Loading...
2012-1759-Minutes for Meeting July 31,2012 Recorded 8/27/2012COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS 4d 20~2`~7~~ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/27/2012 08;41:14 AM IIjj11I 1111111111111111 2 1 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page T Deschutes County Board of Commissioners f3 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 MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone; Interim County Administrator Erik Kropp; and members of the Group: George Kolb, Roger Olson, Chris Doty, Randy.McCulley, Ed Landers and, Tom Shamberger (Road Department); Peter Russell (CDD); and citizen members Todd Taylor, Clay Higuchi, Andy High, Steve Runner, Conrad Ruel, Jack Holt, Mike Williams, Gordon Dukes, Mike Williams and Hardy Hanson. No representatives of the media or other citizens were in attendance. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Chris Doty said that this is a special workshop for the Road Study Group to update the Commissioners on the status of road operations recommendations. He then gave a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is attached for reference.). A road maintenance funding memo was provided to the Board in June 2011. In August 2011, the Road Group began meetings to evaluate cost savings and identify efficiencies in addition to revenue enhancements. The group had a total of four meetings. In January 2012, five recommendations were provided to the Board. The overall recommendation from the Board and the group was to evaluate savings and efficiencies before consideration new funding source development. In February 2012, the Group developed an implementation plan. Recommendations 1 and 2 were for the installation of a new pavement management program, to model pavement deterioration and prescribe optimum maintenance treatments within the budget. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Page I of 7 Pages Recommendation 3 was to prioritize services to match existing funding levels. Recommendation 4 was to explore shared services with other agencies, to reduce overhead and enhance efficiencies. Recommendation 5 was to explore new funding tools upon full implementation of the others recommendations. Mr. Doty said the group views the Road Department's primary function and overarching goals as follows: • Maintain and preserve the system (using the pavement condition index; the value of the paved transportation system is around $400-500 million). • Operate the system (minimum acceptability - 700 miles paved, 200 unpaved) • Improve the system (safety improvements; and capital improvement program) The system noted in Recommendations 1 and 2 was purchased in February, evaluated and input in April and May, and the development of the decision tree (life cycle cost analysis) has been done. A budget options report identifying the needs of the system has been developed (100 pages). They now have a new way to model investments: • Ideal scenario (no deferred maintenance) • Sustained PCI • Anticipated investment level (per budget) • No maintenance performed A work plan was targeted, covering five years. This will include a strategic pavement investment, and information on how roads degrade and how they can be optimized. The pavement management process includes: Sustaining the existing PCI at the lowest possible cost Inputs: PCI, history, classification, the decision tree (what kind of treatment and when to do it), and more. Mr. Doty went over the PMP results and budget scenarios. They took out the forest highways fund. George Kolb indicated that they usually use County funds to chip seal these roads anyway, and 87% of roads are in good condition now. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, duly 31, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Pages Mr. Doty stated that the work plan under the PMP means they will chip seal every five years, with 86.3 miles per the model instead of 67 mile. This will help keep the good roads good. For overlays of 2 to 3 inches, they will do 7.5 miles per the model instead of 10.6 miles. For full depth reclamation, they will go to 1.5 miles per the model rather than 4.0 miles. They all need to be aware of drawbacks to the PMP, which is good for planning but is not the only tool. They are using existing analyses and judgment. Heavy use of chip seal can sometimes mask underlying structural flaws in the road bed. The system is in good shape with an overall PCI of 81. Funding is not ideal, but is adequate at about the 80% level. Degradation is low, and they should only lose about 1 PCI point in five years. Forest highways funding helps. He feels they can manage deferred maintenance. The trend is a higher level of reliance on chip seal. Under recommendation 3, they will prioritize services according to funding. They will look more closely at materials and other deliverables, and service reductions. The personnel attrition matrix falls into long-term strategies. There is no set timeframe for this yet. An effort to continuously improve and become more efficient is part of the culture of the Road Department. They are currently in labor negotiations, so there could be adjustments. Regarding FTE attrition, some vacant positions were eliminated including a management position. There has been an FTE reduction from 60.5 to 56.5, at a savings of about $215,000. They have gone from a high of 90 FTE in 1995 to 50 now, even though in many aspects the workload has increased. However, they have less engineering demands now due to less local improvement districts, etc. There will be a 25% reduction in five-year capital equipment replacement plan. They will extend the life of pickup trucks, and refurbish some equipment. They will look at different investment approaches and partnerships. This should amount to a savings of $150,000 annually. Recommendation 4 is implementation. They will push for shared services and partnerships, and be the convening agency on a quarterly basis. They are working on a regional intergovernmental agreement, and have the resources; and agency- specific goals, timetables and performance monitoring will be examined. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Pages One model is the Willamette Valley PMAT IGA. They can join this network as well. There can be partnership and collaborative opportunities regarding equipment, specialty maintenance, PMP regionally, combined contracting for overlays and other work, and training. They convened a meeting on June 28 of various agencies, including the cities of Madras, Bend, Sisters, Prineville and La Pine; Crook, Jefferson and Grant counties; the Bureau of Land Management and ODOT. They are working on an equipment catalog and a rate schedule. The IGA will be modeled after the Portland Metro Area IGA. They plan to start with equipment sharing, and then move on to materials and services. The next meeting is planned for August 23. The primary reason for the agreement is to reduce overhead. However, it will not supplant work that is historically contracted within each agency. Recommendation S involves new funding tools. There is a matrix of options and strategies, but the timetable is not set. They should begin to focus on this because it all takes time. Much of it involves legislative efforts to enable options, index funding, address threats to funding sources (Secure Rural Schools, Forest Highway, and state allocations). They also need to pursue grants and alternative funding programs, and funding of the capital expenditures and maintenance efforts. In summary, the Group feels that Recommendations 1 and 2 are manageable. They will increase chip seal work, and can table the concept of returning roads to gravel at least for five years. Recommendation 3 involves working on efficiencies and a formal strategy; there has already been some savings. Recommendation 4, collaboration and partnerships, is working well thus far. Recommendation S, funding options, should focus on monitoring and protecting what is already in place. Overall, this is a good blueprint to become more efficient and maximize efforts. The Group's work and process has been worthwhile. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Pages Mr. Doty was asked if the Department can collaborate regarding employees or just equipment. Mr. Doty responded that some agencies get good at certain tasks. Deschutes County does well at chip sealing and striping. Storm water drainage work can be done by others. They can leverage partnerships if specialties are needed. Mr. Doty was asked if the private sector could be used for some of this. Mr. Doty said that they can identify and carve out work that lends itself for outsourcing or bidding. However, they do require certain skilled operators at different time. The tricky part is adjusting work in the shoulder seasons. In regard to facilities and whether any of this could be condensed or shared, Mr. Doty indicated this will be part of a future discussion. They are establishing relationships now and learning what each other does best. There have been some conversations with the City of Bend regarding certain projects. This needs to start on a small scale and build on successes. No one seems to have big needs that are not already handled by existing infrastructure. Commissioner Unger asked if it is possible to combine into one facility. He wondered how much flexibility or repetition there is. Randy McCulley said that 85% of existing facilities are filled and in use. Perhaps they can provide a service within the existing shops. Creating a new facility that would handle the same workload for both groups would be a big project. Mr. Doty pointed out there is a culture and mind set of working together. Deschutes County is not a growing agency, so they have to become more efficient without additional assets. Chair DeBone asked about the TSP and whether a safety improvement `wish list' is included. He asked if there are locations that need more attention than others. Mr. Doty said some are on the TSP, but this is an issue that is encountered all the time. There are more bicycles on the roads and more traffic in some places. There is no formal list, but they do have an informal one, with a goal to decide what to do with trouble spots. It is a matter of putting it in CIP form. Peter Russell stated that some are for safety and some are operational. Most current ones have been addressed. There are no intersections that trip the threshold. Much of it is day to day issues like trimming trees, fixing a road shoulder, and so on. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger said that they can try to do more things like private industry, by hiring sometimes and laying off at other, but they are limited due to union contracts. It is not good to do this anyway due to training requirements. Mr. Kropp said that temporary agencies are used for some things in season, like flagging. Commissioner Unger stated that there has to be a core level in place to do quality work year-round. Mr. Doty said that they have adapted to this by hiring former County workers who are capped at a certain number of hour. When some skilled workers are needed, it is hard to get them through agencies. These people are on call and a part of rotation. This has been a successful experiment, as they are efficient and well- trained. Then the Department does not have to carry an FTE for the whole season. They have a pool of trained individuals that may be available, and some might be from another agency. This is a different way to back-fill short-term needs. They are also cross-training staff as much as possible. Mr. Doty was asked if they can share employees with other agencies, those that might be skilled in specific work. He responded that they can work towards this, but it begins with trust and communication. They will probably see a lot more of this moving forward. Mr. Kropp added that it has to be properly structured. They already do that in Community Development where they contract out. A drawback can be drive-time costs, so they try to consolidate this work in the same area within the same timeframe. Commissioner Unger asked if there is potential for the shops to be used at night or during off hours. Mr. McCulley stated that the shops run from 4 AM to S PM, and most maintenance happens before the operators come in. They cannot be putting in capital improvement for others. They may be able to collaborate with others who want to use the facility from 6 PM to 3 AM, to keep the building working. Chair DeBone said that the roads not going to gravel is a good thing. He wants the media to know this. He feels this is a fairly comfortable five-year picture. Commissioner Unger stated that they did a good process to evaluate the situation, and came up with a positive conclusion that will help with efficiencies, and the same model might be able to be used for other departments. Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Tuesday, July 31, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Pages Jack Holt asked if the 200 unpaved miles are all dirt. Mr. Doty said that most are gravel, but there might be some dirt roads out there that should be gravel. Chair DeBone observed that some people are waiting for paving to happen as well. Mr. Doty said no future meetings of the Road Study Group are planned at this time, but will be convened as needed. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:20. DATED this Day of 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair a(am- ` (4tt' Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Commissioner Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Page 7 of 7 Pages Tuesday, July 31, 2012 N_ Q N M A a co H 0 V 10 %A 40 N N -0 ro. ca E O N' I-0i I N Ate} ~ ~ ~I ~ I ~ I I ~ NS! III I I c N I, ~i m _ ~ o o III ' ~ ii hl ~i - I ~ ~ II o II I I .J II i _ I ,c I .~II a`' s s ,oil of w ro 4- O a O O ~ V > tiuD p o c cc m x ■ CL O O Cif Q r W E ' O C C ~ o m 0 > p co 0 > V ~ O 0 c v a 0 0 to N " o 0 O C -W r7 V v 0 /1R U) V i N O \ , = G1 . (D cn a m o ° c O Z 06Z o. ■ ■ O N i cc ca G ri "O O V i ° W rriw O c~ m m ~ E E p • v r ~ W) ~N O w■~ Ar, A, 7 W~ W -0 V Sri v V + O p m ii O as D cc 0. O 4-0 co W i~ Q. E ■ ■ O N a~ U- L i, Nat tr1l I~ 1 ~ Jill, ~,1 t A 1 ~r ~ r it ry Rlj ~1~t i ill G:1+1 f~ ~1~ il,l I11,11 1,1 111 l Ileill~ 11 il~i E 0 N a C~ sa au u) E o~ o ~ Qa v v Z Ca CSI 'RS M E a _ E o , E a O O N ca U) r cc o ~ o 0 . o g o N ~ ~ o OC ' ~ v~ O 7 O 6-TY x .r c~ E N i a d 0 E E ■ 0 as c~ G~ N ~ .v O ~ ~ Ga 4-0 •v O •CL o 16- ~ c~ o o CL ~ o c~ U c as 0 (n zx V O ~O 0 O C X w Lr) 0 E E a~ OC ■ 0 r. O E G~ Q E 0 o , H~ LL ca z G1 E E 0 0 0 0 uIX O ~C cU ca U A` _ E ~ N ~ ~ ~ U G1 ~ ~ N N cc co r- 0- :3 cn O to +.0 0-0 cn (n 4-J Q O E U .4-0 CL Co a~ p E E 0 y, - C 4-0 L) C:) 0 0 4 J Ca a. - Q ~ ltf N (n > Ef} O t'-- CN E O. cc 0(l) 0 ca m - C~ to C~ U LL CV Q~ N ~ U N CV E N ca 7 C tB ^ cu a. O (D - O LZ. U ~ Q U U) U Q N Cl) 4mi k co Co v cc _ M . (J) co 0 a 3 • c 0 : o - ~ o .=5 O CD O O _ E E T O Z 0 o > ca > N ~ o cn a. n 0 Ga CL Q O i O C L O tl . a~ ~ c o 0 O cu E _ zs - a~ cu m ca 4a ~ a ~ N Q o ~ _ O • C13 L a-"' N O O N +V + C E O > ; cn a z a~ E 0 c~ ate.. 0 O N Q) i a~ H ,.~i.~Jir»-,r~+wan+mc•v.._a.,-.::a:xu;r:.~.waca~d~aa-tf>~~,~:deau~.,..:~..5fceucw.:.cr~: s,cP;wiG>~it~msl6... J:~a<,,.:... ,~a;~.r...~n:,:: 03d) xOPUl ua1!PuOD i uswant,'d 0 o .n .n UD c 7 O ! r 1 C co I 1 I i { d ! 1 A I , 4 0 M 1 ~ 1 ! I C.. u CL - ' ' U N 1 Cr I , I I { r I ! Ln I r 1 I 1 1 ev ~ I I ~ A ~ I CL I U ! ~ I r I 13 ~ 1 r ~ 1 I ca I N c " 4 0 a ' U CC , I ! i y loom ~i :3 C 0 ©~KL ' to E ° cti 1 r i w 3 i g-:t'r E 1 V- ILI 02 m 00 1 i. o N p r c z arc o 3 v I LO Ln r (I3d) XePul uOIVPuO:) luawened f A Q~ O O 4-0 ca O O O U 0 ~ U W (1) EZ N (n > W Ca O a CL CA ;am ca O 0 Q a-+ O O TA O cc 7 N Cll .r. O U 0.. w i O N O V CA O U cu Q~ 2 ca Cll ca O U O U O U c~ .0 co O ca U cc U >1 CCf w A A a O 4-0 Q~ cu •w O Q.1 E 0 I... 4-0 O Q) Q a--r C N D .0 O O. v Cc C6 . ~ {f} U ~ GJ to 0 O v d' O y CU oo 0 4a .U 0 O ~ 'x3 cc; O M M (D N ca ,4 (n tF~ o m m 03 y M ~ ra t Co U- a) (!1 Ca l~ ~ `QA > 7 U O O u.• a~ O U O O M off O O CL N_ O b O ~ O U m t- 4 o ~ v Co o C:L u U o Q) cn c~ :3 O Q)i ro O a Op ~ a] 0) M (D M N N O 70 O M ti CIO C~' c O O V E IL 4) )QD O O Q~ N w cu 00 .0 0 v E 1 0) N O 1 1 1 0 II ae _ I ! V N w O co J N 1 I s 1 0 N I I U I 1 Ii 1 O i Q i i 00 00 00 00 00 r~ r~ ~ 4W 0 LL m N 7+ _ 60 li O o 00 00 649. L6 00 Qy 0-01 NOR 00 N O 00 CV 00 64% LO o E o r-I q* O N O 0o (0 co 4 L6 00 40 O 0 0 rl d' rl © r-I 00 (D 00 ff} (~6 00 a) LO LO O Q CL o O _ O 0 0 o Q Q L O U a) ca Cc Co 0 ~ ~ U U C0 a. m a •E © ~ o o E Q r v1 ~ 04 o W 00 ' M 60 O ~ M ih LO 00 cc ^ r. O ~ v M ca 'p N N Q V m O LL 0 o 0 o ~ a~ c E 0 0 o - Mn E ca c o m to 'ono ~ ~ ~ .N Mn as 3: x _ ~ cn cu ~ v ~ as o ca 00 rouo m Cc (A N cn Cc Q ~ ~ U i as Q • LL U •N (6 O CU N O O cc i . a) >1 -0 Cc Q O 0 W ~A ca N 0 U Co = 2 u 41 N r_ cu o \ O +r *r O r N Q1 LL ~ , ~ N- .0 LO _ Cc y.. ~ wU Q.~ L (n cu LL Q LL c + CC5 W co LLI a ca 8 LL. (n V Q )OLD E o Q ~ E cc C p Q. ca v CU U t/1 ' E . p U 0 N j N ~ U ~ ' U co a p cc ~ Q . p to ty + 4wO '~A 4p Co 77D cc to N O Cc Q O :3 c Z c6 4-0 O y N >'C " ~ C.) ~ ~ ~ N N U Q.. to E co Q M cu o 2 E Q • o r-) i (1) o 4y ~ 7 i S, p O = p 4, " 0 U ❑ . O m cc p Q Q r- Q - CU Q r Q 7 fc Cl) U o N p _ U N - = N p Q) ~ M ~ y- p .p O V m CU (6 i LL Q Q -a > • cc 0 (1) a" •U ~ ~ 4 ~ r~-- yam„ Qy N 0. E X W r. _O a..r Q Q~ .N Q cc 7 N a 41 Qa ~ E O a~ 0 _ i N cn O - O ~ O Q Q r_ O s.. O 4- cc Qa C to co Q) (ti N CC5 chi c6 - N O ca N O 4-J O co N r ~ O O do r13 N ~ cc O cr. W ' ■ 0-1 M rl LL- u LO LO O r-I Lq O F- L.L Qa E Y~ Q 0 0 Ln N 60 vi 4-0 i Q F= Q E m w W U .j t/1 cc Yt r_ _cc Ll. N E v ca Q.~ R: Q) N i W U O . Lto 0 L _ U O ca Z Q U O ~ O X W N ~ a~ a~ U U N ca N O ~ Q CL U CU +r Q) .i ~ to +a O L ~ a••► CU CU 0 +-cu O U cn ~ N y O ~ LL ~J 7 N cc 0 O L+ rl rrr Va./ W 3.3 N a N O r-I O } N LO O O t N Lf) i VI i i i O~ ~ y W r O d q. t r r 0 0 0 0 a o O o 0 0 0 O d7 00 I` Cfl ~ ~ M N ~'°I c'I o c _ O N C13 c6 U *z r- cc -0 Z i cn cc ca O O N (D 7 U U = N c i O Z5 V U) O c6 O O O -0 © cn O O cc (1) O a CL +.r to w O a ~ O Q O ■ a~ > O Q °a~ cE w a~ (n m (D 4-1 CD > cc E p N _ cc O o U v as O O a ,ap V U C13 O X O c6 W -0 cc ■ o R5 Q v 0 a O O O N O Qa cn ca E (J) E y ) as o a~ CL . r (n N a.., cc w v a cc ❑ LL. c o_ ' 2 .J 0 O O ~ ~ _ ° O v 00 V) N da O >1 -W cn O -v c ~ V) %6- ~ + y,,•' > (D ca ~V w ■ O O 4wJ r .5 w Val `QA 4-0 ca v O U 4 O X + C: U -0 ca p N U U ~ 0 w (a O E O +J Ca; i O ° U N cc 4-0 E cn U O ' • d O QA ~ +U it 07 W to tio r- u a -w ~ d ~ O = CL _ N m 0 O O O , N O N - .C m 7 > x 0 N (1) Q cu U 0 7[ W U ,m a ca O (1) +r U RS O N O E = O E -O N O U ca O s + v - O O U CL 3 . i sr. (D W cu O 41 E ~ u O C "O E G cr Q,) Q LU r . ~ _ r . cn O p U U y- ~ C~ ~ i Q) t - U1 + cu cc 0 -0 + O C) cc q1 n cn cn O O LL O Z C O Q~ E E U as ac VIC W 4-+ ca L 4-0 V) O CL O O x ca 7 ❑ s U ca O L Q Q a•+ ca m N i= O a LL O Q O _O s~ W O L O CO ~oA J O co s E O U O -j +uU O L O J O ca U O R, N 4a Ca >1 a..r t1~ Q~ L O U- W i O X Qa 0 N L H .N N a-+ s N yLo O L y~ 7 ca i ca co ,ao to O L O a~ U O m E Q U s O ~ U O = -0 Co r- a M aO-+ c m 'cu a ca ~ C U 0 'OVA ca E O O LL ~ _N CQ N c6 C E •O N to cl) cu U N -0 b,,p -0 - O N U cc ca U O U O 4-0 4-0 O U cu W >1 -a co 4-1 cc Sao c6 N O > z L~ Li Q~ O U cu +j O a O O O ca CU CU a fCf (11 LO CD M N m M N e-I 4-; LL. N ~ M Z3 O ~ U cu O -a •E .U 4-0 O +D Cu0 c ca 0 0 N r_ -0 O O b 0 . E O U O Q O S2, O .O cc m O O O CO 1 E L. 4- - 7 O (A c6 O C: Cl) O ca as O a o - :3 O M -0 O = ~ ~ LL x ^ 0 ca O O +a Qa A Q + U u v to U 0 4-1 ba p O a) am 70 4mJ CU > ca 7 (1) E > E E a L am Q > > Q1 ca O 0 m E U! c l1 4-0 p O 4'd ~ 4- L~ O 6c~ • r q W g VJ L Q , V +-r 4-0 (n ~ 0 0 it " Cc a) CL m 'It > {f} (D Q Co © O N Q 4- -W C ~ Q 0 cu 0 C3 E to v U Exhibit A CENTRAL OREGON PUBLIC WORKS PARTNERSHIP (COPWP) INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AGREEMENT FOR EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES This AGREEMENT is made between the SIGNED PARTIES pursuant to the authority provided by ORS Chapter 190 and shall be referred as the COPWP-IGA (Central Oregon Public Works Partnership Intergovernmental Agreement) WHEREAS: 1. Each PARTY owns certain equipment and materials, and provides services that may be useful to another PARTY for public works, construction, operations, maintenance and related activities; and 2. The PARTIES agree that sharing equipment, materials, and services promotes the cost-effective and efficient use of public resources; and 3. The PARTIES recognize that the primary benefit of increased partnership and cooperation is the reduction of overhead expenses, staffing expenses and redundant purchases/services as opposed to pursuit of joint ventures with the intention of supplanting work or services that are typically or historically contracted within each agency; and 4. Each PARTY is encouraged to expand partnership opportunities by joining the similar established Portland Metropolitan Area Transportation Co-operative IGA for Equipment and Services (PMAT); and 5. Each PARTY recognizes the benefit in maintaining ongoing communication within the Public Works agencies in Central Oregon for the purpose of identifying opportunities for additional partnership and collaboration; and 6. The PARTIES desire to enter into an AGREEMENT to establish procedures for sharing equipment, materials and services, and defining legal relationships and responsibilities. Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, it is AGREED: 1. The PARTIES shall make available to each other vehicles, equipment, machinery, materials, related items and/or services in the manner and on the terms and conditions provided herein. The vehicles, equipment and machinery covered by this AGREEMENT shall only be such items appropriate for public works, construction, and shall not include regular automobiles. The PARTY supplying the services or the vehicles, machinery and equipment shall be designated as the "PROVIDER" herein. The PARTY receiving the services or assuming the use of vehicles, machinery or equipment shall be designated as the "USER" herein. 2. An EQUIPMENT SHARING CATALOG will be provided by each PARTY to the others to describe current rental rates. Supplies will be charged at PROVIDER'S invoice cost plus an established administrative fee, or may be replaced by the USER. 3. An estimate for specific services will be supplied by the PROVIDER at the request of the USER. Service PROVIDERS shall maintain an accurate cost accounting system, track expenditures and provide monthly billing to USER. PROVIDER'S invoices will be paid by USERS in full within thirty (30) days of billing. 4. Services, equipment or materials shall be provided upon reasonable request at mutually convenient times and locations. The PROVIDER retains the right to refuse to honor a request if the equipment or materials are needed for other purposes, if providing the equipment or materials would be unduly inconvenient, or if for any other reason, the Page I of 6 of the COP WP-!GA packet PROVIDER determines in good faith that it is not in its best interest to provide a particular item at the requested time. Equipment shall be returned immediately at PROVIDER'S request. 5. The USER receiving the equipment shall take proper precaution in its operation, storage and maintenance. Equipment shall be used only for its intended purpose. The USER shall permit the equipment to be used only by properly trained, properly licensed, and supervised operators. The USER shall be responsible for equipment repairs necessitated by misuse or negligent operation and for the maintenance and/or replacement of high wear items (i.e., milling machine teeth, etc.). The USER shall not be responsible for scheduled preventive maintenance (P.M.) unless equipment hours used exceeds the P.M. schedule periods and has been agreed by the PROVIDER. The USER shall perform and document required written maintenance checks prior to and after use and shall provide routine daily maintenance of equipment (i.e., fluid checks, lubricating, etc.) during the period in which the equipment is in USER'S possession. 6. PROVIDER shall endeavor to provide equipment in good working order and to inform USER of any information reasonably necessary for the proper operation of the equipment. The equipment is provided "as is", with no representation or warranties as to its condition or its fitness for a particular purpose. USER shall be solely responsible for selecting the proper equipment for its needs and inspecting equipment prior to use. It is acknowledged by the PARTIES that the PROVIDER is not in the business of selling, leasing, renting or otherwise providing equipment to others and that the PARTIES are acting only for their mutual convenience and efficiency. 7. The PARTIES shall provide equipment or materials storage to each other, at no charge, upon request when mutually convenient. It is recognized that such storage is for the benefit of the PARTY requesting it. The PARTY storing the equipment or materials shall be responsible for providing a reasonably safe and secure area and not responsible nor liable for theft or damage. 8. The PROVIDER may require, in its sole discretion, that only PROVIDER's personnel operate equipment. In so doing, PROVIDER shall be deemed an independent contractor and PROVIDER'S employees shall not be deemed employees of USER. The PROVIDER'S operator shall perform under the general direction and control of the USER, but shall retain full control over the manner and means of using the equipment. 9. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, the PARTIES are independent contractors. Nothing herein shall alter the employment status of any workers providing services under this AGREEMENT. Such workers shall at all times continue to be subject to all standards of performance, disciplinary rules and other terms and conditions of their employer. No USER shall be responsible for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, compensation or benefits for PROVIDER'S workers performing services to USERS under this AGREEMENT. 10. Each PARTY shall be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its employees and officers under this AGREEMENT. No PARTY shall be responsible or liable for consequential damages to another PARTY arising out of providing or using equipment or services under this AGREEMENT. PROVIDERS requiring that their personnel operate equipment shall, within limits of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, hold harmless, indemnify and .defend the USER, its officer, agents and employees from all claims arising solely by reason of any negligent act by persons designated by PROVIDER to operate equipment. Notwithstanding the above, the USER shall bear sole responsibility for ensuring that it has the authority to request the work, for its designs and for any representations made to the PROVIDER regarding site conditions or other aspects of the project. The PROVIDERS of the equipment shall adequately insure the equipment or provide self-insurance coverage. It. Any PARTY may terminate its participation by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other PARTIES. Any amounts due and owing by a terminating PARTY shall be paid within thirty (30) days of termination. 12. Nothing herein shall be deemed to restrict authority of any of the PARTIES to enter into separate AGREEMENTS governing the terms and conditions for providing equipment, services or joint contracts for special projects on terms different than specified herein. Page 2 of 6 of the COPWP-IGA packet 13. Any OREGON PUBLIC ENTITY may become a PARTY to this AGREEMENT. Each PARTY in accordance with the applicable procedures of that PARTY shall approve this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT will be executed separately by each PARTY and shall be effective as to each PARTY and binding among all the PARTIES that have signed this AGREEMENT on the date of execution and sending a copy of the signed AGREEMENT to the Deschutes County Road Department which is overseeing the administration of the COPWP-IGA. 14. This AGREEMENT may be amended by written amendment signed by all of the PARTIES. - end of the AGREEMENT narrative - Page 3 of 6 of the COPWP-!GA packet COPWP AGREEMENT SIGNATURE PAGE IN THE WITNESS WHEREOF, the PUBLIC ENTITY (PARTY) has caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by its duly authorized representatives as the date of their signatures below: Signature of Officer Date Officer's title Signature of Officer Date Officer's title Signature of Counsel Date Counsel's title Name and title of the Contact Representative: Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: 1. Send the original COPWP AGREEMENT Signature Page (this page), 2. and the EQUIPMENT SHARING CATALOG (page 1, paragraph 2) to: Chris Doty, COPWP-IGA Administrator, for distribution. Deschutes County Road Department, 61150 SE 27t" Street, Bend OR 97702 Telephone: 541.3 22.7105 e-mail: Chris.Doty{ct~,co.deschutes.or.us Retain a 2"d original COPWP AGREEMENT Signature Page for your records (2-sets are required). Page 4 of 6 of the CUPWP-!GA packet INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COPWP-IGA FOR EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES The following is directed to officials of local governments that may want to participate the accompanying public works INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) FOR EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES [AGREEMENT]: There are four pages to the COPWP-IGA: a Exhibit A: The COPWP-IGA narrative - pages 1-3 ■ COPWP AGREEMENT Signature Page - page 4 ■ COPWP Instructions (this page) - page 5 The purpose of the COPWP-IGA is for to exchange Public Works equipment and services between OREGON PUBLIC ENTRIES, specifically those within Central and Eastern Oregon. All PARTIES, who sign the AGREEMENT, must honor the AGREEMENT entirely. Deschutes County has agreed to oversee administration of the COPWP-IGA. The COPWP-IGA Administrator will notify all the Contract Representatives for all PARTIES. The COPWP-IGA Administrator will not be involved between any disputes of the COPWP-IGA PARTIES, nor would Deschutes County or its employees be liable for any damages sought between any two other PARTIES. Each new PARTY shall execute the COPWP AGREEMENT SIGNATURE PAGE in two original sets: One shall be filed with the COPWP-IGA administrator for approval and distribution, and the second for the PARTY entity's records. The COPWP-IGA administrator's originals are filed with the Deschutes County Clerk. Each PARTY will obtain a mailing list of the current AGREEMENT holders from the COPWP-IGA Administrator. Each PARTY will send each its EQUIPMENT SHARING CATALOG (page 1, paragraph 2) to the COPWP-IGA Administrator for distribution to all the PARTIES. It is the responsibility of each PARTY to send updates of the catalog to the COPWP-IGA Administrator. After the signature and approval process is completed, any PARTY may directly approach any other PARTY for exchange of services. There is no need to coordinate requests amongst PARTIES. It is important to note paragraph 4 (page 1): "the PROVIDER retrains the right to refuse a request". Mstory: The COPWP IGA is based on the successful Portland Metropolitan Area Transportation (PMAT) Co- operative IGA. The original (PMAT) IGA for shared services was originally signed by Multnomah County, the City of Gresham and Oregon Department of Transportation in 1996. By the provision of 1999 ADDENDUM, other parties agreed to sign the agreement. This PMAT-IGA was revised in July 2002 from the originally IGA. COPWP IGA participants are encouraged to also join the PMAT [GA. Questions or concerns may be addressed to: Don Newell PMAT-IGA Administrator Marion County, 5155 Silverton Road NE, Salem, Oregon 97305 Telephone: 503.365.3129 e-mail: DNewellAco.Mari.on.or.us A second ODOT IGA (GMAT), which allows working with ODOT, can be obtained by contacting: Penelope (Penny) A. Lee Agreement Specialist Region 1-Contracts and Agreements Unit 123 NW Flanders St., Portland, OR 97209 Phone: 503-731-8278/ office; 503-731-8215/ fax; e-mail: Penelo .A.LEE r)odot.state.or.us Page 5 of 6 of the COPWP-!GA packet THE COPWP IGA AGENCY MEMBERS: IGA # Date Agency Equipment List (Year) IGA Administrator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 6 of 6 of the COPWP-IGA packet