Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT C <br /> <br />Due to the size of the fleet that a new department model would create, additional methods of obtaining and <br />maintaining the fleet become viable. Four methods are proposed as options: <br /> <br /> <br />1)Continue the current systems employed by the two separate departments. <br /> <br />2)Use a few in-house employees to perform routine maintenance such as engine & chassis lubrication, <br />filter changes, minor wiring issues (simple lighting, etc.) and have the remainder of the work <br />completed by the outside vendors. This option would require a small facility and equipment. <br />Purchasing would become a function of the new department in this option. <br /> <br />3)Set a long-term goal of an in-house fleet service operation encompassing all service work with the <br />exception of major engine or transmission repairs/overhaul. Full-time employees of the department <br />would perform the work currently done by local vendors and Eugene Public Works employees. <br />This operation would require an appropriate facility and equipment to complete the work. This <br />model also envisions Fire purchasing vehicles directly. <br /> <br />4)Outsource all work to an outside vendor or vendors. This would require an expansion on the part of <br />one or both of the companies currently operating locally. This model also envisions Fire purchasing <br />vehicles directly. <br />Cost estimates for each option are not available at this time. One approach would include a competitive <br />bidding process for the work from both Eugene Public Works and private, local vendors to determine the <br />most cost-effective solution. Any change to the current practice would be phased in over time. <br /> <br />In a full merger, option 3 is the most attractive model. Option 3 would allow the new organization, through <br />a fully in-house program, to service vehicles from other fire departments and reap the benefits of a profit- <br />generating enterprise. This model is currently in use in the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue organization <br />with great success. This would lower the cost of the combined department’s maintenance costs, and <br />provide a profit potential in the long term. <br /> <br />Identify potential increases and consolidations in FTE: No immediate change is expected. <br /> <br />Confirm present costs for service delivery: <br /> <br />Springfield Fire & Life Safety: Vehicle maintenance costs for FY09 were $233,048. FY10 vehicle <br />maintenance budget is $212,574. <br /> <br />Eugene Fire & EMS: <br />? <br /> Onetime costs that are required to implement the program: <br />Unknown at this time. <br /> <br />? <br /> Ongoing costs that are required to maintain program: <br /> <br />Current maintenance budget for Springfield is approx. $210,000. A budget of $225,000/yr <br />. <br />should be sufficient as aging equipment is replaced with newer, more reliable models <br /> <br />? <br /> Identify cost avoidance opportunities: <br />53 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT 3 <br /> <br />