HomeMy WebLinkAbout1415-10 Light Fleet Management report (6-9-2015)Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Light Fleet Management
To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org
Deschutes County,
Oregon
David Givans, CPA, CIA, CGMA
Deschutes County Internal Auditor
PO Box 6005
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 330-4674
David.Givans@Deschutes.org
Audit committee:
Shawn Armstrong, Chair - Public member
Chris Earnest - Public member
Lindsey Lombard – Public member
Gayle McConnell - Public member
Michael Shadrach - Public member
Jennifer Welander - Public member
Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
{This page left blank}
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
HIGHLIGHTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background on Audit …………..………………………………………...…… 1
2. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………… 1-3
3. FINDINGS
3.1. Utilization …………………………..………………………………………… 4-9
3.2. Accounting …………………………………………………………..….… 10-15
3.3. Performance measures …………………………………………………. 16-17
3.4. Laws, regulations and County policies ………………………………… 18-20
4. MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
4.1. County Administration ……………………………………………….. 20-21
4.2. Road Department ..……………………………………………...…... 21-22
4.3. County Assessor ……….……………………………..……….......… 22-23
A. APPENDICES
A1. Audit scope and methodology
A1.1 Scope …………….………………………………...……………...……… 23
A1.2 Methodology …………………………………….…………..…...…… 23-24
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
HIGHLIGHTS
Why this audit was
performed:
To review management for
the County’s light vehicle
fleet.
What is recommended
Recommendations
included:
developing a fleet
management policy;
considering policies that
support increasing
vehicle utilization (such
as motor pool
strategies);
addressing value for
vehicle transfers
between departments;
refining cost accounting
for fleet costs;
considering an internal
service fund approach
for fleet;
establishing
performance measures;
addressing take home
vehicles and associated
payroll and income tax
reporting
considerations; and
assuring policies are
communicated and
implemented.
Light Fleet Management
What was found
The County has not established written countywide policies, procedures, and guidelines for
management of vehicles. This has influenced accounting, decision making and management of
vehicle resources.
The County’s light vehicle fleet is comprised of 150 cars, sports utility vehicles (suvs), light trucks
and vans (excluding the Sheriff’s Office). The County has not centralized fleet management.
The Road Department provided repair and maintenance services of $150 thousand in FY 2014
to County departments. They also assist with vehicle purchases.
Annual mileage figures indicate only 26% of
vehicles were driven annually 7,500 miles or
more. Underutilized vehicles have affected
county light vehicle fleet by increasing the
length of time vehicles are held.
Departments generally decide when vehicle replacements occur and the number of vehicles
needed. Average vehicle age is 10 years, however, only 27% have total mileage over 100,000
miles (typically, vehicle replacement occurs when vehicles are 10 yea rs old with 100,000 miles
and show signs of maintenance issues.) These older vehicles are also used less, which
increases their maintenance cost per mile.
County accounting efforts for fleet vehicles could be improved. The vehicle replacement fund
(Fund 340) is used primarily for reserves and does not operate like an internal service fund,
which is more common with larger Oregon counties. Departments can be billed for vehicle repair
and maintenance services to their department as well as to their funds held in reserve depending
on whether the vehicle are considered in or out of the Fund 340 plan.
The County and Road Department have not established suff icient performance measures for
addressing fleet management performance for the County’s light vehicle fleet.
The County has not sufficiently addressed taxability of personal use of certain government
owned take home vehicles.
Deschutes County Internal Audit
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 1 of 25
1.
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND ON AUDIT
Audit Authority:
The Deschutes County Audit Committee authorized the review of fleet management in the Internal Audit
Program Work Plan for FY 14/15.
Light vehicle fleet in the context of this internal audit excludes the Sheriff’s Office vehicles and includes those
vehicles operated by departments with a gross vehicle weight less than 8,500 pounds. This eliminates many
of the heavy-duty equipment vehicles operated primarily by the Road, Solid W aste and Property & Facilities
departments.
Objectives:
The audit objectives include:
1) Evaluate utilization of vehicles to address when vehicles are purchased, retired and the associated
tracking.
2) Assess current accounting model for fleet maintenance to appropriately charge departments, cover
costs, and manage the fleet of vehicles.
3) Review for adequacy of performance measures used.
4) Be aware of any issues with compliance with federal and state regulations and requirements, as may
be applicable.
For scope and methodologies, see Appendix 1.
2.
Background
Fleet management
The County has not centralized fleet management. The Road Department provides services to County
departments (other than the Sheriff) that include vehicle repairs and maintenance and assistance with vehicle
purchases. Departments also continue to have a significant role in decisions regarding their vehicles including
assignment, purchasing, operational oversight, and maintenance. The Road Department continues to have a
role in collaborating with departments on their fleet vehicle needs.
Deschutes County’s light vehicle fleet
The light vehicle fleet identified includes 150 vehicles as of June 30, 2014 (see Table 1). The investment in
these vehicles is $2.9 million as of 6/30/2014 with a net book value of $.7 million (24% remaining). Most of
these vehicles are being depreciated over 10 years.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 2 of 25
TABLE I:
Fleet
characteristics of
light fleet.
Fleet Characteristics as of June 30, 2014
Vehicle Types Vehicle count
Vehicle miles
per gallon
(avg.)
Cars 37 30
Cars 25 24
Cars - Hybrid 12 44
SUV 58 21
SUV 28 21
SUV - 4x4 30 21
Pickup 41 15
Pickup <3/4 ton 4 18
Pickup <3/4 ton 4x4 37 15
Van 14 12
Van 8 12
Van 4x4 6 13
TOTAL FLEET – Light
150
Vehicle count
21
Miles per gallon
(excludes Sheriff's Office and Large Trucks >8,500 GVW)
Oldest vehicle: 1992 Suburban (Road) 22 years old
Highest total mileage: 2000 F150 Pickup (IT)
169,650
Most miles driven in FY 2014: 2006 Pickup (CDD) 28,309
FY 2014 Repairs and maintenance
The light vehicle fleet incurred repair and maintenance expenditures of $150 thousand for FY 2014. The
repairs performed by the Road Department represent only about 17% of their shop mechanics’ time. These
expenditures are paid directly by departments as well as through the vehicle maintenance and replacement
fund (Fund 340).
FY 2014 Capital purchases, dispositions and transfers
Light vehicle fleet purchases amounted to $215 thousand for nine vehicles. Five vehicles were disposed of
and one vehicle was transferred to another department. These purchases were all funded through the vehicle
maintenance and replacement fund.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 3 of 25
Vehicle maintenance and replacement fund (Fund 340).
The County utilizes a vehicle maintenance and replacement fund (Fund 340) to accumulate resources for the
maintenance and replacement of County vehicles. Funds are transferred from participating departments and
used as needed.
The Budget Committee with the fiscal year 1985 budget started the vehicle replacement fund .
“This provides for departments to pay into this fund for use of vehicles (comparable to vehicle leasing)
which in turn would pay for vehicle replacement and repair. “
Budget committee minutes 5/9/1984
The 1985 County Combined Financial Statements for 198 5 indicated these
“...funds are to be accumulated in this fund for replacement of County owned vehicles. Revenues is
primarily from transfers from other funds.”
These two insights from history highlight the view of approaches to handle these funds. This fund continues
to operate more as a reserve fund to accumulate resources for use in vehicle replacement or maintenance.
The oversight of this fund has been primarily from the Road Department.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 4 of 25
3. Findings These findings are subjective and are proposed to assist the Road Department, management and
departments consider how to better manage fleet resources.
3.1 Utilization
County lacks established fleet management policies.
The County has not established written countywide policies, procedures, and guidelines for management of
vehicles. Fully developed policies can address and foster a more efficient and effective vehicle fleet. Policies
can influence whether and how the County wants to :
centralize delivery of fleet services,
control financial policies,
provide reserves for replacements and stabilize maintenance costs, and
ensure high levels of customer service.
Industry best practices require a comprehensive “Fleet Management Policy and Procedure Manual” be
provided as one of the foundations for effective and uniform control of fleet assets and their operation and
maintenance. An effective fleet policy rests upon a foundation of goals and objectives that are identified by
management, and found to be compatible with the County’s goals for controlling costs while fulfilling the
organization’s mission.
Written fleet management policies often address:
strategy for providing vehicle resources and improving utilization (whether it be through employee
reimbursement, rental, motor pool, or specific assignment);
decision-making - assignment of fleet management responsibilities for decisions between
administration, departments, Fleet Manager (Road);
vehicle purchases, retirements and replacements;
o evaluation criteria for adding vehicles to fleet or replacement;
o anticipated life and mileage;
o thresholds for minimum usage;
o guidelines for acceptable mileage rates, makes, models, trims and equipment;
o early or deferred replacement practices; and/or
o practices for obtaining greatest utilization during vehicle life cycle;
allocation and assignment of vehicles;
take-home vehicles;
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 5 of 25
guidelines for repairs and maintenance;
use of performance measures;
financial policies, including
o approach to charging departments for acquisition costs and repairs and maintenance;
o inter-departmental accounting treatments (including vehicle transfers and charges for
services).
o interest earnings and impacts from inflation;
o allocation of administrative and overhead costs;
o purpose and use of replacement reserves including strategy, approach, including minimum
and maximum thresholds, actions when monies are above or below thresholds; and/or
o whether and to what extent costs can be charged to federal grants.
In the absence of policies, most departments have continued to make purchase decisions based on resources
available and their specific vehicle preferences, rather than identified specific needs and cost effectiveness
making it difficult to ensure efficient and effective deployment of vehicle resources across the County.
It is recommended the County [with the assistance of the Fleet Manager (Road)] develop a fleet
management policy, obtain input from County management and departments, and secure approval of
the policy from upper management/Board.
It is important to note the balance of the report contains insights that might help inform County
management on various topics addressed through policy.
It is recommended the policy guidance include associated forms and materials anticipated to be used
to control and monitor vehicle fleet decisions.
County light vehicle fleet is impacted by older and underutilized vehicles.
As noted above, the County does not have established criteria for how it utilizes vehicles and when they
should be replaced. Since this was the case, a review of criteria for vehicle replacement and utilization
indicates that a reasonable replacement threshold of 100,000-mile life (or 10 years) and minimum annual
usage of around 7,500 miles. These criteria will be used for discussion/analyses purposes only. For
replacement decisions, mechanical vehicle assessments and maintenance cost evaluations are frequently
utilized to assist in deciding when is the right time to replace a vehicle. It was also clear from discussions with
departments that low utilization of some department vehicles comes with the nature of their use.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 6 of 25
Graph 1
Composition of
vehicles by age
Graph 2
Composition of
total miles
driven by age
(with average)
Underlying Graph 1 is an average vehicle age of 10 years with 44% with an age over 10 years.
In Graph 2, only 27% of vehicles are over 100,000 miles. It indicates that many vehicles are being driven
longer than 10 years to get over 100,000 miles. This indicates the overall utilization is not sufficient to have
replacements occur under the anticipated life of the vehicle (10 years / 100,000 miles). This sometimes
results in trying to get more utilization from older vehicles. These are generally vehicles with higher
maintenance and fuel costs. This also can hinder the timely replacement of vehicles since we still have
vehicles that might do or can result in carrying on older vehicles and increasing the size of the fleet.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 7 of 25
Graph 3
Composition of
FY2014 annual
miles driven by
age (with
average)
Graph 4
Composition of
vehicles by
type
Graph 3 indicates the older vehicles are driven less than most vehicles (on average) and are being driven
less than the 7,500 miles a year. Only 26% of vehicles were driven annually 7,500 miles or more. Only 52%
drove greater than 5,000 miles annually.
Another important consideration is type of vehicle. For purposes of these analyses, we grouped vehicles into
four primary categories.
In general, the trends for FY 2014 annual miles driven and total miles driven move in the same directions as
those shown above.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 8 of 25
Graph 5
Mileage rate
(MPG) by
vehicle type
over vehicle
ages
Graph 6
FY 2014
Maintenance
costs per mile
by vehicle type
over vehicle
ages
In general, Graph 5 indicates newer vehicle choices have resulted in a better overall mileage rate.
Countywide average mileage rate for this light fleet is 21 MPG. This can be a valuable measure to monitor a
strategy to have a more fuel-efficient fleet.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 9 of 25
In general, Graph 6 indicates newer vehicles have lower maintenance costs per mile. This can be
exacerbated by the lower mileage driven by older vehicles. This can be a valuable metric to assist in
determination of replacement.
An analysis of employee mileage reimbursement, indicates over $90 thousand was paid in FY 2014. That
equates to around 161 thousand miles. Mileage reimbursement rates for this period varied from 55.5 to 56.5
cents per mile. It is not clear what conversations take place in departments for influencing the choices
between a County vehicle and personal vehicle. This appears to be an opportunity to discuss how to
influence these choices and better utilize the County’s investment in vehicles.
Underutilizing vehicle assets could indicate the County could perform equally well with fewer vehicles. This
can have significant impact on required expenditures for vehicle purchases as well as maintenance, however
it does not delve into the cause and some departments need vehicles regardless of how many miles they may
put on them. In addition, hanging on to older vehicles results in greater costs. The County’s Fleet Manager is
starting to provide additional services to departments to see how they are using their vehicles so that better
decisions can be made.
The analyses indicate a light vehicle fleet that is less effective as the fleet gets older and has greater miles.
Vehicles are fully depreciated by their tenth year. After full depreciation, the residual values of vehicles can be
significantly diminished even when there is lower mileage. A number of practices indicate there is a sweet
spot for when to sell used vehicles based upon age, mileage and maintenance costs.
The Road’s Fleet Manager indicates that they could use better utilization reports from their accounting system.
It is recommended for the County to consider policies that support increasing vehicle utilization.
Optimally, vehicles utilization should coincide with replacement thresholds established as well as a
mechanical assessment.
It is recommended the County utilize the Fleet Manager role to better understand and develop
practices for improving vehicle utilization. This would include assisting departments in making
choices with their limited resources through utilization reporting, mileage reimbursement, vehicle
acquisition, vehicle rental and motor pool strategies.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 10 of 25
3.2 Accounting
Graph 7
Trend of
vehicles in
Fund 340
program
County accounting efforts for fleet vehicles could be improved.
Inconsistent use of vehicle maintenance and replacement fund (Fund 340)
Many County departments are unaware of how the vehicle maintenance and replacement fund currently
works. The County inconsistently utilizes this reserve fund (Fund 340). Monies coming in bear no relation to
the size of their fleet. Total vehicle reserves amounted to $977 thousand as of 6/30/2014 ($847 and $130
thousand for capital and maintenance reserves, respectively).
The County allows departments to choose how many vehicles they want in the program (this results in the
transfer of monies at a predetermined rate for capital and maintenance reserves). Since FY 2008, the number
of vehicles and number of departments taking advantage of the vehicle replacement fund have significantly
diminished. In 2008, nearly 66% of the vehicle fleet participated in the reserve fund as compared to 28% in
FY 2014. Much of this decline has been due to the economy and the desire of departments to limit and /or
utilize previously established vehicle reserves. Monies carried by department vary and the rate methodology
for funding has not changed much over the years. Reserve funds are classified separately based on the
capital or maintenance contribution and are still designated to the department contributing. It is not clear the
reserve levels needed have been addressed and whether departments would have adequate funds when
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 11 of 25
needed. One department overdrew its maintenance reserve in FY 2014. Some departments have funds
reserved well above the original cost of their fleet.
As indicated in the background, the fund was established to help assure monies would be available when
needed for maintenance and capital replacement. Currently, of the 15 departments with vehicles in the fleet,
only 7 participate at some level in the program. The risk is that sufficient funds may not be available should
critical assets need to be replaced.
As indicated above in the policy discussion, there have been a number of unintended consequences of not
establishing fiscal and accounting policies around this fund.
A number of departments have transferred funds into the fund in excess of their needs. Rates and
process established for reserves have not been updated or modified over time.
A number of departments are not currently participating, including 911 county service district,
Administration, Fair & Expo, IT, Road, and Solid Waste.
A number of departments appear to have insufficient reserves for their vehicle fleet replacement needs.
Vehicle repairs and maintenance costs have been charged to these funds only if there are vehicles in
the program (i.e. being funded), thereby restricting the use of established funds for the purpose
intended. In FY 2014, departments expended $81 thousand as departmental vehicle repairs and
maintenance when there were funds in their maintenance reserves. This occurred since they had
limited the vehicles in the program.
Reserve funds are utilized at the discretion of departments without other County oversight. The Fleet
Manager exercises some oversight; however, departments directly authorize use of these funds without
further oversight.
Adequacy of reserve levels is not managed. There are no comparisons to the size and age of a
department’s fleet and potential requirements for replacement.
Lack of transparency by using Fund 340
Department costs for vehicle purchase, repairs and maintenance cannot be adequately assessed since funds
transferred to Fund 340 for replacement and maintenance are no longer part of the departments’
expenditures. Department expenditures for vehicle purchases, repairs and maintenance can show up under
their department or Fund 340. Nearly 57% of department vehicle repairs and maintenance costs are paid
through the department and not Fund 340. Many departments had adequate resources in their Fund 340
maintenance reserve when those monies were paid from the department. Many departments understated
their budget needs for vehicle repairs and maintenance.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 12 of 25
Vehicle transfers not accounted for
There currently is no mechanism to provide an equitable transfer for vehicles between departments. Until a
third party pays for the vehicle (usually near the end of its useful life), the originating department receives no
consideration. The department who has received the transferred vehicle rarely pays for it. This is due to lack
of fiscal and accounting policies. A number of departments obtain vehicles only through these transfers. In
addition, retention of transferred vehicles creates a potential opportunity for “fleet creep”; that is, the
unauthorized growth in the size of the fleet.
Road Department cost accounting could be improved.
The Road Department has a sophisticated cost accounting system used to monitor and manage costs for the
department. The department has consistently incorporated an overhead burden applied to labor incurred.
Given the overhead is applied on a department wide basis there are a number of ramifications to how they bill
for services outside of the department.
Services provided that do not include Road Department labor (i.e. fuel, parts, and contracted services)
will not receive any overhead burden. This could result in more overhead burden charged to labor in
other areas.
Overhead is developed for the entire department; therefore, overhead from each of the cost centers is
burdened to labor for all of the cost centers (i.e. overhead from engineering is also applied to shop
labor).
Overhead estimated and applied is not being compared to the actual overhead incurred and adjusted to
actual. The variance for FY 2014 was not found to be significant, but doing this would help improve the
accounting of costs.
Labor billing rates make certain assumptions on productivity that could be updated to reflect the actual
amount of productivity being obtained.
A review of their cost accounting processes may provide an opportunity to see if changes in methodology
could result in a more effective allocation. This would have to be weighed with the cost for the additional
accounting efforts.
Some shared vehicle resources fall short of motor pool concept
There are opportunities to improve utilization by having vehicles more widely accessible. County
Administration has a vehicle that can be checked out for use by other departments. This most often occurs
with out of state travel since this vehicle has additional insurance. There is no current mechanism to charge
departments for the usage of the vehicle and fuel is charged to those departments only if purchased during
use. The Road Department has two vehicles (a Trailblazer and a Suburban) they make available on a per
mile rate. These vehicles are generally underutilized. Not all departments are aware that these vehicles are
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 13 of 25
available to them.
After creation of the vehicle maintenance and replacement fund, the County did not make efforts to develop
and document fiscal policies and strategies that would influence the accounting and handling of reserves for
replacement and maintenance.
As discussed above in in the policy recommendations:
It is recommended for the County to address the fiscal policies around Fund 340 and
whether departments have an option to save for fleet replacement and maintenance.
It is recommended the County establish fiscal policies governing establishment, use and
monitoring of vehicle reserves.
As discussed below, improved transparency of department costs could be achieved through use of an internal
service fund.
It is recommended for the Road Department to develop a system for providing a value for transfers of
vehicles between departments. Depending on the ultimate accounting system in place, this value
should be transferred/credited between departments.
It is recommended for the Road Department to consider whether it would be beneficial to further refine
the way it accounts for its costs. This could include further refining costs to cost centers and
redefining allocations to non-labor expenditures as well.
It is recommended for the County to consider how to establish motor pools and associated charges
for departments that use them.
A variety of options exist for improving the fiscal strategy for the vehicle fleet within the
County.
There is no shortage of ways to handle the financial aspects of a fleet. A review of the larger Oregon counties
indicates all of them utilize internal service funds for their fleets. Those counties include:
Multnomah County
Washington County
Clackamas County
Lane County
Marion County
Jackson County
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 14 of 25
Table 2
Comparison of
selected county
fleet
approaches
County
Fleet management
of fleet
Internal
service fund
approach
Motor
Pool
Replacement
reserves
Deschutes Decentralized No Limited Yes
with Fleet Manager
support
Departments charged
based on
maintenance and fuel
costs incurred.
charged
inconsistently
inconsistent
build up
Jackson Centralized Yes Yes Yes
with Fleet Manager
deciding after discussion
with departments
through rates for
capital replacement
and maintenance
all vehicles
considered part of
pool then assigned
to dept.
built up only
until 100%
Marion Centralized Yes Yes Yes
with Fleet Manager
working in collaboration
with departments
through rates (inside
of public works)
charged a rate
encompassing fuel.
part of
working
capital.
Lane Centralized Yes Yes Yes
with Fleet Manager
deciding after discussion
with departments and
fleet committee
through rates
including replacement
on three year rolling
average (outside of
public works)
charged rate per
day plus mileage
100% of cost
of new vehicle
Washington Centralized Yes Yes Yes
with Fleet Manager
working in collaboration
with departments
through rates,
markups, and
administrative fee
(outside of public
works)
charged on time
and distance
separate fund
As is evident by the number of larger Oregon counties who have centralized and created internal service
funds, the trend across many municipalities has been to centralize municipal fleet assets. Internal service
funds still allow flexibility in management. Each of the counties varies in its approach to utilizing the fund. A
number of the Oregon counties responded to requests for information on their use of internal service funds.
Internal service funds recover their costs through a charge-back methodology to cover those associated costs.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 15 of 25
It is recognized as an effective ongoing means of controlling fleet costs. Charges for vehicles (replacement
and maintenance) would cover the costs of maintenance services provided a s well as set aside funds to
purchase a replacement for the vehicle. Charges would provide adequate funds to replace vehicles and
assure maintenance.
As indicated in the background, the internal service fund approach more closely matches with the Budge t
Committee meeting discussion (as documented) of what they anticipated the vehicle replacement fund would
work like.
Centralization establishes clear responsibility for the vehicle fleet. It also provides the ability to run a more
efficient fleet through establishing policy and objectives, encouraging efficiency, and ensuring well-maintained
vehicles. A more efficient fleet is possible because vehicles and equipment can be monitored centrally, which
allows vehicles to be better utilized and potentially could reduce the fleet size. Many centralized fleets actually
own the vehicles and then effectively charge departments for use.
A major benefit of internal service funds is that the charges directly relate to underlying services and reserve
approach.
It is recommended the County consider implementing an internal service fund approach for fleet.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 16 of 25
3.3 Performance measures
There are insufficient performance measures for fleet management.
The County and Road Department have not established sufficient performance measures for addressing fleet
management performance for the County’s light vehicle fleet. Fleet measures generally fall into categories of
assignment
costs
fleet replacement
maintenance and
repair
fuel
fleet size
parts inventory
Performance measurements are a tool for monitoring performance through relevant measures of efforts,
outputs and outcomes. Measures can allow review of activity over time and among peers. They support
efforts to treat fleet operations more like a business. Guidance suggests that measures should be established
at the County and fleet level with thresholds (upper and lower).
Some of the measures frequently identified for fleet include:
fleet customer satisfaction
size of vehicle fleet
vehicle miles driven by type
percentage of days vehicle utilized
vehicle fuel efficiency (miles per gallon) by
type
vehicle maintenance costs per mile by type
vehicle total cost per mile by type
percent of fleet out of life cycle
fully burdened mechanic labor rates
mechanic labor utilization
vehicle downtime percent
percent vehicles returned for repeat service
internal versus external vehicle repairs costs
percent of overdue vehicle preventative
maintenance
Performance measures help inform the discussion on performance of services and whether additional or less
resources are required. Trends in measurement data can help decision makers assess if changes in
resources are necessary. Measures should strive to be clear to all audiences, provide strategic information,
and build upon data being collected.
Without effective and relevant performance measures, it can be difficult for a government to demonstrate
accountability and that they achieved their intended goals/objectives. Without consistency in measures, it can
be difficult to assess progress with goals. It is also difficult for policy makers to assess where best to allocate
and direct public funds.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 17 of 25
Performance measures tend to be a little complex and threatening. Some County programs have had trouble
identifying and implementing meaningful performance information.
In the absence of appropriate performance measures, it could be more difficult to develop and support
decision making required to move the County towards strategic goals.
It is recommended for the County (and Road Department) to establish performance measures to assist
in assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the light vehicle fleet as well as fleet services
provided.
{The County’s Fleet Manager is supportive of developing some measures to better assess the
performance of the County fleet.}
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 18 of 25
3.4 Laws, regulations and County policy
Taxability of take home vehicles has not been sufficiently addressed.
The personal use of a government-owned vehicle is generally a taxable fringe benefit. There are limited
exceptions. In general, these exceptions are restricted to vehicles that cannot be used for personal use (i.e.
ambulance, marked police vehicles, heavy equipment). These are referred to as “qualified nonpersonal use
vehicles.” The Internal Revenue Service requires employers tax the value of vehicles provided to employees
for commuting between home and work (i.e. personal use).
Due to the significant cost related to providing take -home vehicles to employees, it is imperative that policies
and practices be implemented to establish criteria for assignment of take-home vehicles. Common criteria
include:
twelve or more after hours calls each quarter
employee must live within the County
employee must be on-call and required to respond to an emergency event at any time, and/or
cost of reimbursement of business use of a personal vehicle exceeds cost of permanent take -home
assignment of a County vehicle
The County appears to have two non-public safety vehicles that staff take home that would not meet the
definition of “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles.” Staff are allowed to drive them home to allow for the
County’s expeditious response to emergency after-hours issues. The County has not addressed the potential
fringe benefit taxability of the personal use of these vehicles. These specific vehicles do not appear to meet
the exceptions for taxability. The department does not have a specific policy governing these situations but
they do appear to comply with the County vehicle usage policy RM-1.
Finance and Personnel staff were not aware of the current usage and have not been reaching out to
departments to see if there was any personal use of vehicles. There were no established systems in place to
address the usage.
This issue appears to have existed for several years. In the absence of proper handling of the fringe benefit
for personal use of the vehicle, the payroll taxes (employer and employee) and wage reporting are
understated. Given the complexity of the rules around this topic, the amount of this potential liability and
under reporting has not been estimated.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 19 of 25
County policy RM-1 (or similar policy) should be updated to address the following recommendations
for take home County vehicles:
It is recommended the County institute a system to identify take home vehicle usage and evaluate
how to comply with IRS rules.
It is recommended for the County to take steps to inform affected departments and employees of
potential taxable fringe benefits resulting from take home vehicle use.
It is recommended the County establish sufficient systems to gather information that will be
needed to evaluate, calculate and report the income and payroll tax for take home vehicles.
It is recommended for the departments to institute appropriate policies over provided take home
vehicles.
{The nature of these findings were communicated back in early February, so the Personnel, Finance and
department could start addressing this issue for 2015.}
Many County departments are not following the intent of County policy on Fuel
purchases. (Policy GA-19)
In July 2008, an internal audit report was issued on Gas purchase card controls (report #07/08-15) that
resulted in the County issuing a policy for fuel purchasing (GA -19) in July 2009. The policy, which addressed
a number of the recommendations, reinforced the need for departments to monitor and evaluate the mileage
rates for their vehicles.
The internal audit required information on vehicle miles driven and mileage rates by vehicle in each of the
departments. This information should have been readily available from departments if they complied with
County policy. During this audit, few departments could provide that level of information. Most had some
driven miles information, but mileage rates were not being monitored.
It appears after issuance of the policy there was not an effort made to address procedures for monitoring.
In the absence of collecting information, it is unknown whether problems could have been identified. The
internal audit of fleet management could have been more efficient and effective had there been the data
already available in departments on miles driven and miles per gallon. This information is useful, not only in
overseeing fuel usage, but in assessing utilization of vehicles.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 20 of 25
It is recommended the County consider approaches to assure policies are communicated and
implemented by departments. Policy GA-19 should be shared with all departments.
4.
Management
Responses –
Tom Anderson,
County
Administrator
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 21 of 25
Chris Doty,
Road
Department
Director
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2015
To: David Givans, County Internal Auditor
From: Chris Doty, PE/PTOE, Road Department Director
RE: Road Department Comments regarding Light Vehicle Fleet Audit
Per your request, I respectfully submit comments regarding the draft Light Vehicle Fleet Audit as follows:
The Road Department welcomes the findings of this audit and recognizes the potential for improvement
and County-wide efficiencies through transitioning into a motor pool and/or internal service fund concept.
Prior to the audit, Road Department staff had been working towards improvement and modernization
related to many of the recommendation items brought forward; this audit is timely and will serve as a
work plan to implement best management practices within the light fleet program.
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 22 of 25
Scot Langton,
County
As sessor
Key to the success of implementing a centralized approach will be developing a transition plan which
clearly articulates how assets will be handled and how departmental needs will be met. I am confident in
the ability of staff to implement the recommendations. I do anticipate that this will be a multi -year
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and thank you for your good work on this audit.
June 3, 2015
To: David Givans, Internal Auditor
From: Scot Langton, County Assessor
RE: Light Fleet Management Audit Response
Thank you for your review and audit of the County’s light fleet. You make some very valid observations and
recommendations, such as how monies are managed and used from Fund 340 among others.
One area in this audit that you stated might need further analysis before changes occur, which I agree needs further
attention is in reviewing current County practices on vehicle utilization. At least for the Assessor’s Office we view Coun ty
vehicles as a tool that is needed to accomplish our work and mission in an efficient and timely manner. Much like a
computer or a desk, our appraisers utilize their individually assigned vehicles much in the same manner. Our work is
very cyclical where there are periods of time appraisers are in the office compared to other times when they are mainly in
the field; but there are routinely times they need ready access to their vehicle even during these office times. There are
many tools that they leave in their vehicle, much like the files and papers on their desk. Therefore I believe there are
additional factors that should be considered for vehicle utilization that might show benefit for what may be considered
underutilization in this audit.
Our appraisers 15+ years ago used to share a computer between two of them. Computers were expensive then, but this
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 23 of 25
created a number of issues on how efficiently appraisers could work to accomplish their assigned task timely. It was
much more costly in lost production in wages then to have provided each their own computer. Now they each have their
own, and we are currently migrating to field tablets. I would caution that this same type of analysis should occur in
examining vehicle utilization before any significant changes occur in these regards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would be very willing to discuss in more depth if desired.
APPENDIX
A 1 Audit Scope and Methodology
1.1 SCOPE
This internal audit work is focused on the light fleet for non-public safety (Sheriff’s Office) and for vehicles
of less than 8,500 pounds. Road Department facilitated many of the discussions since they are primarily
involved with vehicle repairs charged through their cost accounting managemen t system (CAMS). This
system also collects valuable mileage information when vehicles are serviced or fueled. Additional data
was available through gas vendors.
The Road Department has a Fleet and Equipment Manager who has responsibilities for fleet activities in
the Road Department and provides support for other departments. They also oversee the accounting of
the vehicle maintenance and replacement fund (Fund 340).
Internal audit work on this project was primarily in January through April 2015. Most information was
obtained for June 30, 2014 and the fiscal year then ended. For analyses, where activity was provided for
FY 2014, the data presented does not include vehicles added or removed in the year to better present the
overall activity. The data utilized was considered sufficient, but for some vehicles, there was less
information in the County systems. When necessary, departments were contacted to provide additional
information or fuel vendor information was utilized. The significant laws, regulations and guidance
identified for these audit objectives included primarily the IRS’s fringe benefit guidance as well as County
policies.
There were no outstanding recommendations concerning the vehicle fleet or with the Road Department.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Audit procedures included:
Interviews and discussions with staff responsible for fleet accounting and repairs. Selected
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 24 of 25
departments were interviewed on analyses.
Research on fleet operations and associated practices from other audit reports, association websites,
and internet.
Inquiries of Oregon fleet managers and internal auditors on fleet accounting and utilization topics.
Development of data and analyses on County vehicles and associate d mileage, usage, mileage rates,
age, and type. County and fuel vendor information was utilized.
Review established accounting and systems for handling vehicle costs:
o Gain understanding of vehicle replacement fund (Fund 340) handling.
o Gain understanding of CAMS handling of costs charged to departments on their vehicle
repairs and maintenance, vehicle purchases, and fuel charges.
o Gain understanding of how departments pay for vehicle costs.
Obtain data from appropriate systems for analyses. Assess reliability and completeness of information
utilized from these systems.
Analyze vehicle data to provide input as to utilization and costs.
Consideration of alternatives for handling fleet accounting, including meeting with some department s
and County Finance.
Audit findings result from incidents of non-compliance with stated procedures and/or departures from
prudent operation. The findings are, by nature, subjective. The audit disclosed certain policies,
procedures and practices that could be improved. The audit was neither designed nor intended to be a
detailed study of every relevant system, procedure or transaction. Accordingly, the opportunities for
improvement presented in the report may not be all-inclusive of areas where improvement may be needed
and does not replace efforts needed to design an effective system of internal control.
A significant deficiency is defined as an internal control deficiency that could adversely affect the entity’s
ability to initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in
the financial statements. The findings noted were primarily compliance and efficiency matters and would
not generally be framed as or considered to be significant deficiencies.
W e conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. (2011 Revision of Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller Ge neral of the United States.)
Light Fleet Management report #14/15-10 June 2015
Page 25 of 25
{End of Report}
Please take a survey on this report by clicking on the attached link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Light_Fleet_Management_1415 -10