School District (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Hammitt, Bob From: Rhay, Tim To: Morgan, Dick Cc: Hammitt, Bob Subject: Meeting With Doug Lemley Date: Friday, February 04, 1994 6:01 PM I'II give you more detailed information later, but I wanted to provide a quick report on the results of my meeting with Doug Lemley this afternoon. He now wishes to discuss a broader range of issues than mowing alone, and has requested a meeting with you as well as myself on Wednesday (after Section Mgrs. Mtg.) Re: mowing and the possibility of "contracting ": Based on a comparison of labor costs and a discussion of mowing operations, equipment maintenance and acquisition procedures, and similar issues, It does not appear that any significant savings would be generated for either agency by contracting for mowing services with the other. Labor costs are comparable. In general they no longer let seasonal laborers drive mowers, except for very experienced returning seasonais from previous years. (we came to a similar decision some years back although we have felt seasonals can sometimes do so under direct supervision of full -time staff). 4J has a fleet system on paper but, according to Doug, it is "frequently robbed" to balance various budget shortfalls. As a result, the fleet replacement system is not really funded and it is a matter of "every group for themselves" in terms of when equipment is replaced. Doug has fared well in this system, replacing his mowers, on average, on a 5 -year cycle (compared to our eight to ten year cycle). Their Transportation head apparently agrees with him that mowing is a high wear operation and repair costs are too high after five years. (I could envy him that kind of replacement curve. Five yearsa seems too short, but six or seven is about right!) In recent years they have been able to upgrade a number of their mowers, using the methods described above. They are in better condition than I expected. The result of the above is that "equipment costs" are not a part of how Doug computes his costs (they would show up in the Transportation portion of the budget @ 4J) so they are not counted as "mowing costs ". Compared to what I would have to quote as costs, they will look considerably less expensive, although Doug agrees that the District is paying those costs in another form at a rate at least as high as ours. (Given their shorted replacement cycle, it' probably higher) It would not be an easy task to identify this costs figure given the District's budgeting process. Bottom line = our costs are not going to look very attractive compared to their stated costs because of our more accurate identification of the costs of ownership of the mowing machinery. Even if their costs of ownership were clearly identified it does not appear that the comparison would reveal that we could save them any "real money" (in the face of a $5 M shortfall) via contracting for mowing (if we tried to recover our costs for doing so.) If we are going to do it just to help the District out of a bad situation, it shouldn't cost any more than they are currently spending (including the "hidden" equipment costs) but we would have to find the funding someplace. Trying to absorb such a load without additional funding would mean serious maintenance shortfalls for both agencies. They did insist that they wanted weekly mowing as a norm. Some savings could be generated by classification of areas as Mode I, II, or II and mowing accordingly, but there also could be dissatisfaction on the part of school staffs with the resulting mowing program. Doug mentioned a high -level discussion concerning creating a regional maintenance agency (Eugene and both School Districts, possibly even the Springfield schools). Do you know anything about that one? He was openly receptive to the idea of connecting District irrigation systems to MAXICOM. Page 1