher is not billed and considered
to be part of the partnership. For the 10+ years we have had this agreement,
ODOT has logged more hours on the equipement than has the county.
• Joint sign installation and maintenance on each other's roads
• Sharing of stockpile sites
Other Partnering Activities
ODOT buying cinders and aggregate from County contract.
Sharing of the maintenance and planting of a wetland mitigation site for
County and ODOT projects.
ODOT and County co-planning capital projects that impact both jurisdictions.
Lesson's Learned
think the impediments to partnering are mostly made up. My experience from both
the ODOT and County side is that if you want to partner, you will, if you don't,
managers and staff can find a thousand reasons why it won't work. Most all those
reasons are easily overcome if that's the collective desire, if that's not the desire;
they will kill it every time.
The lesson's we've/I've learned are as follows:
• Three keys to successful partnering:
- Relationships
- Relationships
- Relationships
• Staff will follow their managers - Lead the partnering efforts. Meet often with
peer managers, go to lunch, resolve issues
• Sell this to your managers, you need their help!
• Hold Regular planning meetings, Quarterly is best, semi-annual is ok
• Jump on relationship issues fast - don't let issues brew
• Address safety, traffic control, and liability issues up front - This will get in the
way if you don't. Bottom line is that you have to follow the rules of the road
owner you are working on. For example, If ODOT want s 48" signs for the
secondary highways, even thought 36" signs are allowed, you have to use 48".
• Focus partnering activities where the efficiencies cannot be argued i.e. for us,
ODOT doesn't have to buy a chip-spreader / county doesn't buy a snow blower.
9/14/2011
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Formal Partnering - examples
• County chipsealing ODOT highways
• ODOT inlay patching county roads
• ODOT completing all signal maintenance for
county
• County fabricating state signs
• County shop repairing state equipment
• Exchanging paint striping
• State deicing county roads (material cost)
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
In-Formal Partnering
• Joint snow plowing
• ODOT snow blowing county roads
• Shared use of the culvert flusher
• Joint sign installation and repair
• Sharing of stockpile locations (don't mix the pile)
• Labor for ODOT deicing county roads
• For FY 07-08, Jackson County and ODOT'traded'
952 hours of labor and 668 hours of equipment.
• Some years has exceeded 1500 hours labor
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Lessons Learned
• Three keys to successful partnering:
- Relationships
- Relationships
- Relationships
• Staff will follow their managers - Lead the
partnering efforts. Meet often with peer
managers, go to lunch, resolve issues
• Sell this to your managers, you need their help!
• Hold Regular planning meetings
- Quarterly is best, semi-annual is ok
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
In-Formal Partnering
• Bills for sharing equipment and labor are usually
not exchanged
• Make sure you have support from the policy
makers -TRACK COSTS!
• Should utilize an IGA or other similar tool
• Truest way to partner - organizationally blind
• Be careful doing this with materials.
• "Balance the books" yearly based on hours, not $
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Other Misc. Partnering
• ODOT buying cinders and aggregate from
County contract
• ODOT and County sharing a wetland mitigation
site
• ODOT buying fuel from county
• ODOT and county sharing phone answering and
other administration duties
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Lessons Learned
• Jump on relationship issues fast - don't let
issues brew
• Address safety, traffic control, and liability
issues up front
• Focus partnering activities where the
efficiencies cannot be argued
- i.e. ODOT doesn't have to buy a chip-spreader /
county doesn't buy a snow blower.
2
9/14/2011
MOT / Jackson County Partnering
History
• Started in 1994 under Joe Strahl's leadership
for the County and ODOT to partner.
• April 1995 -Flexible Service agreement-
billing each other
• Fall 1995 -stop billing for "small stuff" -
simply trade
• 1996-1998- Focus changed from partnering
to merging into a single organization
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Types of partnering
• Co-location of facilities
• Formal Work (bills exchanged)
• In-Formal Work (no bills exchanged)
• Other Misc. Partnering
MOT / Jackson County Partnering
• Sign Crews co-located since March 1998
• Crews work on each others roads regularly,
usually without billing each other
• County makes most small signs for ODOT
SIC -
SHOP
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
History
• 1998 - Feasibility study to merge into a single
organization - showed a savings 6%
• Huge organizational and legal challenges
• 1999 -changed direction to move back to
partnering and away from merging.
• 1999 - Present - considerable partnering
between the two organizations.
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Co-Location
• January 1997 - ODOT Project Management staff and
District Maintenance Office
- County built an office for state on county compound
- County occupies about 20•% of building
- 10-year lease, monthly bills
- Building was "paid for" by 2007
• Sign Crew - March 1998
• ODOT Technical Center Staff - Sept 2005
- County built a 2nd office for state on county compound
- 10-year lease, monthly bills
ODOT / Jackson County Partnering
Formal Partnering
• Typically utilizes a flexible service contract
• Bills for sharing equipment and labor are usually
exchanged
• "Safest" way to partner - everyone is always whole.
Important when materials are involved.
• Billing rates and total costs will often limit this type of
partnering
• Expensive activities (pavement work particularly) should
usually be a formal billing type of partnering
uyiIII/ Uu ua:zu MA 5UJ 88U 3032 OFC or ALAINT
i
OREGON DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
200 ANTELOPE ROAD
MUTE CrrZ OR 97503
PHONE (541) 826.3122 FAX(541)830-6408
DATE: September 14, 2000
TO: Russ Peterson
Jim Stith
Doug Tindall
FROM: John Vial
District 8 Mana r
SUBJECT: Barriers to Partnering
Information for the BB 3465 Task Force
10002
INTEROFFICE
MEMO
I was requested to provide information to you describing barriers that prevent further
maintenance partnering efforts between ODOT maintenance districts and Oregon cities and
counties. This information is intended to assist members of the HB 3465 Task Force in
understanding barriers and developing solutions to partnering.
Process to Identify Barriers to Partnering
ODOT District 8 and Jackson County Roads and Parks have been partnering formally since
1994. This effort has resulted in several successes, as well as some failures. Managers of
Jackson County Roads and Parks and ODOT District 8 were questioned and asked to identify
barriers, which have prevented greater partnering efforts. In addition, all ODOT district
maintenance managers statewide were asked the same question. Responses are summarized
below. The identified barriers to partnering can be summarized as Policy / Law, Organization /
Institutional and Cultural issues. Attached is the "Barriers to Future Partnering" chapter from the
Joint Feasibility Study. This study reviewed the feasibility, costs and benefits of consolidating
the road maintenance functions of Jackson County Roads and Parks and ODOT District 8. Many
of the comments received from poled managers match those identified in the Joint Feasibility
Study.
Policy / Law Issues
Billing Practices - Nearly every manager poled expressed their overriding barrier to further
partnering related to current billing practices. ODOT and many local governments are
required by current accounting practices to bill one another for all services completed. This
creates an overly burdensome paperwork problem with numerous bills being exchanged.
Often managers find themselves billing one another for equivalent services and simply
exchanging money, i.e. a local government bills ODOT for $500 and ODOT bills the local
government for $500.
✓R
uu/ 14/UU U8:21 FAA 503 988 3032 OFC or PLAINT Q1003
Barriers to Partnering memo.
September 1d, 2000
Page 2
Most managers would prefer a system where labor, equipment, and material costs could
simply be tracked and bills exchanged at set time periods, i.e. once or twice per year.
Additionally, this billing would only be made to an agency to "even-up" a balance. For
example, an ODOT district spends $9,500 completing work for a county during the year and
the county spends $10,000 completing work for ODOT during the year. In this case ODOT
would simply send a payment of $500 to the county at the end of the year.
ODOT District 8 and Jackson. County Roads and Parks have attempted overcome this issue
by signing a partnering agreement that allows the two organizations to simply "trade"
equipment and labor and only bill each other for material costs. This has done much to
further partnering; however, challenges still exist from managers feeling that the "trading"
isn't even or fair. As long as the trading of labor and equipment isn't close to equal,
managers feel that there own budget which are accountable for) could be taking a
disproportional impact and they maybe reluctant to further partnering.
Accounting - Locals governments and ODOT do not use comparable accounting practices.
Labor rates, equipment rates and unit costs are different between organizations and therefore
comparing work is difficult. Omen one agency feels another is gouging them because costs to
complete the work are not comparable. The attached "Barriers to Future partnering" chapter
from the Joint Feasibility Study explains this issues well.
.Reimbursing Budgets -In some cases, billing payments or funds cannot be placed into the
particular budget in which they are intended. For example, in the Jackson County / ODOT
District 8 merging effort, we identified a potential to co-locate the Central Point maintenance
facility into the existing Jackson County Roads and Parks facility. ODOT would pay rent to
the county for this co-location and partnering would increase as a result of working closer to
peers and managers. The state would then sell the existing Central Point facility. However,
funds from the sell of this property would be returned to the statewide highway fund and not
to District 8. Therefore, District 8 would immediately feel an impact to their budget for all
rent paid to the county. If funds from the sale of this facility could be directed back to the
district and the partnership, co-location would be more attractive.
Contracting Limits - Current law -requiring the contracting out of public improvements over
specified amounts prevents some good partnering opportunities. Some of the best partnering
and cost efficient projects between the state and local governments exceed current legal
contract-out limits and are therefore not completed.
Little Incentives to Partner-As noted in this memo, there are numerous legal,
organizational, and cultural issues that have to be overcome to effectively partner. Some
token partnerships will occur between organizations where both agencies can see a clear
advantage in doing so. However, tangible financial incentives could do much to further
partnering efforts.
91~A
vaity/UU Un:ZZ r'dX 5U3 and 3U32 Ur'C Or AUINT 10004
Barriers to Partnering memo.
September 14, 2000
Page 3
Organization / Institutional Issues
Operattonal and Emergency Response - ODOT is required by law to deal with operational
issues and emergency response problems on the highway. When local governments are
working with ODOT maintenance crews, projects are often interrupted when ODOT forces
are required to respond to road hazards and emergencies. This is a source of frustration to
local governments who see this practice as inefficient and costly.
Workplanning - Managers for all maintenance crews complete work plans and schedules.
These plans vary in length and complexity. However, once established, these work plans are
difficult to change. Crew and equipment schedules, renting specialized equipment,
purchasing materials, etc. are all tied to the work plan. When a potential partner calls and
requests assistance, often times the manager is forced to decline as the disruption to their
established work plan is too great. In order to fully partner, joint work planning processes
will need to be developed.
Work Schedules - Although not a major impediment to partnering, poled managers did raise
incompatible work schedules as a barrier. Maintenance organizations use a wide range of
work schedules to complete their tasks and maintenance managers are often challenged by
trying to coordinate crew starting times, flexible schedules, four 10 hour days, and night
work between organizations. This can be aparticularly difficult problem when labor
contracts require notice to employees for changes in work schedules.
Safety and Environmental Practices - Each maintenance organization approaches safety and
environmental issues differently. When crews are partnering on projects, conflict between
crewmembers is common over which standards to use on a particular work task. This can be
a major impediment to partnering as the risks of changing a particular safety or
environmental compliance process can have significant consequences.
Cultural Issues
Maintenance organizations develop their own identity and "personality" over time.
Partnering can require that maintenance norms and relationships are changed and adopting a
partner's way of working could be required. This can cause sign;5caut challenges to
managers and can often be one of the most difficult issues for managers to deal with. The
need for healthy positive relationships between managers is vital and without them,
partnering will struggle.
Following is a list of common cultural issues which present challenges: Reporting
relationships from crew members to managers, i.e. team management vs. top-down; Negative
attitudes such as "this is our road and we don't need any help;" How equipment operators are
assigned to equipment; and traditional ways of completing the work, i.e. "we've always done
it that way."
0
uai14iuu U6:E2 F.41 503 986 30:32 OFC of MA1NT IM 005
Barriers to Partnering memo.
September l4, 2000
Page Q
It is my belief that all of the above issues can be solved and partnering could be increased
between local governments and OODT. The Jackson County Roads and Parks and ODOT
District 8 work has identified and worked through many of these issues. I would be happy to
discuss this effort fiuther with you and if you need additional assistance, please ask.
attachment
Cc: Paul Mather
Joe Stahl
*,.z
Ua/19/UU Uo:YJ res OUJ HOD JUJz uru or mslrvr I0006
H. Partnering
Barriers to Future Partnering
Some barriers were mentioned above when discussing specific instances of past or future part-
nering. This section of the report examines additional barriers to future partnering and makes
recommendations for overcoming those barriers.
The cost-benefit analysis concludes that there is potential for additional savings from future
partnering. The two organizations, however, must resolve barriers presented by different ac-
counting practices, uncoordinated planning,' management policies, and cultural differences.
Overcoming these barriers will require significant planning and communication.
Accounting Practices
One of the obstacles to partnering identified by Jackson County and District 8 during past efforts
is the incompatibility of the accounting practices of the two agencies. These differences result in
the appearance that Jackson County has higher operating costs for direct maintenance activities
than ODOT has.
Although this is hard to analyze - see the following discussion on unit costs - analysis concludes
that District 8's and Jackson County's costs are generally similar. The cost of compliance with
ODOT's higher safety standards adds to District 8's costs, but if Jackson County complies with
those standards its costs will also rise. This means that overall savings are unlikely if one agency
merely adopts the work methods and procedmres of the other-
Labor Rates
Accounting for labor varies considerably between the agencies. Labor rates in Jackson. County's
maintenance management system (MMS) include basic wages and benefits, overhead for the
applicable central administrative costs of the Roads and Parks Services Department, and over-
head for a share of the administrative costs of centralized support units such as the xianty
personnel and accounting departments.
Labor rates in ODOT's MMS include basic wages and benefits. They do not include overhead
markups for any central administrative costs. ODOT accounting practices do not allocate such
costs to any product (in this case direct maintenance).
Equipment Rates
Accounting for equipment also varies considerably. Equipment costs arc calculated in Jackson
County's MMS using hourly rental rates that include a replacement rate and a maintenance
(operating) rate. The equipment rental rates are recomputed annually by equipment class and are
intended to recover actual costs. Once the rates are set, the variance from actual costs is not
tracked. If rates are set too high, then the reported unit costs of the direct activities are too high.
If rates are set too low, then the reported unit costs of direct activities are too low. Any variance
in allocation of costs, either under or over, is not charged back to the crew budget. Since rate
changes are small, this does not create a problem in the county system.
ODOT's hourly equipment rental rates are developed similarly to Jackson County's, although
there are differences in the details. ODOT rates are also recomputed annually by equipment
class and are also intended to recover actual costs. ODOT's MMS, however, tracks any variance
and accumulates the total in activity 197, an administrative activity. A positive amount in
activity 197 at the end of the year means the rental rates were too low; a negative amount means
the rates were too high. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, annual charges to activity 197 for
26
U9/14/uu Ud:23 FAX 503 988 3032 UF'C or ALAiNT
IM 007
11. Partnering
District 8 averaged $651,613. This is not trivial- It is apparent that equipment rental rates were
considerably understated
Jackson County's equipment rates come much closer to true cost recovery than do ODOT rates.
Consequently, Jackson County equipment appears, to District 8 frontline managers and crews, to
cost more than similar ODOT equipment.
Unit Costs
many unit costs of the two agencies were analyzed for similar activities to try to compare their
relative efficiencies. Ultimately, it was determined that so many other assumptions had to be
made that any conclusions to be drawn using unit costs to compare efficiencies, or potential
savings, would be unreliable. Scvm-al problems were encountered:
• In some cases, activities are performed or described differently. For example, striping
accomplishments are reported in pass miles by Jackson County and line miles by ODOT.
The county sometimes paints off both sides of the truck while the Region 3 crew paints off
one side, but is able to drive faster. ODOT uses more shadow vehicles because of working
on more heavily-traveled routes. All these factors make comparison of costs problematic.
• In each MMS, some performance standards allow a wide range of accomplishment. The
standard for ODOT activity 120, ditch cleaning, is OS to 1.5 ditch miles per day, and the
standard for the county ditching activity, LR2100, is 02 to 0.5 ditch miles per day. The wide
range of allowable accomplishments indicates that there are many variables that make it
problematic to compare accomplishments under one standard with those sunder the other.
• In some cases, not all accomplishments are reportable to MMS_ Region 3 contracts out some
of its striping. Employees report the cost of this contract striping to MMS, but the accom-
plishments from contract work are not reported. This distorts unit costs.
• In some cases, sample size is too small. ODOT records for activity 520, ditch dipping, have
only five instances in fiscal year 1997 for District 8 crews. The unit costs in this sample vary
from $5.30 per cubic yard to $47.83 per cubic yard, a range of more than 900 percent. An
analysis using this data to compare ditch dipping with Gradall ditching could be very mis-
s leading.
Impact of Accounting and Budgeting Practices on Partnering
The different methods used by each agency to establish labor and equipment rates ultimately
affect the reported unit costs for each activity. Those reported costs make it appear to the
District 8 crews that it costs more to have the county perform work than it does to do the work
themselves.
Regardless of the fact that true costs have not been determined and are not being used by either
agency (although the county is much closer to doing that) the perception that the county has
higher costs has hindered partnering in the past and will continue to do so until true costs are
available or until all parties agree upon a formula for unofficially adjusting direct costs to make
them "comparable." If other factors could be equalized, one way of comparing costs between the
organizations would be to adjust direct costs as suggested in Appendix J.
Even if ways are found to minimize or eliminate the above problems, an effect that can be called
the "budget paradox" will remain as a barrier to full partnering. The root of the problem is that
neither MOT nor Jackson County is allowed by generally accepted accounting practice to apply
revenue from work done for others against a crew's budget. In ODOT, any revenue is lumped in
27
U9/14/00 08:24 FAX 503 988 3032 OFC of BUINT
Il. Partnering
IM008
with all other agency revenue and made available only in future budget periods. In the county,
the revenue is deposited to the road fund, also to be made available in future budget periods.
Table 6 illustrates this paradox. Agency A and Agency B decide to partner on activities that will
save them money. They direct their crews to review their lists of activities and the cost for each
activity. Crew A notices it can do Activity C for $900 while it costs Crew B $1,100. Crew B
notices it can do Activity B for $900 while it costs Crew A $1,100. The crews agree to partner
on those activities. Crew A does two units of Activity C and bills Crew B $900 for one unit.
Crew B does two units of Activity B and bills Crew A for $900. In both agencies, however, the
$900 received is deposited to the agency account, and is not allowable as a direct offset against a
crew budget.
BU
tivity Agency A
Historical Crew
Cost Work
A $8,000 $8,000
B 1,100 0
C 900 1,800
Budget $10,000
Direct crew work
Paid to other agency
Total spending at crew level
Reimbursement to agency
account
Net cost to
Historical
Crew
Cost
Work
$8,000
$8,000
900
1,800
1,100
0
$10,000
$9,800
900 (for activity B)
$10,700
-900
$9,800
$9,800
900 (for activity C)
X10,700
-900
$9,800
As Table 6 indicates, although each crew budget is overspent, the organizations each saved $200.
Because frontline managers arc closely evaluated on their adherence to budget, however, they
have little incentive to perform this type of partnering; Thcy make good short-term budgetary
decisions, but the system leads theme to make poor long-term decisions regarding the agency
bottom line.
Frontline supervisors recognize this paradox. It partially explains the resistance to partnering,
both past and fixture. If partnering is to increase, this problem must be addressed. Otherwise,
frontline supervisors will react to the immediate consequences of potential budget overruns by
avoiding some partnering opportunities.
Conclusion: The presentation of inaccurate unit costs to managers and crews results in their
perception that partnering is unfair or is not cost effective. Not being able to offset expenditures
for work done for others is a potential source of budget overrun. Generating revenue from work
done for others is not directly rewarded. All of these combine to cause a barrier to increased
partnering.
Bartering
In the past, Jackson County and District 8 tried to avoid the problems of the accounting systems
by bartering as much work as possible. Only costs of materials were billed because costs of
materials are unclouded by overhead accounting differences. But there is some concern among
28
e
t
e
r
F
r
e
p
UU/14/UU 08:24 FAX 303 988 $092 OFC of MAINT
[a009
H. Partnering
the parties, and to outside reviewers, about whether each agency is contributing an equal share of
labor and equipment That determination is based more on the experience and knowledge of the
frontline supervisors who keep a running tally in their heads, than on documented evidence.
The study analyzed all partnering efforts during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and determined
which were bartered and which involved billings. In bartering, Jackson County absorbed costs of
$89,499 and District 8 absorbed costs of $76,737. This narrow difference supports the notion
that the frontline supervisors can reasonably track the balance of bartered work, that is to say,
track "fairness" over time.
Leaving "fairness" to the experience and knowledge of supervisors should be acceptable based
on the evidence that they do a reasonable job. Alternatively, if this method must be made more
objective, negotiate mutually agreeable overhead rates to apply to direct activities, for analysis
purposes only, so that the value of bartered work can be less subjectively compared. Although
the relative value of bartered work appears to be comparable, the savings that might have re-
sulted from that work are still undetermined.
Conclusion: Concerns about incompatible accounting systems can be avoided to some extent by
bartering as much as possible. Under a merger scenario, the concern will not exist. Under a
merger, Jackson County would apply a uniform accounting method to all work. If accounting
and budgeting practices cannot be changed, continue to barter as much as possible.
Work Planning Practices
current partnering efforts have been mostly ad hoc and non-systematic, although progress is
being made toward more coordinated efforts. There are still opportunities that are not being
realized Long-term, comprehensive joint planning is required to maximize the savings available
through operating as if all roads in the area are one system.
The study found evidence of several factors that appear to be preventing this type of planning,
, Standing
• There is still a mindset that separates the roads into "ours" and "theirs:' Long-
practice has dictated that "you worry about your own budget and level of service and let the
other guy take care of his." In addition, the ideals seen as the best of one organization by its
workers are often those cited the most as barriers to partnering by the workers of the other
organization.
e Managers come to a joint planning meeting with their individual plans already written. These
is reluctance on both sides to then change these written plans.
• Coordinated planning is largely outside the experience of frontline managers. Coordinated
planning is an additional step to existing planning methods. Such coordinated planning re-
quires dealing with members of another organization who do not share the same crew sched-
uling methods or organizational values as one's own.
o A District 8 maintenance section often overlaps two or more Jackson County maintenance
districts, and vice versa. The result is that each manager must deal with several counterparts
to organize partnering projects. Although this is only an occasional problem for individual
projects, it complicates systematic planning.
a Emergencies and the need for incident response can disrupt joint plans.
As a consequence of these factors, partnering occurs only where it is relatively easy to make
minor changes to current plans. The meetings of the operations team (created in 1996) were a
good first step toward comprehensive planning, but the operations team is not achieving the full
potential for joint planning.
29
~U WO.:a r.-A aua aoo duJA url. ua msana WJU10
II. Partnering
A joint planning process could be developed to identify various maintenance needs well in
advance and then merge those needs into an integrated work schedule that optimiz equipment
use and minimizes travel time and geographic -relocation of equipment between jobs. Such plans
could be roughed out months in advance and then evaluated and coordinated as the time for
execution gets closer. This extra planning effort would initially take time away from other
duties, but that effort would decrease as the process is refined.
Recommendation: Using the recent M -Team directive that joint crews be formed for pothole
patching and culvert cleaning as an example, Lxamine other maintenance activities for areas in
which partnering can be effective.
Recommendation: Work with managers and crews to design and implement methods of com-
prehensive joint planning that will treat the jurisdictions of the two agencies as one system.
Develop a process that satisfies each organization's internal needs while making possible a
subsequent merging of plans across organizational lines. If necessary, enlist the services of an
outside facilitator to guide the development of this process.
Project Evaluation Temiplate
The study recommends adoption of a method for quickly assessing and documenting the poten-
tial benefits of a partnering opportunity. Answering the following short list of questions could
provide enough information to determine the potential value of proceeding:
o Will this idea allow us to do the job with fewer people? If so, about how many?
Will this idea save us any time (for example, reduce travel time)? If so, about how
much?
• Will this idea allow us to use fewer pieces of equipment? If so, which pieces?
• Will this idea save any materials? If so, about how much?
a Will this idea increase our level of service to the public? If so, how?
• '%r
III this idea produce intangible benefits, such as promoting cooperation or providing
on-the-job ti-dining?
If the answers to these questions indicate few or no benefits, then partnering should not occur
because the increased cost of planning will offset small benefits. Once potential savings have
been estimated, results should be monitored to determine and document the actual savings.
Recommendation: Concentrate on identifying and scheduling more of those projects that offer
the opportunity for true savings. Do fewer of those projects for which little or no benefit can be
demonstrated. Monitor results to determine if projected benefits are realized.
Management Policies and CulturalValues
District 8 and Jackson County differ in several practices that complicate efforts to partner.
Assigning equipment to designated operators
The county's policy of assigning designated operators to vehicles and equipment creates an
obstacle to some partnering. When District 8 rents a piece of equipment from the county, the
additional expense of its designated operator often makes that rental more expensive than a
rental fro n, a private equipment rental company operated by a District 8 employee. This dis-
courages District 8 crews from renting county equipment. County operators are reluctant to
trust "their" machines to other operators, however, because of concern that those machines
willbe damaged or neglected.
30
vv.4v rm Ova VOU JUJL Ur%, U1 Aa11Vl 10011
H. Partnering
Different shift schedules
Crews in both organizations work different shifts; i.e., eight-hour days, 10-hour days, nights,
etc. Joint projects are difficult to organize when the District 8 crew is workiAg one shift and
the county crew is working another. Because the county does not routinely operate a night
shift, the portion of the District 8 work that gets done at night is not eligible for joint projects.
The uncertainty of merger
Employees of both organizations said that until the question of merger is decided, the uncer-
tainty of their personal status is affecting the extent to which they are willing to plan part-
nering activities.
Some District 8 crewmembers said they are concerned about losing their team identity and
autonomy. They are proud of the work they do as a team and they like ODOT's emphasis on
crew and public safety.
Although there is evidence that some county employees are also concerned about a merger,
they expressed less resistance to partnering than did District 8 employees. Some county
managers said they thought partnering was "on hold" At the same time, other county man-
agers are moving ahead with additional partnering.
Level of service for incident response
An ongoing conflict for the crews who attempt to execute joint projects is ODOT's high level
of service for responding to accidents and other incidents on state highways. District 8 crews
believe their first priority is to keep Interstate 5 open and safe to travel.
County crews find this difficult to understand and accept because Jackson County Roads and
Parks Services does not share this priority regarding incident response. County crews believe
that District 8 crews should make a commitment, when working on a joint project, to stay on
the job all day.
Saferypractices
The safety of workers on Interstate 5 and other high-speed, high volume state highways de-
pends on the workers' training and experience. District 8 employees have this training and
experience. Some county workers are reportedly very concerned about having to work on
Interstate 5, and District 8 crewmembers worry about working together with county crews in
high-speed, high-volume situations. This has resulted in some partnering opportunities being
lost.
The more hazardous conditions found on state highways require more traffic control for safe
maintenance operations than do lower volume roads. Flaggers, cones, warning signs, and
shadow vehicles add to the unit cost of any activity. There would be initial costs and loss of
productivity associated with training county managers and workers on safe practices in situa-
tions where traffic speed and volume are high. On the other hand, improved safety practices
could result in long-term savings resulting from fewer accidents and worker compensation
claims.
Environmental concerns
ODOT has chosen to adopt positive programs, often beyond the minimum requirements of
the law, to protect endangered species, streams, and wetlands, and to address other environ-
mental concerns. ODOT has developed guidelines, work practices, and training intended to
minimize the possibility its workers would violate the various environment laws and regula-
31
_ ......v JvJ oJV JVJL va•~, va uaui~a 10012
11. Partnering
tions. If the county performs maintenance on state right of way, unit costs to comply with
ODOT standards and to obtain additional training could increase.
Radio communicarions
Each agency has its own radio communications system. Each has only 12 radios set up to
use the other's frequency. This sharing is limited to supervisors. During past partnering ef-
forts, the radios we• not effective tools to link the crews of the two agencies because of the
limited number of r..,,,os programmed to enable cross communication and because the county
crews tend to sta; cn the "local" channel and the state supervisors who have the county
channel tend to mrvitor Oregon State Police channels.
Partnering would a enhanced by full sharing of radio frequencies to allow better communi-
cations at the crew level, especially for incident response. There are no technical reasons
why all radios could not have full use of the other's frequencies. This would require inter-
agency agreements for sharing the frequencies owned by each agency, upgrading or installing
radios in more crew level vehicles, and use of scanners to monitor the frequencies of both
agencies.
Summary: Partnering
Past partnering efforts have been successful in demonstrating that the organizations' employees
can work together and that some efficiencies are possible. Although these partnering accom-
plishments are encouraging, they involved only a small percentage of the total work of both
agencies. Additional partnership savings can be realized if effort is put into comprehensive joint
planning.
Improving the planning process fit partnering will have a cost. If a decision is made to proceed
with a merger, then few additional ;psources should be invested in trying to improve partnering.
The organizations should invei:* tan. most resources in planning and implementing a merger. On
the other band, if the beuef s of a merger are not sufficient to justify the effort necessary to
implement it, there is much that could be done to improve partnering.
i
i
s
32