The state of Wyoming owns 2,506 passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Ninety percent of these vehicles are owned by four state fleets: MVMS, WYDOT, WGFD, and UW Fleet Operations. MVMS owns 741 vehicles within this scope, WYDOT owns 811, WGFD owns 313, and UW owns another 395 passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks.

Thirteen executive branch agencies own the remaining ten percent of the state’s passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. These vehicles do not fall under the management purview of any of the four fleets we reviewed.

In our evaluation of fleet practices and agency ownership, we found few assurances that the state’s costly motor vehicle investment is being managed economically and efficiently. Vehicles are tools that assist state employees in providing services and achieving agency missions. Throughout this evaluation, we suggest ways theses tools can be used more effectively and efficiently.

State-owned vehicles represent a significant capital investment, easily approaching $33 million, yet we found that more than 1,500 of the state’s 2,506 vehicles are operated without the benefit of fleet management and oversight. Fragmented authority for vehicles results in a lack of direct accountability, little assurance that preventive maintenance is occurring, questionable authority to monitor, recall or rotate underutilized vehicles, and the inability to objectively determine vehicle need and fleet composition.

The Legislature has not clearly specified that overall authority for management of state vehicles rests with a single agency. This leaves responsibility unclear. Since 1989, statutes (now W.S. 9-2-1016(h)) have directed A&I to "manage and control all state motor vehicles." However, under general statutory authority, WYDOT, WGFD, and the University have traditionally owned and operated their own vehicles.

Within their respective operations, MVMS and the University have difficulty exercising authority over permanently-assigned vehicles, which constitute 85 percent of their fleet vehicles. The WGFD has no fleet manager, and management responsibility is spread among more than 18 individuals. In contrast to these three fleets, WYDOT exercises central authority over its vehicles while allowing for district supervision and involvement.

Assuming the Legislature wishes to continue operating state motor vehicles under separate fleets, MVMS, WGFD, and UW could benefit from developing and exercising more structured authority. Alternatively, if the Legislature finds the current arrangement with four independent fleets to be ineffective, it could centralize vehicle management authority. Effective management of state vehicles does not hinge on centralization. However, if the current fleets remain intact, the Legislature needs more assurance that these vehicles are being carefully managed.

Finding 2:Inadequate Management Information and Analysis Reduce Fleets’ Cost-Effectiveness

We found wide variations in state fleet management practices for measuring, monitoring, and evaluating data about state vehicles. Some vehicle data is not being tracked, while managers track other data but do not analyze and include it in decision making. Still other data is collected, but staff lack the skills to access it. Policy makers cannot base important decisions on reliable data if the information is not being analyzed and presented to them.

Our research suggests that each of the four fleets could improve in some or all of the following areas: replacement practices, identification of cost-effective fleet composition, preventive maintenance, and vehicle utilization. For example, we found MVMS’ replacement methods net nearly $2,000 more per vehicle than UW’s practices. Regarding vehicle mix, 99 percent of WGFD’s 268 pickups are four-wheel drive. Not all WGFD vehicle uses require availability of the four-wheel drive option, which has 34 percent higher total costs than the two-wheel drive option. Fleet managers need to more rigorously analyze their own practices so they can provide assurances of cost-effectiveness in these areas.

A detailed analysis of replacement methods, replacement intervals, service intervals, fleet utilization, and fleet composition could result in improved efficiency for each of the four fleets. Sharing the results among fleets could also improve each fleet’s operations. The analysis would provide a baseline against which to compare the cost-effectiveness of extended warranties, more efficient methods of purchase and disposal, and utilization assessments.

Finding 3: Vehicle Utilization Can be Improved

Fleet managers have not scrutinized vehicle holdings to determine appropriate fleet size. Consequently, many permanent assignments may not be necessary and motor pool sizes are inappropriate. Furthermore, the state reimburses employees at a higher rate than the cost to drive underutilized MVMS vehicles. The result statewide is a poorly managed system in which the state is not maximizing its vehicle investment.

We found that more than half of the permanently-assigned vehicles in MVMS, WYDOT, and WGFD travel less than 12,000 miles per year, and many of these vehicles are located in Cheyenne. At the same time these permanent assignments are not being fully used, MVMS motor pool vehicles, especially sedans, often sit idle. Compounding the problem, the state has created a disincentive for agencies to use MVMS pool vehicles by paying employees four cents per mile more to drive their own vehicles.

Conversely, within the University’s motor pool, there are often not enough vehicles to meet demand. Departments have obtained permanent assignments due to pool unavailability, but University administrators cannot determine if such assignments are valid because they do not track the mileage on assigned vehicles.

Fleet managers should analyze the usage of both assignments and pool vehicles on an annual basis, to determine how to most cost-effectively meet user needs. Managers should adjust the number and mix of vehicles to appropriately reflect vehicle use. Also, allowing permanent assignments to proliferate is a costly and inefficient tactic. When feasible, fleet managers should meet vehicle needs through the use of existing pools. The Legislature may also wish to review the cost-effectiveness of the current reimbursement rate for private vehicles.

Employees we interviewed recalled times when vehicles were purchased somewhat automatically, with less concern for purpose and cost. Today, agency budgets are tighter, and the purposes and uses of state-owned vehicles need to be scrutinized carefully.

Vehicles represent a necessary cost of conducting the state’s business. The state should be managing these vehicles like the important and costly asset they are. Each fleet needs to re-examine its practices, including their core assumptions, to more cost-effectively manage this resource.

W.S. 28-8-107(b) authorizes the Legislative Service Office to conduct program evaluations and performance audits. Generally, the purpose of such research is to provide a base of knowledge from which policy makers can make informed decisions.

In May 1997, the Management Audit Committee selected the topic of state-owned vehicles. The Committee requested a broad-based analysis of state ownership and operations, covering four separate state fleets as well as vehicles owned by individual agencies.

Since each is responsible for an extensive fleet of vehicles, we engaged the Department of Administration and Information, the Game & Fish Department, the Department of Transportation, and the University of Wyoming. In addition, we gathered data pertaining to vehicles independently owned by another 13 executive branch agencies. Our research centered around the following questions:

• How many passenger vehicles does the state own and which agencies own them?
• How cost-effective are the state’s management practices?
• To what extent do agencies still operate outside the centralized state motor vehicle system?
• What methods do the various fleets use for monitoring of utilization, preventive maintenance, and disposal of state vehicles?
• To what extent do information systems provide reliable information and monitoring of state vehicles?
• What changes have occurred since the 1984 LSO evaluation of state motor vehicle management services?

We limited our evaluation to passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, less than or equal to one ton. We did not include heavy equipment or specialized machinery such as dump trucks, garbage trucks, fire trucks, tractors, or mobile homes in our analysis. As the inventories of state vehicles are constantly changing in size and composition, we used the active vehicles on state inventories at the time of our data request, in June 1997.

This evaluation does not provide an in-depth review of each of the four state fleets’ individual practices. It also does not examine the purposes for and appropriateness of specific vehicle assignments. Rather, this report provides a general assessment of the state’s current vehicle management practices, highlighted with selected detail and examples. Because this report focuses on numerous state entities, we offer broad recommendations to executive branch agencies and the Legislature.

This evaluation was conducted according to statutory requirements and professional standards and methods for governmental audits. The research was conducted during June and July 1997.

In order to compile basic information regarding state vehicles, we reviewed relevant statutes, rules, policies, annual reports, budget documents, inventories, professional literature, financial reports, as well as other internal reports and studies. We also contacted other states and professional organizations to gather information about alternative methods of fleet management and innovative, cost-effective measures.

We interviewed key administrators and various other state officials to gather information about state-owned vehicles. In addition, we compiled descriptive data regarding the four independent state fleets including age, mileage, cost, composition, and utilization where available. Due to the substantial differences in information recording methods among agencies, much of the information compiled was inconsistent among the four fleets, and therefore difficult to analyze.

The Legislative Service Office would like to express appreciation to those who assisted in this research, especially to the Department of Administration and Information, the Game and Fish Department, the Department of Transportation, and the University of Wyoming. We also thank the many state agency officials, vehicle users, and private sector individuals who contributed their expertise.

To fulfill job responsibilities, state employees use vehicles in a variety of ways. The uses vehicles serve are as diverse as the services provided within state government, ranging from a Department of Family Services social worker visiting a foster home, to employees at State Archives picking up records for storage in Cheyenne, to the state archeologist hauling equipment to a dig site.

State-owned vehicles, as defined for this report, range from traditional passenger vehicles such as basic sedans, to four-wheel drive utility vehicles and one-ton pickups equipped with CB radios. Some state vehicles serve specialized purposes, either through the nature of their equipment, location, or use. For example:

• Specialized Equipment. Some vehicles at the State Training School in Lander are equipped with hydraulic lifts to transport disabled clients.
• Remote Location. Como Bluff Hatchery is located on a dirt road nine miles outside of Rock River. Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel need to haul fish and plow roads into the hatchery in the winter.
• Frequent Use. At the University, grounds crews travel short distances each day to haul equipment throughout the campus in Laramie.

Certain employees may need access to a vehicle year-round, while others need a vehicle seasonally. Still other employees may only need a vehicle occasionally, to travel to a conference or visit a regional office. Because of this variety of circumstances, some vehicles are driven a few miles a day, every working day. Others may be used only once a month, but may travel 1,000 miles in that trip.

The challenge in vehicle management is to meet the needs of users throughout the state for the variety of uses that exist, while simultaneously providing vehicle services cost-effectively.

This evaluation centered around state-owned, passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, weighing one ton or under. The state owns 2,506 vehicles of this description. Of that total, 2,260 vehicles are owned by four different state agency fleets, while 13 executive branch agencies own another 246. The vehicles owned by individual agencies do not fall under the management purview of any of the fleets we reviewed.

The four fleets are: the General Services Division’s Motor Vehicle Management Service (MVMS) within the Department of Administration and Information (A&I); the Department of Transportation (WYDOT), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the University of Wyoming Fleet Operations Service.

Fleet vehicles are available to employees on both a temporary and a more permanent basis. MVMS and UW’s Fleet Operations operate organized motor pools to meet short-term vehicle needs of state and University employees. Vehicles in all four fleets can also be assigned to individuals or specific entities on an extended basis. The fleets use different terminology to refer to these long-term assignments; for example, they are called "permanent assignments," "department assignments," and sometimes, "assignments."

Each of the four fleets purchases its own vehicles through separate statewide bids and according to its own replacement schedule. Replacements are purchased intermittently throughout the year as vehicles reach recommended mileages. MVMS purchases new vehicles in groups of about 30, while other fleets purchase vehicles in groups when possible.

WGFD, WYDOT, and MVMS have standard specifications for options to be included on new purchases, while the University develops specifications annually. MVMS also operates under a 1996 Budget Bill footnote requiring that vehicles purchased be the least expensive model available that meets user needs. Fleet managers indicated that vehicles usually come with pre-established option packages, which often include options beyond those requested. Nevertheless, it is often less expensive to purchase the package than to special order particular options.

The vehicles purchased are used in every county of the state, with almost 25 percent of the vehicles we reviewed located in Laramie County. Another 21 percent are located in Albany County, primarily representing University vehicles. Appendix B lists the statewide location of vehicles by fleet. Figure 1 describes the ownership of state vehicles.

We reviewed the composition of the four major fleets and determined that of these 2,260 vehicles, the MVMS fleet owns 54 percent of the sedans, while WYDOT owns another 38 percent. WYDOT owns 60 percent of the two-wheel drive pickups in the state, while the MVMS fleet and the UW fleet each own 20 percent. WGFD owns 68 percent of the state’s four-wheel drive pickups; 99 percent of WGFD’s pickups are four-wheel drive. Figure 2 shows the types, or "classes," of state vehicles.

Because individual vehicles within the fleets reach replacement mileage at different times, the fleets include vehicles that range in age. The median age of WYDOT, WGFD, and MVMS permanently-assigned vehicles is three years. The median age of both the MVMS pool and the UW pool is two years, while the University’s permanently-assigned vehicles have a substantially higher median age of 11 years. Inventory records show that the oldest vehicle at WGFD is 10 years old, WYDOT and MVMS each own 16 year-old vehicles, while the University owns a 40 year-old vehicle.

In addition to age, we reviewed the most current odometer readings of vehicles in the four fleets. Although WYDOT, WGFD, and MVMS permanent assignments are roughly the same age, the median mileage for WYDOT vehicles is over 60,000 miles, or almost 16,000 miles more than for MVMS and WGFD. UW Fleet Operations tracks mileage manually for individual vehicles, and does not have aggregate mileage figures for the vehicles assigned to departments.

Figure 3 shows the median ages of vehicles in the four fleets. The ages within MVMS and UW are separated by permanent assignments and motor pool vehicles.

The four fleets reviewed during this research have different sources of authority, organizational structures, and operating procedures. The following sections provide a description of the administrative and financing structures of each.

Through its base in Cheyenne, MVMS provides vehicles for most executive branch agencies, with the exception of WYDOT and WGFD employees and University employees and students. The MVMS motor pool has approximately 100 vehicles in Cheyenne available for short-term use. MVMS is also charged with some responsibility for another 638 vehicles assigned to individual agencies. MVMS permanent assignments are described in detail in Finding 1.

As a self-funded agency, MVMS does not receive a General Fund appropriation for its operations. Revenues are derived from user fees, vehicle purchase appropriations, and direct shop charges. MVMS reported revenues totaling $2,441,000 in FY96, while operating expenses for the period were reported as $2,338,000. MVMS has nine full-time employees and one part-time position. It operates one maintenance shop in Cheyenne which performs routine repairs and service for some state-owned vehicles.

MVMS charges agencies a per-mile rate for both motor pool vehicles and permanent assignments. The per-mile charge is 24 cents for sedans and pickups, 25 cents for minivans, 28 cents for utility vehicles, and 30 cents for Suburbans and large vans. These rates include the costs of depreciation, maintenance, gasoline, and MVMS overhead.

Agencies with permanent assignments must pay for the cost of their initial vehicles, as well as the per-mile fees. If an agency obtains funding through the legislative budget process, or if funds are available in an existing budget and the Governor approves, the funds are transferred to MVMS. MVMS then purchases and owns the vehicles, but permanently assigns them to the approved agency.

UW Fleet Operations, within the University’s Division of Service and Auxiliary Enterprises, provides transportation, fuel, service and maintenance, and central records for University vehicles. The service is self-funded and derives revenues from vehicle user fees and shop charges.

The motor pool within UW Fleet Operations maintains 68 motor pool vehicles which can be rented out on a daily, weekly, monthly or longer basis to faculty, staff, and students for official University business. Users are charged a per-mile fee which covers depreciation, maintenance, gasoline, and overhead. The fee is 28 cents per mile for sedans, and 42 cents per mile for pickups, Suburbans, and vans. Vehicles rented on a monthly basis are charged a minimum rate of 2,000 miles per month. Any miles driven over the minimum rate are billed a per-mile fee.

Another 327 vehicles are assigned to various University departments. Departments can request the assignment of a vehicle if the motor pool cannot meet their needs, and must designate the source of funding. The user of an assigned vehicle does not pay a monthly or per-mile fee to UW Fleet Operations, unless UW Fleet Operations funded the original purchase of the vehicle.

Fleet Operations maintains a shop to service and maintain University vehicles. Services performed on assignments are charged an hourly fee. UW Fleet operations also provides shuttle bus services and transportation for disabled individuals. We did not review these transportation services.

UW Fleet Operations employs 7.5 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees in its motor pool and maintenance shop. According to the UW Fleet Operations manager, FY96 revenues for the motor pool operation totaled $414,000, while expenses for the year totaled $451,000. UW Fleet Operations reported FY96 revenues for the maintenance shop totaling $277,000 and expenses totaling $306,000 for the year. The shop provides maintenance services for other transportation programs in addition to the pool and assigned vehicles.

WYDOT’s Operations Division has fleet management responsibilities for the 811 passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks we reviewed. WYDOT also maintains more than 2,000 specialized vehicles that were not included as part of our evaluation. The State Equipment Engineer is responsible for maintaining WYDOT’s fleet.

WYDOT assigns vehicles at the district level and to positions within the districts. District equipment supervisors are responsible for the management of all repair shops, vehicles, and machinery within a district. Nine pool vehicles are available to Headquarters employees, and several divisions within Headquarters also have assigned vehicles.

Vehicles are serviced and maintained in 23 WYDOT maintenance shops located throughout the state, with 109 employees maintaining and managing the entire fleet of nearly 3,000 vehicles. Agency officials estimate that shop personnel spend 90 percent of their time maintaining the agency’s heavy equipment, such as dump trucks and snow plows.

Unlike MVMS and UW Fleet Operations, WYDOT’s fleet is not funded through a revolving account. For internal accounting purposes, districts are assessed an annual per-mile charge to track vehicle costs. The charges per mile are 23 cents for sedans, 22 cents for half-ton pickups, and 19 cents for three-quarter ton pickups. The rate for Suburbans is 28 cents per mile, and for minivans and large vans 21 cents. These rates are audited annually and approved by the Federal Highway Administration.

WYDOT accrued $3.5 million in vehicle costs during FY96 for the vehicles included in our study. This amount includes depreciation, maintenance, operating, and overhead, but does not include Headquarters administrative personnel costs associated with maintaining and managing the fleet.

To improve vehicle management, WYDOT has established three tiers of vehicle committees, which assist in policy development. An executive vehicle committee has final authority on vehicle issues, with district committees and a state advisory committee generating input.

Unlike the other three fleets, WGFD has neither a division dedicated to fleet management, nor an individual designated as a fleet manager. Management of the 313 vehicles we reviewed is a responsibility divided among 4 individual divisions and 14 regional supervisors.

In 1995, WGFD appointed a vehicle management team to study the agency’s vehicle needs, provide guidance on the agency’s vehicle management practices, and reduce costs. This undertaking resulted in downsizing the number of agency vehicles by 13 percent, and produced a vehicle management plan, which made changes in some areas.

For example, the agency now has standard specifications for vehicle purchases and has created a statewide bid process for vehicle procurement. Previously, employees with assigned vehicles were responsible for obtaining bids from three dealers before purchasing new replacements locally. WGFD also revised the traditional commuting policy. Commuting for most employees to and from work in agency-owned vehicles is no longer allowed, with the exception of game wardens and employees on 24-hour call.

WGFD accrued costs of just over $1.2 million for FY96 on the vehicles we reviewed. This amount includes vehicle depreciation and operating costs for the year, but does not include administrative costs.

As with WYDOT, WGFD does not have a revolving vehicle account. The agency reported the following per-mile costs of various classes of vehicles: 21 cents for sedans and half-ton, two-wheel drive pickups; 23 cents for three-quarter ton, two-wheel drive pickups and large vans; 32 cents for four-wheel drive, half-ton pickups; and 31 cents for three-quarter ton pickups. Minivans cost 37 cents and utility vehicles cost 33 cents.

Ongoing controversy about the ownership and management of state vehicles has prompted several major studies during the past 30 years. In 1969, the Legislature created a Motor Pool Council to study the state’s methods and costs of operating vehicles. In its 1970 report, the Council recommended that a state motor pool be established, that it include all state-owned vehicles, and that it establish and enforce rules regarding all transportation services.

The Legislature established MVMS in 1972, but gave it substantially weaker statutory authority than had been recommended. MVMS was to establish uniform standards, but was to do so "consistent with the needs and location of the agencies ..." Since its inception in 1972, MVMS has not had authority over University, WGFD, and WYDOT vehicle practices.

A 1984 LSO program evaluation of the MVMS fleet noted that MVMS had been created to consolidate management of state-owned vehicles within its area of responsibility: i.e., all state vehicles except those owned by the University, WGFD, and WYDOT. The goal of consolidation was to ensure economical and efficient operations.

The LSO report found that after 12 years, consolidation still had not been accomplished. MVMS’ efforts to manage motor vehicles were described as fragmented and ineffective, and nearly 700 vehicles were outside MVMS scrutiny or control. Finally, the report stated that MVMS’ ability to manage state vehicles was hampered by lack of a comprehensive information system, noting that little had been done to compile and evaluate data on vehicle utilization, operating costs, maintenance histories, and vehicle disposals.

In 1984, MVMS could not assure Wyoming taxpayers that the state’s costly motor vehicle investment was being economically and efficiently managed. In 1997, we find the state faces most of the same issues, both collectively as a state system, and individually within its four fleets.

Vehicles are tools that assist state employees in providing services and achieving agency missions. In the following sections, we suggest ways in which these tools can be used more effectively and efficiently.

Authority for the state’s vehicles is spread out among MVMS (A&I), WGFD, WYDOT, the University Fleet Operations, and 27 other state departments, commissions, and boards which own or control vehicles. Each agency tends to run its own vehicle operations, independent and essentially isolated from the others. With authority so diffused, more than 1,500 of the state’s 2,506 vehicles are operated without the benefit of fleet management and oversight. The problem is further intensified by the practice of permanently assigning vehicles to agencies.

In this report, fleet management refers to the management of both motor pool vehicles and individual vehicles. The purpose of professional fleet management is to afford safe, reliable transportation, at the lowest cost, for employees conducting official business. Fleet managers are accountable for producing these results. Absent this management, it is not clear whether 61 percent of the state’s vehicles are actively administered as a valuable state asset.

Responsibility for 1,524 state vehicles rests with individual agencies, few of which have professional fleet managers. WYDOT appears to be an exception to this analysis, as its administrative structure provides authority to monitor vehicle utilization and to control assignments.

MVMS and the University have fleet managers who manage their pool vehicles. However, under the current system, MVMS and UW’s 965 permanently-assigned vehicles are fundamentally beyond the control of their fleet managers. WGFD does not have a fleet manager for its 313 vehicles, nor do the 13 executive branch agencies which own and manage another 246 vehicles.

State-owned vehicles represent a significant capital investment, easily approaching $33 million, and they also incur substantial annual operating expenses. These costs make them worthy of prudent public management. Fragmented authority for vehicles results in a lack of direct accountability, little assurance that preventive maintenance is occurring, questionable authority to monitor, recall or rotate underutilized vehicles, and the inability to objectively determine vehicle need and fleet composition.

The Legislature has not clearly specified that authority for management of state vehicles rests with a single agency. Since 1989, statutes (now W.S. 9-2-1016(h)) have directed A&I to "manage and control all state motor vehicles." Despite the apparent clarity of this language, actual practice is inconsistent with it. Under general statutory authority, WYDOT, WGFD, and the University have traditionally owned and operated their own vehicles.

Within two of the four fleets, a similar problem with unclear authority exists. A&I (through MVMS) and the University (through Fleet Operations) appear to have authority to manage and control all fleet vehicles. However, traditionally, each has allowed permanent assignments to expand, without exercising management control over these assignments. Neither agency scrutinizes utilization of permanent assignments or routinely calls back those that get little use.

Notwithstanding two previous studies and the 1989 statutory change, all of which point to consolidation, the management of vehicles statewide is not linked. Throughout our evaluation, fleet managers and agency officials routinely inquired about the practices of the other major fleet operations, further indicating the lack of communication between similar state functions.

Budget practices combined with custom contribute to MVMS’ lack of authority over most of its inventory of 741 vehicles. Currently, there are 638 vehicles permanently assigned to agencies, and 103 vehicles in the motor pool. By comparison, in 1984, there were 311 permanent assignments and 151 vehicles in the pool. This means that in 13 years, permanent assignments have increased by 327, or more than doubled, while the size of the motor pool has decreased 32 percent.

We estimate that 124 of the 327 added permanent assignments are a transfer of agency-owned vehicles to MVMS. The process of transferring ownership to MVMS is occurring over several bienniums as agency-owned vehicles come up for replacement and require an appropriation. However, the remaining 203 represent additional permanent assignments. It appears that the system is responding to agency demands for vehicles largely by permanently assigning them, rather than by insisting on use of the motor pool.

Figure 4, on the following page, lists the current state agencies with permanent assignments and those with direct agency ownership of vehicles. It is important to reiterate that some of these vehicles listed below may serve unique purposes by virtue of their specialized equipment, location, or uses.

Approval of Permanent Assignments. In most cases, agencies appear to be requesting and obtaining permanent assignments, not directly purchasing vehicles. Nevertheless, we found that individual agencies did purchase 20 of the 246 agency-owned vehicles during the past five years, rather than seeking a permanent assignment through MVMS.

MVMS monitors permanent assignments by reviewing monthly mileage reports and maintenance records. However, from purchase through disposal, MVMS exercises little control over these vehicles, leaving this valuable asset to be managed by individual agencies. MVMS does not control the original purchase of most permanently-assigned vehicles. In most cases, agencies identify a need for a permanently-assigned vehicle and include the purchase price in their budget requests. In this way, the Legislature can either approve or reject funding requests for new, permanently-assigned vehicles.

This arrangement effectively removes MVMS from the approval process, and the administrator said he automatically buys what the Legislature approves. A&I officials said they assume that the Legislature scrutinizes requests for vehicles and "by the time it comes to us, it is a done deal." We found no indications that the Legislature uses established criteria to approve new permanent assignments.

Once a permanent assignment is approved and the vehicle is purchased, MVMS does not reassess the ongoing need for that assignment. Moreover, the Legislature no longer requires agencies to report the number of existing permanent assignments in their budget requests. In this sense, it can be said that a permanent assignment is truly "permanent."

Some permanent assignments are heavily used, while others are driven very little. Such uneven use raises questions as to the appropriateness of ongoing permanent assignments. MVMS has not recalled a permanent assignment in the last two years, and officials noted that "agencies get really offended if you try to take their car."

Policy and Practice Inconsistent. MVMS defines its mission as a service entity, providing safe, comfortable motor vehicles to state employees in a professional, cost-effective manner. State officials and users we interviewed commended MVMS for their outstanding service.

While we acknowledge that users may be satisfied with MVMS services, we also found that MVMS is not exercising its authority to monitor and recall underutilized permanent assignments. One A&I official said, "We do not have the license to tell other agencies what to do" in reference to permanent assignments. In addition, we were told, "When agencies are footing the bill, they have the control." In this regard, MVMS’ statutory charge to manage and control state vehicles appears to be at odds with A&I’s mission to be a service entity.

Authority within WGFD for issues of fleet composition, utilization, and justified vehicle need is fragmented. Fourteen regional supervisors, four division chiefs, and selected officials within the Director’s office are collectively responsible for WGFD’s 313 passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. In addition, the Fiscal Division acts as the repository for fleet management data and handles the purchasing and disposal of vehicles. When purchasing new vehicles, individual employees must abide by agency specifications, but they have the discretion to select vehicle manufacturer.

The lack of central coordination, control, and accountability were highlighted by one WGFD official who said, "I wouldn’t even try to propose that another division get rid of a vehicle. I don’t tell the other managers what they need, and I expect the same courtesy from them."

Fleet Operations at the University exercises control over 68 motor pool vehicles. However, Fleet Operations, various academic departments and University service entities loosely share the authority for another 327 department-assigned vehicles. One University official described the authority for these vehicles as "decentralized," and added, "We can get into arm-wrestling matches with colleges, and we really do not have the authority to say a vehicle is not needed."

University departments often have been able to purchase assigned vehicles using funds from academic grants or external revenue streams. This process appears to generate some sense of ownership on the part of departments, which are then resistant to the idea of relinquishing vehicles to Fleet Operations. Furthermore, Fleet Operations does not have a system to actively track the mileage for department-assigned vehicles through a database. As a result, the fleet manager cannot monitor utilization of department-assigned vehicles.

WYDOT. WYDOT has a central system for managing vehicles that includes active district supervision and involvement. The State Equipment Engineer, under the direction of the Operations Engineer, is responsible for consolidated fleet management operations and for the collection and analysis of fleet information. Using an equipment management system, the State Equipment Engineer tracks vehicle utilization and monitors preventive maintenance on all vehicles. Moreover, vehicles are rotated based on a manpower and summer workload review performed by the construction staff. The Equipment Engineer, Operations Engineer, and district managers jointly determine issues of fleet expansion and types of vehicles required.

Other States. We reviewed six states in this region: Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Of these states, Colorado, North Dakota, and South Dakota operate completely centralized state fleet management systems. Fleet managers in these states indicated they achieved higher levels of efficiency, and consequently cost savings, through centralization. Furthermore, while some entities were initially reluctant to be consolidated, agencies ultimately have found that centralization has freed them from fleet management responsibilities. Finally, although management has been centralized, these states’ fleet managers have established specialized standards to meet individual agencies’ needs.

Nebraska has a decentralized system similar to Wyoming’s. However, its general services agency has exclusive authority to purchase, recall, and rotate vehicles, and can substitute more appropriate vehicles for a particular use. Under the Nebraska system, additional vehicles are authorized entirely through the general services agency’s revolving fund; no authorizations are required by the Legislature. General services officials said this process forces them to closely consider competing needs and underutilized vehicles.

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report cites centralized fleet management responsibilities within an organization as one of the five management practices essential to cost-effective fleet management. According to fleet experts cited in this report, a centralized system provides a broader perspective on the organization’s fleet, avoids duplication of effort, and achieves economies of scale.

Assuming the Legislature wishes to continue operating state motor vehicles under separate fleets, three of the fleets could benefit from creating more structured lines of authority. MVMS needs A&I direction and support if it is to exert its statutory authority to control permanent assignments at other agencies. Internally, WGFD should define and support a central authority for its fleet. Furthermore, the University should strengthen Fleet Operations’ existing authority over department assignments. Officials would then need to exercise this control over utilization by enforcing policies.

In addition, the Legislature may need to clarify MVMS’ authority to manage permanent assignments. Under traditional practices and policies, MVMS has had a "hands off" approach to permanent assignments at those agencies it serves. Without additional legislative direction, it will be difficult for MVMS to exercise its authority in this area. One approach would be to require agencies to get MVMS’ approval for additional permanent assignments prior to the legislative budget process. Another might involve the Legislature insisting on permanent assignments and funding no more requests for agency ownership, except under special circumstances.

Alternatively, if the Legislature finds the current arrangement with four independent fleets to be ineffective, it could centralize vehicle management authority. With clear direction, one entity could be charged with purchasing and disposing of vehicles, collecting and analyzing vehicle data, managing vehicle finances, and establishing, monitoring, and enforcing statewide policies. Day-to-day management and operating decisions could remain with individual agencies. Under a centralized system, strong consideration and recognition of unique missions would be necessary to accommodate the different needs of varied state functions.

We found wide variations in state fleet management practices for measuring, monitoring, and evaluating data about state vehicles. Essential information for the management of the state’s vehicles resides in at least seven different computer tracking systems from the four fleets. Some vehicle data is not being tracked, while managers track other data but do not analyze and include it in decision making. Still other data is collected, but staff lack the skills to access it.

These problems are an obstacle to the systematic monitoring and analysis that are needed to support cost-effective management decisions. Our research suggests that each of the four fleets could improve in some or all of the following areas: replacement practices, identification of cost-effective fleet composition, preventive maintenance, and vehicle utilization. Fleet managers need to more rigorously analyze their own practices so they can provide assurances of cost-effectiveness in these areas.

Among the four state fleets, there are substantial differences in the level of self-analysis that each fleet conducts. Some fleet managers base their preventive maintenance schedules, replacement schedules, and replacement methods on past experience, manufacturers’ recommendations, or calculation. In other cases, we found little evidence that fleet managers have questioned their own traditional management practices. For example, one official described the method for determining replacement schedules as "a best guess."

To conduct our evaluation, we needed to draw considerable amounts of data from several of the fleets’ management information systems. We found some systems tracked data, but not all managers could access and apply the information to policy questions. Such managers have a substantially reduced ability to monitor the performance of their entire fleet and of specific vehicles.

Data collected but not actively examined for trends and potential improvements, or analyzed to assist policy makers in decision making, results in inefficient operations. The costs associated with data collection are not offset unless the information derived from the data is analyzed and applied.

Current methods for replacing vehicles and establishing replacement schedules may be resulting in higher than necessary state expenditures. The four fleets already collect important data regarding these practices. Nevertheless, policy makers cannot base important decisions on reliable data if the information is not being analyzed and presented to them.

Replacement Methods. We found that some fleets are not replacing vehicles in the most cost-effective manner. At the outset, it is important to note that a number of factors hinder direct comparisons among the four fleets. These factors include widely different vehicles within each fleet (composition, four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive vehicles, color, etc.), replacement schedules, and differences in accounting data.

However, when other characteristics are similar, our analysis indicates that MVMS’ replacement practices are more cost-effective than UW’s methods. Currently, MVMS is the only fleet that disposes of vehicles through auction; the others follow a trade-in policy. Therefore, we compared sedans auctioned and purchased through MVMS with those traded-in for replacement at UW. There are minor differences in vehicle specifications, and UW may be disposing of older vehicles with lower mileage than MVMS. Nevertheless, the two groups are similar enough to draw reliable conclusions.

Our analysis of MVMS and University replacement methods found that MVMS nets an average of nearly $2,000 more per vehicle than the University’s practices. MVMS sold 154 sedans over the past three years with an average sale price of $3,298, net of auctioneer fees. MVMS purchased 199 sedans at an average purchase price of $13,569. These transactions resulted in an average net cost of $10,271 per sedan. During the same period, the University purchased 25 sedans costing a net average of $12,238 after trade-in.

This analysis indicates that alternate methods of fleet management can bring about significantly different results. While it appears that auctioning would outperform trading-in as a disposal method, other factors also have a bearing on the "bottom line." A number of different fleet practices can impact the value of a vehicle to be disposed, and these practices have not been examined and compared system-wide. Specifically, it may or may not be advantageous to continue trading in high-mileage, yellow WYDOT trucks. Absent a thorough quantitative analysis and tests by fleet managers, they cannot provide assurances that their vehicle management methods are the most economical for the state.

Replacement Schedules. For the most part, fleet managers told us they had developed vehicle replacement schedules based on past experience and budget constraints. The four fleets’ replacement schedules are presented in Figure 5.

The state has the capacity to make vehicle replacement decisions based on data from hundreds of vehicles. A large investment is staked on making the best decision possible, and more detailed analysis could result in improved efficiency for all fleets. A report issued by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee determined a mathematical optimum vehicle replacement point for each class of vehicle, based on an empirical analysis of average expenses. Each additional mile driven beyond the optimum replacement point is at greater expense to the state due to rising operating expenses, on average. Such analysis could serve as a model for Wyoming’s fleet managers in determining replacement schedules.

The mix of vehicles within each fleet may not be the most appropriate. For example, within the WGFD, only 3 of the 268 pickups are two-wheel drive. The current composition of the WGFD fleet appears to be based on the agency’s strong traditional preference for four-wheel drive vehicles.

We believe there may be opportunities for some four-wheel drive vehicles to be replaced with more cost-effective vehicles. There are numerous justifiable needs for four-wheel drive vehicles at WGFD. Nevertheless, given the percent of time spent on unimproved roads, it is not clear that all employees need to perform their duties in four-wheel drive vehicles. Specifically, travel for personnel with administrative and education responsibilities likely includes only incidental off-road travel.

According to the WGFD, FY96 costs per mile for two-wheel drive, one-half ton and three-quarter ton pickups were 21 and 23 cents per mile, respectively. The four-wheel drive counterparts had total costs per mile of 32 and 31 cents. Thus, four-wheel drive trucks cost between 8 and 11 cents per mile more to own and operate than two-wheel drive units. Despite 34 percent higher costs, all of the pickups WGFD purchased in FY 96 and FY 97 are four-wheel drive.

WGFD’s 1995 internal evaluation considered vehicle options and requirements, but we believe further consideration of data and practices could improve cost-effectiveness. Currently, all agency specifications for one-half ton, three-quarter ton, and even compact pickups, as well as utility vehicles, are exclusively four-wheel drive. Yet according to total cost per mile figures provided by WGFD, the operation of a four-wheel drive pickup results in up to $7,700 in additional expenses over the scheduled life of the vehicle. We believe this was a costly decision which merits regular re-evaluation.

Some state fleets do not actively track critical characteristics such as mileage, maintenance, and costs. For example, UW Fleet Operations manually notes mileage on individual department assignments when they are serviced. The preventive maintenance schedule at the University recommends service every three months or 3,000 miles. Since it does not track actual mileage on department assignments between servicing, Fleet Operations can only notify operators of preventive maintenance based on a time schedule, not mileage. This means those vehicles which receive high use may not be receiving the recommended levels of maintenance.

Within WGFD, preventive maintenance is left up to the individual employee, with oversight from the regional supervisor. The agency has no system to notify employees of maintenance schedules. While agency officials indicated personal responsibility coupled with the individual employee’s dependence on a well-functioning vehicle provides adequate assurances of regular maintenance, we found no evidence that this informal system uniformly protects the agency’s investment in vehicles.

WYDOT integrates the following three elements within their management information system and authority structure. This combination of notification and follow-up provides an effective preventive maintenance program:

• A schedule of inspection and service activities to be performed at specified intervals.
• A process for notifying vehicle users when preventative maintenance is due.
• Procedures for ensuring that users bring vehicles to maintenance facilities for servicing at required intervals.

In South Dakota, the fleet information system mails out notices to drivers based on computer projections of mileage accumulation. At the same time, the system generates a work order. If the work order is not completed within the time frame specified, the computer generates a notice for the fleet manager, who calls the vehicle operator. If the operator still does not have the vehicle maintained, fleet services can give a verbal reprimand or put a letter in the operator’s file.

Complete information and thorough analysis of the state’s vehicles are important in order to make cost-effective policy and management decisions regarding the fleet. Systematic monitoring of state vehicles is essential to determine the productivity of the state investment in the fleet, how funds are spent on operating and maintaining these vehicles, the efficiency of current methods of replacement, and varied levels of utilization.

As suggested by the Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors, data that supports accountable management must be collected reliably and regularly over a long period of time. With such data, fleet management decisions are not based on opinion, but on a careful analysis of already-known costs.

According to GAO, national fleet industry officials identified management information systems that compare or benchmark fleet information as being essential to cost-efficient fleet management. They added that management information systems enable managers to make sound decisions and assess performance. Experts agree that fleet managers must be aware of how their fleets compare to others and how units within their fleets compared to each other.

A detailed analysis of replacement methods, replacement intervals, service intervals, fleet utilization, and fleet composition could result in improved efficiency for each of the four fleets. Sharing the results among fleets could also improve each fleet’s operations. The analysis would provide a baseline against which to compare the cost-effectiveness of extended warranties, more efficient methods of purchase and disposal, and utilization assessments.

The 1984 LSO evaluation of MVMS recommended a comprehensive information system for state vehicle management. Now that MVMS and the other fleets have fairly sophisticated computer management information systems in place, training should also be provided to ensure staff understand the systems’ capabilities for fleet monitoring and analysis.

Fleet managers do not systematically scrutinize vehicle holdings to determine appropriate fleet size. Statewide, the result is a poorly managed system in which many vehicle assignments may be unnecessary, and motor pool sizes are not appropriate. At the same time, state employees are increasingly using their personal vehicles to conduct state business, at a higher cost to the state than if they used MVMS vehicles.

Fleet managers are not able to maximize vehicle use for two primary reasons. First, there is a lack of clearly defined authority for vehicle management (Finding One). Second, fleet managers are not using the vehicle utilization information available to them (Finding Two). The analysis in this finding illustrates one of the consequences of fragmented authority and inadequate information gathering and analysis, as they affect permanent assignments and motor pools.

We reviewed each fleet’s mileage criteria for vehicle utilization and determined that at least 50 percent of the vehicles within MVMS, WYDOT, and WGFD did not meet their own fleet’s suggested minimum mileage standards. We were unable to determine the utilization rate for the University because UW’s Fleet Operations formally tracks mileage for permanently-assigned vehicles only once every five years.

Permanent assignments can be valid for a variety of reasons other than the number of miles traveled. Frequency of use, remoteness of location, and specialized equipment needs may be justifiable reasons to assign a vehicle permanently. However, state fleet managers have not formally defined such exceptions. Defined criteria on vehicle utilization should be the basis for deciding whether to authorize the initial assignment, and for periodically reviewing those assignments to ensure they continue to be justified.

We did not find professional standards regarding the appropriate number of miles a fleet vehicle should be driven. However, professional fleet managers recognize that mileage is only one of several valid methods to measure utilization. Tracking mileage serves as a valid "first cut" to identify which vehicles should be further analyzed to determine if they justify assignment based on some form of exception criteria. Such analysis helps identify low-mileage vehicles that are appropriately assigned and should be left in place.

Even though they may be fully justified, low-mileage vehicles need to be actively managed. We reviewed practices in other states and professional associations and found it is common for fleet managers to rotate low-mileage vehicles. Because low-mileage vehicles would have to be retained for a longer period of time to reach their replacement mileage, the resale value of the vehicles erodes. Furthermore, it is difficult to recoup the depreciation of a low-mileage vehicle if costs are paid down through a mileage rate. Fleet managers need to have authority to rotate underutilized vehicles or to initially assign a vehicle with medium mileage if projected mileage is low.

We reviewed MVMS permanent assignments for FY97 and found that 57 percent of the assignments analyzed did not meet MVMS’ suggested mileage criteria. More than 25 percent of the vehicles analyzed were driven less than half of the suggested target rate. The analysis was based on MVMS’ suggestion that agencies drive permanent assignments at least 1,000 miles a month. MVMS does not recoup its costs on a vehicle until it reaches 85,000 miles, and vehicles that do not accumulate adequate mileage are not cost-effective for MVMS.

We found that 40 percent of the permanent assignments with less than the suggested minimum mileage were located in Cheyenne. At least 43 Cheyenne-based sedans analyzed were driven less than 12,000 miles in FY97. Of those, at least 20 sedans could potentially be recalled because they received less than 6,000 miles of use in FY97. We question the need for an assigned sedan that receives such minimal mileage when the MVMS motor pool is available to Cheyenne users.

According to a member of the WGFD vehicle management team, the agency tracks utilization based on a target of 12,000 miles per year for agency vehicles. We analyzed the FY96 inventory of vehicles using this benchmark, and found that 51 percent of the fleet did not meet the target. Fully 17 percent of WGFD vehicles were driven less than 6,000 miles per year.

Also, at least 21 vehicles with less than 12,000 miles per year are located in Cheyenne. WGFD officials indicated they routinely share vehicles at Headquarters. However, we found many of the low-mileage vehicles are assigned to the same divisions in Cheyenne, suggesting that a number of these vehicles could be recalled without jeopardizing vehicle availability.

We found that 61 percent of the vehicles in the WYDOT fleet are not meeting target rates the agency has set for their respective vehicle classes. For example, the sedan class should average 18,000 miles per year, while foremen’s pickups, as a class, are expected to travel an average of 21,000 miles per year. WYDOT has set these targets substantially higher than those developed by MVMS and WGFD.

WYDOT’s fleet manager furnishes reports to district offices identifying individual vehicles with low mileage. Use of this information is left to the discretion of the districts, but with 61 percent of fleet vehicles not meeting their targets, it appears that WYDOT district offices could make better use of these reports to improve vehicle utilization. Nevertheless, the reports have great potential, and we believe similar monitoring would benefit the other fleets we examined.

Because WYDOT’s standards are higher than those set for MVMS and WGFD, we analyzed WYDOT’s fleet based on a 12,000 mile per year target. We found that 40 percent of WYDOT’s fleet vehicles were driven less than 12,000 miles per year during FY96. We also determined that at least 22 vehicles in Cheyenne were driven less than 6,000 miles per year, 10 of those at WYDOT Headquarters. These particular vehicles may not warrant assignment.

We were unable to analyze the utilization rate of the University’s 327 assigned vehicles because UW Fleet Operations does not have an automated system to track mileage for these vehicles. UW’s fleet manager indicated that Fleet Operations controls the initial assignment of a vehicle, and that requests are rejected if the justification for the vehicle is not compelling.

However, once an assignment is made, Fleet Operations does not track data to review the ongoing validity of assignments. Without such data, it is not possible to determine if departmental vehicles are optimally used. The University is missing an opportunity to periodically review assignments so they could recall or even rotate underutilized vehicles. We did receive some anecdotal indications that not all department assignments are justified. University officials noted that within one college, some departments rent their permanent assignment to other departments, suggesting that such vehicles may not be needed.

As noted, only MVMS and UW maintain formal motor vehicle pools. These pools provide beneficial services to users with short-term vehicle needs, and the day-to-day management of both pools appears to be sound. Pools are a viable way to meet vehicle needs in locations where there are enough users to sustain such an operation. Although there may be opportunities for more vehicle sharing throughout the state, the ability to maintain formal pools is greatly reduced outside of Cheyenne and Laramie.

While we did not find definitive standards regarding the optimum size of motor vehicle pools, preliminary indications suggest the size of both pools could be adjusted to be more cost-effective. UW’s sedans could be expanded to accommodate requests that currently are turned away, and to spread out operational costs over more vehicles. On the other hand, the MVMS pool could be reduced without interrupting the level of service now provided to agencies.

More structured tracking and analysis of pool utilization is necessary to better manage the size of these pools. Both pool managers indicated that they constantly monitor the number and composition of vehicles in the pools. However, we did not find evidence that this process occurs on a systematic basis.

For the past five fiscal years, the size of UW’s motor pool has remained steady, at roughly 68 vehicles. We reviewed motor pool data from October 1996, February 1997, and June 1997, for a sample which provided examples of seasonal use. During the three months sampled, motor pool vehicles were used 61 percent of the month. When analyzed for working-day utilization, figures showed the motor pool vehicles were in use 83 percent of the working days.

While this analysis indicates vehicle availability, we found that sedans often were not available to users during these months. Sedans were checked out from 77 to 81 percent of the month during each of the three months reviewed. When analyzed for working-day utilization, figures show the sedans were checked out more than 100 percent of the working days, since vehicles may be taken out over a weekend. Furthermore, use of Suburbans and vans showed substantial seasonal variation, with Suburbans being checked out more than 100 percent of working days in June.

Figure 6 shows the percentage of time in working days selected classes of vehicles within the UW motor pool were checked out during the months we reviewed.

UW’s fleet manager stated that Fleet Operations recently added sedans to the fleet to meet demand. Nevertheless, users continue to comment on the lack of vehicle availability. A University official stated that "more often than not," the pool has not had a vehicle available to him on short notice. Another department said it made the decision to request permanent assignments due to the unavailability of pool vehicles.

Despite UW Fleet Operations’ relatively high mileage charges, when compared to MVMS rates and WYDOT and WGFD cost-per-mile allocations, demand for UW pool vehicles is high. UW’s costs are higher, in part, because the University motor pool does not have as many vehicles generating revenue. The overhead expense to operate UW Fleet Operations’ motor pool is borne by only 68 vehicles.

MVMS pool vehicles were only used an average of 40 percent of the working days in January of 1997, and 59 percent of the working days in June of 1997. These figures are based on our analysis of motor pool data from those two months, providing a snapshot of both winter and summer motor pool use. Figure 7 shows utilization by class for the two months reviewed.

The MVMS pool has remained at roughly 100 vehicles for the past several years and consists primarily of sedans. The fleet administrator indicated that MVMS has not conducted a structured analysis of pool utilization to determine the appropriate size of the pool. The administrator said MVMS received direction from A&I to maintain this number of pool vehicles.

Our preliminary analysis indicates that the MVMS motor pool could be reduced, especially in the sedan class, without significantly affecting availability of the user. The 1984 LSO evaluation recommended that MVMS reduce the size of the pool, and it was subsequently cut 32 percent to the current 103. Based on our analysis, there appear to be further opportunities to reduce the pool or find ways to increase use of the current pool.

Increasingly, state employees are driving their personal vehicles on state business and receiving reimbursement. This practice contributes to underuse of the MVMS motor pool and underuse of permanent assignments. In addition, the state pays more to have employees drive their own vehicles than it would if they drove MVMS vehicles.

In 1996, the Legislature raised the mileage reimbursement rate for use of personal vehicles from not more than 23 cents per mile to not more than 28 cents. The increased rate is time-limited for a two-year period ending June 30, 1998. According to a memo from the Governor, the intent is to explore possible reduction of the MVMS fleet size and cost. A&I was required to report to the Joint Appropriations Committee on the extent to which the change in mileage rate affected employees’ utilization of state vehicles.

In its interim report, A&I compared the total miles driven in private vehicles and MVMS vehicles during FY97 (which was the first year of the higher rate) with the two previous fiscal years. A&I concluded that once the rate was increased, the total miles driven by private vehicles had increased by approximately 525,000 miles over the previous year. On the other hand, the total miles driven in MVMS vehicles had decreased by approximately 1.25 million miles. The report did not explain the decrease in combined total miles driven.

Our analysis shows that the 28 cent rate creates an incentive for employees to use their own vehicles to travel on state business, and a disincentive for them to use MVMS. Even though MVMS vehicles cost agencies less and are already underutilzed, agencies are increasingly allowing employees to drive their own vehicles. In FY96, mileage driven in personal vehicles was equal to about one-half the miles driven in MVMS vehicles. In FY97, with the higher rate for personal vehicle mileage, the proportion jumped to 64 percent of MVMS’ mileage.

Thus, halfway through the test period, it appears the policy is not cost-effective for the state. While other factors may offset the savings achieved through driving MVMS vehicles, we believe in most cases it would be less expensive for agencies to use MVMS vehicles. Agencies are paying employees 28 cents per mile to drive their own vehicles, when they could pay MVMS 24 cents per mile.

Substantial Cost Attached. In the first year of the reimbursement rate increase, personal vehicle mileage totaled almost five million miles. While not all of the miles were necessarily driven by employees who had access to the MVMS motor pool or permanent assignments, a portion can be attributed to users who had access to MVMS vehicles. We calculated that it cost the state an additional $200,000 to reimburse drivers for these miles due to the four cent difference.

According to the MVMS fleet administrator, if the trend toward personal vehicle use continues, it may be appropriate to reduce the number of MVMS pool vehicles. However, we believe such a decision should be considered only after reevaluating the cost-effectiveness of the higher reimbursement rate.

A recent GAO study highlights practices that fleet managers have found to be fundamental to cost-efficient management. Fleet managers say there are five practices essential to controlling motor vehicle costs, one of which is to periodically assess vehicle utilization. Assessing utilization to determine the appropriate size of a fleet is a quick method to become more cost efficient, since analysis helps identify where fleet size and composition can be streamlined.

We interviewed fleet managers from neighboring states and learned that several have developed effective methods to ensure that vehicles are well-utilized.

• Colorado. Colorado’s fleet manager said it is important to carefully define underutilization, since low mileage does not always indicate underutilization. Colorado identifies the purpose for each vehicle so the manager can project the expected mileage and daily use that will fulfill the vehicle’s purpose. The vehicle is reviewed annually to determine if it meets its specialized criteria.
  
• Utah. The state recently implemented a fixed-rate structure to encourage agencies to turn in underutilized vehicles. Agencies are charged a depreciation rate whether or not the vehicle is being used.
  
• South Dakota. The fleet manager rotates pool vehicles to assignments at 40,000 miles. These medium-mileage vehicles are ideal for permanent assignments that serve a limited geographical area, but are used often.
  
• Nebraska. The fleet manager has the authority to recall a permanent assignment which does not meet the minimum utilization criteria for three consecutive months. The authority to withdraw assignments is provided in statute.
  

We recognize that many vehicle needs cannot be met through pools, due to location of the users and the nature of use. However, when feasible, we believe fleet managers should be meeting vehicle needs by using existing pools. Allowing permanent assignments to proliferate is a costly and inefficient tactic.

Fleet managers should analyze the usage of both assignments and pool vehicles on an annual basis, to determine how to most cost-effectively meet user needs. Managers should be prepared to adjust the number and mix of vehicles to more appropriately reflect vehicle use. To adequately monitor and enforce utilization standards, fleet managers must have sufficient authority to manage their fleets and must use the information available to them to adjust vehicle numbers.

Permanent Assignments. Given that many vehicle needs around the state cannot be met through motor vehicle pools, fleet managers need to effectively manage permanently-assigned vehicles. When analyzing whether or not assignments are justified, fleet managers should use written criteria reflecting the variety of uses that justify assignment.

Fleet managers should conduct a rigorous analysis of need upon initial assignment, and should also periodically review existing assignments. Fleet managers should review all low-mileage vehicles annually to determine which assignments need to be continued. Managers should be given authority to recall or rotate vehicles that are underutilized.

Vehicle Pools. To determine the appropriate size of the MVMS and UW motor pools, administrators need to systematically track pool use, composition, and cost. Based on this information, fleet managers should make periodic adjustments to the size and composition of the pools. Fleet managers should determine if there are additional users whose needs can be met through the use of the MVMS and UW motor pools, rather than through permanent assignments.

With the UW motor pool, if mileage rates cannot be brought closer in line with the reimbursement rate for private vehicles, then it makes economic sense for the University to decrease the current size of the pool and encourage personal vehicle use. It may be possible to reduce the mileage rates charged to users by recalling some of the permanent assignments at departments and adding them into the pool. This step would make vehicles available to multiple users, rather than select pockets within the University.

An alternative to reducing the number of vehicles in the MVMS pool would be to broaden the universe of motor pool users. The MVMS pool may be able to meet the needs of some users in Cheyenne who currently have permanent assignments but use them less than 12,000 miles per year. Furthermore, WYDOT and WGFD could review their Cheyenne-placed vehicles to determine which agency needs can be met through the MVMS motor pool. The 1995 WGFD self-study on vehicles mentioned that the MVMS motor pool could be used as an option to fulfill WGFD’s short-term vehicle needs. Such adjustments would serve several purposes. The two departments would no longer have a capital investment in underutilized vehicles, and use of the MVMS pool would be maximized.

Personal Vehicle Use. The Legislature may wish to review the cost-effectiveness of the current reimbursement rate for private vehicles. As long as reimbursement rates for personal vehicle use remain higher than MVMS’ rates, state agencies pay more for some employee travel than necessary. It may be useful to peg this rate to MVMS’ rates on a trial basis, thus giving agency managers a budget-neutral choice of transportation options. Such a test could provide relevant data to support policy decisions regarding the optimum size of MVMS’ pool.

The Legislature could also consider the option of allowing full reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles only when a motor pool vehicle is not available. This, too, may help to maximize the use of existing motor pool vehicles and low-mileage permanent assignments.

Despite statutory language originally adopted in 1989 directing the Department of Administration and Information to "manage and control all state motor vehicles," four independent state fleets still exist. Ultimately, it is the Legislature’s responsibility through direction and practice to specify its intentions regarding authority for state vehicles. Clarification is needed.

Employees we interviewed recalled times when vehicles were purchased somewhat automatically, with less concern for purpose and cost. Today, agency budgets are tighter, and the purposes and uses of state-owned vehicles need to be scrutinized carefully. The state should be managing these vehicles like the important and costly asset they are.

Vehicles represent a necessary cost of conducting the state’s business. Each fleet needs to re-examine its practices, including their core assumptions. Such analysis will likely result in innovative measures and potential cooperation among fleets.

Effective management of state vehicles does not hinge on centralization. However, if the current fleets remain intact, the Legislature needs more assurance that these vehicles are being carefully managed.

Article 10: Department of Administration and Information

9-2-1016.  General services division.

(h)  The general services division shall:

(i)  Manage and control all state motor vehicles and equipment including their identification, purchase, lease, replacement, repair and permanent assignment, except for state owned or leased vehicles personally used by or assigned to the governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer or superintendent of public instruction;

(ii)  Establish, update and comply with uniform standards and criteria promoting the economic and effective maintenance and use of motor vehicles consistent with the needs and locations of agencies.

(j)  Any state or county employee or officer using a state vehicle without authorization or for purposes other than official business is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) or more than two hundred dollars ($200.00).

(Note: Responses from the Department of Administration and Information, Game and Fish Department, Department of Transportation, and the University of Wyoming are available with the report, which is on file at the Legislative Service Office.)

Reports completed since 1995 are available free on the Internet at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/progeval/progevr.htm. Due to technical limitations, the format of reports on the web site have been altered somewhat to be compatible with the Wyoming Legislative Service Office's web site. The agency responses, certain graphics, attachments, and appendices to these reports are unavailable on an on-line basis. Complete printed copies of program evaluation reports are available for purchase from the Wyoming Legislative Service Office, 213 State Capitol, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002, (307)777-7881.