12/09/2014 - Energy and Environment Advisory CommissionENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
Information Packet
Communications
A. Trinity School Solar Panel Installation
B. Complete Streets Information
C. City Fleet Information
NEXT ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13TH, 2015 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM 2A & 2B
NEXT REGULAR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2015 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Renewable Energy & Installation
www.ips-solar.com
651-789-5305
Eagan School Goes Solar
Innovative Power Systems Brings Solar to Trinity School at River Ridge
EAGAN, MINN.— October 16th, 2014— Trinity School at River Ridge is now being powered,
in part, by solar energy. The Solar panels were installed at no cost to the district by Innovative
Power System’s Solar on Schools Program. Solar power provides multiple economic and
educational benefits for schools.
The system totals 39.36 kilowatts and is expected to produce 50,000 kWh annually, enough to
power 6 average Minnesota homes. “The Solar on Schools program provides an educational
opportunity for students and reduces the districts utility bills, saving over $140,000 over the next
30 years” explains IPS’s CEO Ralph Jacobson. School Administrator Steve Hendrickson
explains Trinity will “end up saving 8-12% on monthly energy costs.”
The environmental impact will be significant. Each year the panels will prevent 75,000 pounds
of CO2 emissions, an equivalent to 5,015 planted trees. Hendrickson reports: “we decided to go
solar when alumnus, Michael Tambornino, approached us with the program.” After their
interested had sparked, the economic and environmental benefits pushed Hendrickson to move
forward with the project.
Federal and state incentives helped to facilitate the project at Trinity. IPS’s Solar on Schools
allows the district to buy power from the panels at a discount to Xcel for a period of years, after
which the solar company may sell the panels to the school for $1. The panels – manufactured by
tenKsolar out of Bloomington, Minn – qualified for the Made-in-Minnesota incentive program
through Xcel. New incentives are available this year and every year until 2024. Homeowners,
business-owners, and government are also eligible.
Contact: Michael Tambornino
Innovative Power Systems
1413 Hunting Valley Road
St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: (651) 789-5305
Email: michaelt@ips-solar.com
Date: October 16th, 2014
Public Works Committee
November 5th 2014
MN Statute – 2010
o Evolution of “Context-Sensitive Design”
Transportation System providing:
o Safe Access
All Street Users
Age
Ability
o Increase in physical activity
o Variety of Modes
Transit, Bicycles and Walking
MnDOT Policy 2009-present
o Cities involved in policy-making
o Design and Planning Philosophy (long held by Eagan)
o Continued movement away from “autos only”
o Not “all modes for all roads”
Features Vary
◦Context, topography, road function, speed of traffic, pedestrian and bicycle demand, and other factors
Safety & Accessibility Needs
Motorists, Pedestrians, Transit Users and Vehicles, Bicyclists, and Commercial and Emergency Vehicles
Needs Vary
◦Urban, Suburban, and Rural settings
Sidewalks/trails
Paved shoulders
Bike lanes
Safe crossing points
Accessible curb ramps
Pedestrian refuge medians
Bus stop access
Sidewalk “bump-outs” at intersections
Access to adjacent trails in a “corridor”
Intersection improvements
All MnDOT Projects – starting 2015
◦Cooperative Agreements
State Trunk Highways 3, 13, 55, 149
◦Long-term and snow/ ice maintenance responsibility on trails– challenge
Must Provide Report of Complete Streets Design Considerations (Form)
Local Streets (State Aid or non-collector)
o Encouraged but not required
Council Resolution of Support (2011)
120+ miles of Trail/ Sidewalk
Community Trail System Policy (filled most gaps)
o Winter Maintenance Program
ADA Pedestrian Ramps (~15 years)
240+miles of City streets
60+ Rain gardens – Storm water management
Continue Consideration - All Modes for Construction Projects
o Feasibility Report – review of CS
Traffic Calming
o Roundabouts, bumpouts, narrowing streets, driver speed
feedback signs
o 4-lane to 3-lane transitions (Wescott Road)
Public Works Capital Improvement Program (streets, trails)
Showcase Eagan/ Streets Alive – Public Education
Safe Routes to Schools Program (Red Pine Elementary)
Traffic Signal Upgrades
o Audio prompts, timers
o Flashing yellow arrows
o Synchronized signals
Cedar Grove Area
o Pedestrian, Bike Facilities
o Transit Station, drop-offs
o Transportation improvements
MnDOT Complete Streets Policy
Project Report
Purpose
The purpose of the Complete Streets Project Report is to document and track the Minnesota Department of
Transportation’s implementation of Policy OP004 Complete Streets. The information captured in the report will
enable MnDOT staff to keep senior leaders briefed on complete streets implementation and identify trends or
common problems that may benefit from new guidance and resources.
Applicability
All MnDOT construction projects that directly affect transportation system users will require completion of this form,
beginning with the 2015 construction season. Projects such as stormwater tunnels, slope stabilization, relamping,
preventive and routine maintenance, emergency repairs, etc are categorically exempted from this requirement.
The project report should be updated as appropriate throughout the life of a project. The report may be started when
developing a project charter, but a version of the report completed as much as possible must be submitted as an
attachment to the scoping report. Given that some questions cannot be answered in the scoping phase (such as
signed maintenance agreements), a revised version of the report must be turned in with final plans at the end of final
design.
Background
In November 2013, MnDOT adopted a complete streets policy that requires the principles of “complete streets” be
considered at all phases of planning and project development. The accompanying technical memorandum details the
responsible agents for complete streets implementation at each phase of project development. It requires
documentation of considerations for all users in the scoping and design phases of MnDOT projects. Specific reasons
are identified that may be cited for not providing provisions. Finally, the memorandum requires the agency to develop
and track process indicators as well as performance measures in order to evaluate implementation.
Since adopting the policy, an internal working group of planners, designers, and engineers led by the Office of
Project Management and Technical Support along with the Office of Transportation System Management met with
districts and offices throughout the agency and spoke with leaders in complete streets initiatives around the country.
Those conversations led to the Complete Streets Project Report.
1
Complete Streets Project Report
Summary
Project Type (check all that apply):
New Construction Reconstruction
Pavement Replacement New Bridge
Bridge Replacement Bridge Redecking
Bridge Elimination
Other – Explain:
----
Existing Site Characteristics (check all that apply):
Rural Exurban/Transition Suburban
Small Urban Large Urban
----
Special Roadway Designations (check all that apply):
Designated State Bikeway
Scenic Byway
Oversize/Overweight Super Load Route
Twin Trailer Network
House Moving Route
Primary Freight Network
District:
Project Number:
Metro Only Scoping Database Number:
Fiscal Year:
Version*
Project Charter (complete as much of this report
as is practicable)
Scoping Report (complete as much of this report
as possible)
Final Design (report should be fully completed)
Date of Last Revision:
, Project Manager
, Assistant District Engineer
* This report is designed to be a living document. It
should be revised/revisited at key points in the project
development process. Please indicate the current
project development stage and the date this form was
completed/revised.
Overall Project Improvements
Check all that apply:
Sidewalk Curb Extension/Bump-out Bikeable Shoulder Roundabouts
Shared Use Path Curb cuts with ramps Park & Ride Facility Bike Lanes
Improved Crosswalks Pedestrian Refuge Islands Access Management Landscaping
OSOW Pass Through Bus Lanes/Shoulder Lighting Improvements Lane Removal
Center Left Turn Lanes Adjusted Lane Widths Truck Acceleration Lanes Bus Shelter
Lowered Traffic Speeds Signalized Timing Improvement Improved Rail Crossing Bike Sharrows
2
Provisions by User Group
Pedestrian Provisions
Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway.
Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include
Improvements).
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Existing conditions are adequately meeting pedestrian needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes).
Describe existing provisions:
Additional improvements for pedestrians are included in the scope (describe below)
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting pedestrian needs and the scope of work does include substantial
improvements.
Describe improvements included in the scope:
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting pedestrian needs and the scope of work does not include
improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the
area provided).
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced pedestrian access
Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the
facility
Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money
and resources
Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
3
Bicycle Provisions
Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway.
Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include
Improvements).
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Existing conditions are adequately meeting bicycle needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes).
Describe existing provisions:
Additional improvements for bicyclists are included in the scope (describe below)
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting bicycle needs and the scope of work does include substantial
improvements.
Describe improvements included in the scope:
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting bicycle needs and the scope of work does not include
improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the
area provided).
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced bicycle access
Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the
facility
Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money
and resources
Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
4
Freight Provisions
Users are legally prohibited from using the roadway.
Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include
Improvements).
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Existing conditions are adequately meeting freight needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes).
Describe existing provisions:
Additional improvements for freight are included in the scope (describe below)
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting freight needs and the scope of work does include substantial
improvements.
Describe improvements included in the scope:
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting freight needs and the scope of work does not include
improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the
area provided).
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced freight access
Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the
facility
Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money
and resources
Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
5
Transit Provisions
Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include
Improvements).
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Existing conditions are adequately meeting transit needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes).
Describe existing provisions:
Additional improvements for transit are included in the scope (describe below)
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting transit needs and the scope of work does include substantial
improvements.
Describe improvements included in the scope:
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting transit needs and the scope of work does not include
improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the
area provided).
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced transit access
Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the
facility
Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money
and resources
Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
6
Other User Groups Not Already Discussed
List any other user groups with needs in the project area:
(Examples include, but are not limited to: rail, ATVs, snowmobiles, Amish, agricultural equipment, waterway users, etc.)
Absence of current and future need over the expected life of the project (Describe under Reasons to Not Include
Improvements).
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Existing conditions are adequately meeting ______ needs (Including cross movements and parallel routes).
Describe existing provisions:
Additional improvements for ______ are included in the scope (describe below)
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting ______ needs and the scope of work does include substantial
improvements.
Describe improvements included in the scope:
Existing conditions are not adequately meeting ______ needs and the scope of work does not include
improvements or only minor/marginal improvements (check at least one of the boxes below and explain in the
area provided).
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced ______ access
Inability to negotiate with a local government to assume the operations and maintenance responsibility of the
facility
Local government opposition or right of way acquisition would require excessive expenditure of time, money
and resources
Preservation project: risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope
Explain reasons to not include improvements:
Document Number: 1375884, Page 1 of 4
Policy Statement
The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that the principles of
“Complete Streets” are to be considered at all phases of planning and project
development in the establishment, development, operation, and maintenance
of a comprehensive, integrated, and connected multi modal transportation
system.
Reason for Policy
Minnesota Statutes 174.75 directed MnDOT to implement a “Complete
Streets” policy for the state trunk highway system after consultation with
stakeholders, state and regional agencies, local governments, and road
authorities. This policy affects virtually all phases of road activity on trunk
highways, from planning to maintenance.
As defined by the law, "Complete Streets" is the planning, scoping, design,
implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably
address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities.
Complete streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users
and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along
and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to
the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and
rural settings.
MnDOT developed this policy along with Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02
to uphold, complement and elevate existing state and federal laws and
departmental direction that support an integrated, multimodal transportation
system.
This policy is prepared in accordance with Minnesota statutes and rules, federal
statutes and regulations.
Principal Points
Consistent with MnDOT’s mission of providing the highest quality, dependable
multimodal transportation system, both the Minnesota GO Vision adopted in
November 2011 and the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (SMTP),
2012-2031 establish a vision for a transportation system that:
Provides safe, convenient, efficient and effective movement of people and
goods.
Is accessible regardless of socioeconomic status or individual ability.
The SMTP also establishes a statewide strategy of improving accessibility and
safety for everyone traveling on, along or across roads.
The policy and Technical Memorandum provide direction on the
implementation of “Complete Streets” pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 174.75
and also provide a framework to achieve the following transportation goals
listed in (or envisaged by) Minnesota Statutes 174.01, Subdivision 2 :
Minimize fatalities and injuries for transportation users throughout
the state;
Provide multimodal and intermodal transportation facilities and
services to increase access for all persons and businesses and to
Complete Streets
MnDOT Policy OP004
Policy Contents
Policy Statement
Reason for Policy
Who Needs to Know this Policy
Procedures
Forms/Instructions
Definitions
Responsibilities
Appendices
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Information
History
Effective Date as signed by Responsible
Senior Officer
Last Update
New policy
Responsible Senior Officer
o Susan Mulvihill, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner & Chief Engineer
sue.mulvihill@state.mn.us
651-366-4800
Policy Owner
o Mark Gieseke
Director, Transportation System
Management
mark.gieseke@state.mn.us
651-366-3770
o
Policy Contact
o Mark B. Nelson
Manager, Planning and Data Analysis
mark.b.nelson@state.mn.us
651-366-3794
OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING
Document Number: 1375884, Page 2 of 4
ensure economic well-being and quality of life without undue burden placed on any community;
Ensure that the planning and implementation of all modes of transportation are consistent with the environmental
and energy goals of the state;
Increase use of transit as a percentage of all trips statewide by giving highest priority to the transportation modes
with the greatest people-moving capacity and lowest long-term economic and environmental cost;
Promote and increase bicycling and walking as a percentage of all trips as energy -efficient, nonpolluting, and
healthy forms of transportation;
For MnDOT’s preservation projects on the trunk highway system, consideration of “Complete Streets,” competing
objectives, and creation of new assets must be balanced with asset preservation needs and other constraints (fiscal, right of
way, etc.) in order to manage risks associated with diminishing MnDOT’s asset preservation capabilities and effectiveness.
Local road authorities are encouraged to adopt a similar policy. Effective implementation and operation of “Complete
Streets” relies upon multi-jurisdictional collaboration and responsibility for an integrated network of state and local roads.
Who Needs to Know this Policy
MnDOT personnel, local agency representatives, consultants, and contracts responsible planning, designing, constructing or
maintaining projects along trunk highway right of way.
Procedures
The procedures for implementing “Complete Streets” in planning, project development and scoping, design, construction,
operations and maintenance, and measurement and evaluation are specified in Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02.
MnDOT will apply relevant Minnesota or federal statutes, rules, or industry codes as appropriate to the circumstances of
the implementation of “Complete Streets” on trunk highway right of way. If a more stringent protection is prescribed by
Minnesota or federal statutes, rules, or industry codes than is provided in this policy, the more stringent requirement shall
prevail. Nothing in this policy shall be considered as a limit ation on the authority or responsibility of MnDOT to apply
statutes and regulations as appropriate to the specific circumstances.
Exemptions to Policy
Exemptions to the procedures detailed in the Technical Memorandum may be granted by the MnDOT State Design Engineer
for the following reasons:
Users are legally prohibited from using a roadway. Where access is legally prohibited, project managers should
consider opportunities to address or remove barriers to network connectivity and crossings that are important for
serving non-motorized and other modes, such as provision of interstate crossings and/or collocated but separated
facilities for non-motorized users who are prohibited from using the roadway itself.
Physical constraints and future travel and attractors demonstrate absence of current and future need. Because of
the long life of bridge structures, careful consideration should be given before determining not to provide for other
modes at the time a new structure is constructed.
Detrimental environmental or safety impacts outweigh the benefits of enhanced multimodal access.
Constraints related to local government opposition or right of way acquisition requiring excessive expenditure of
time, money and resources.
Inability to negotiate and enter into an agreement with a local government to assume the operational and
maintenance responsibility of the facility.
Document Number: 1375884, Page 3 of 4
Preservation projects in which risk analysis and fiscal constraints indicate MnDOT may significantly diminish critical
preservation of existing assets by expanding scope and adding new “Complete Streets” assets on the projects.
Emergency and routine or localized maintenance and repair work (debris removal, sweeping, pothole patching,
sidewalk patching, joint and crack repair, etc.).
Forms/Instructions
Forms and instructions are currently being developed. For current instructions, see Highway Project Development Process.
Definitions
Complete Streets
“Complete Streets” is the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to
reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users of all ages and abilities.
Highway
“Highway” is a general term denoting a public way for the transportation of people, materials, goods, and services but
primarily for vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right of way.
MnDOT
The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, acting through the Commissioner of Transportation.
Right of Way
Real property or interests therein, acquired, dedicated or reserved for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
highway.
Trunk Highway System
All roads established or to be established under the provisions of Article XIV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of
Minnesota, "Public Highway System". This system includes highways that are constructed, improved, and maintained as public
highways under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Transportation, including highways on the Interstate system.
Responsibilities
The responsibilities for planners, project managers, designers, construction managers and maintenance engineers for projects
on the trunk highway system are specified in the Technical Memorandum 14-08-TS-02.
State Design Engineer
Develop and maintain an exemption process
Review and approve exemption requests
Manager, Planning and Data Analysis
Develop and track process indicators for implementation of “Complete Streets”
Track established performance indicators that contribute to “Complete Streets” goals
Appendices
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Information
Cost Participation for Cooperative Construction Projects and Maintenance Responsibilities (Between MnDOT and Local
Units of Government)
History of Policy Updates or Amendments
New policy
Document Number: 1375884, Page 4 of 4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Gallons 165,851 156,376 172,773 165,901 160,024 163,729 157,209 157,081 166,172
145,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
170,000
175,000
City of Eagan Fleet -
Annual Total Gallons of Fuel (2005-2013)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Miles 1,478,981 1,500,013 1,513,186 1,530,983 1,477,907 1,384,778 1,377,835 1,377,367 1,361,374
1,250,000
1,300,000
1,350,000
1,400,000
1,450,000
1,500,000
1,550,000
City of Eagan Fleet -
Annual Total Mileage (2005-2013)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total MPG 8.9 9.6 8.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.2
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
City of Eagan Fleet -
Annual Unit Average MPG (2005-2013)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Cost $309,336 $354,482 $418,048 $505,838 $292,730 $384,818 $455,508 $476,358 $508,811
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
City of Eagan Fleet -
Annual Fuel Total Cost (2005-2013)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fleet Size (Mobile Equip)196 201 204 204 207 208 211 212 217
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
City of Eagan Fleet -
Total Number of Mobile Equipment and Units (2005-2013)
Total City Fleet Summary (2005-2013)
Mobile Units
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Gallons 165,851 156,376 172,773 165,901 160,024 163,729 157,209 157,081 166,172
Total Miles 1,478,981 1,500,013 1,513,186 1,530,983 1,477,907 1,384,778 1,377,835 1,377,367 1,361,374
Total Cost $309,336 $354,482 $418,048 $505,838 $292,730 $384,818 $455,508 $476,358 $508,811
Total MPG 8.9 9.6 8.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.2
Fleet Size (Mobile Equip)196 201 204 204 207 208 211 212 217
Ethanol Study - 2013 Totals and Costs
Current Fleet vehicles that are E85 compatible:
Vehicles Gallons of Fuel
Used
Cost using E10
(mandated)**
x1.3* Functional cost
using E85
20 police patrol
vehicles
46,900 $126,600 x1.3 $152,400
7 detective
vehicles
3,300 $8,900 x1.3 $10,700
14-pickups and
light trucks
8,300 $22,400 x1.3 $27,000
41 total vehicles 58,500 $157,900 x1.3 $190,100
*E85 has 27% less energy; it takes 1.3 gallons to equal 1 gallon of regular gasoline.
**State contract fixed fuel price in 2013 was $2.50 for E85 and $2.70 for E10
Light Vehicle Condition Index
G:\BUDGET\Light Vehicle Condition Index - form
Factor Points Veh. #
Veh. #
Veh. #
Veh. #
Veh. #
Age One point for each year of chronological age that vehicle exceeds
“Target Replacement Standards.”
Miles/Hours One point for each 10,000 miles of use/500 hours of use.
Type of Service (1-5) 1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on the type of service that vehicle
receives. For instance, a police patrol car would be given a 5 because
it is in severe duty service. In contrast, an administrative sedan would
be given a 1.
Reliability (1-5) Points are assigned as 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 depending on the frequency or
repair/downtime. A 5 would be assigned to a vehicle that has 4.0 to
5.0% downtime or more; 4 for 3.0 to 4.0% downtime; 3 for 2.0 to 3.0%
downtime, 2 for 1.0 to 2.0% downtime; and 1 point would be assigned
for vehicles with less than 1% downtime.
M & R Costs (1-5) 1 to 5 points are assigned based on total life M & R costs equal to or
greater than the vehicle’s original purchase price, while a 1 is given to
a vehicle with life M & R costs equal to 20% or less of its original
purchase cost.
Condition (1-5) This category takes into consideration body condition, rust, interior
condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. A scale of 1 to 5
points is used with 5 being poor condition.
Cost Per Mile (1-5) Points are assigned as 1,2,3,4, or 5 depending on the cost per mile
relative to class. A 5 would be assigned to a vehicle with costs per
mile in excess of 20% for the class. 4 – 15%>than class; 3 –
10%>than class; 2 – 05%> than class; 1 – equal to class.
Total
Notations for chart VCI points:
0 to 11 points Condition I Excellent
12 to 15 points Condition II Good
16 to 20 points Condition III Qualifies for replacement
21 points and above Condition IV Needs immediate consideration
VEHICLE COMPARISON SHEET FOR 2015
BLANK
VEHICLE
YEAR
MAKE/MODEL
BODY
STYLE
ORIGINAL
PURCHASE
PRICE
CURRENT
“BLUE BOOK”
VALUE
EST. COST TO
REPLACE AS
IS
VCI MILES/HOURS
AS OF
AVG. ANN.
MILES/HOUS
(LAST 3 YRS.)
EST. COST
TO
REFURBISH
RISK
FACTOR
DEPARTMENT/
REQUESTED
YEAR OF
REPLACEMENT
Risk Factor (independent) (Not calculated in VCI)
A high “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost higher than (>) the vehicle class.
A medium “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost equal to (=) the vehicle class.
A low “risk factor” is a determination that the vehicle is projected to operate at a cost lower than (<) the vehicle class.
G:budget\vehiclecomparison.blank