Full Reciprocity Plan. Jay Starling, Alabama

Transcription

1 Full Reciprocity Plan Jay Starling, Alabama

2 Outline Concept Pros / Cons Revenue Impact Summary Next Steps

3 FRP Goal The goal of the Full Reciprocity Plan (FRP) is to improve the IRP Efficient Equitable Flexible

4 What would the FRP do? All IRP jurisdictions on Cab card - allowing operation in all jurisdictions Eliminate guess work of estimates for new carriers Eliminate estimated distance for renewals Fairly assess fees paid by carriers based on actual operations

5 Full Reciprocity cab card

6 New operations billing invoice

7 What are FRP benefits? Simplifies Plan administration for jurisdictions & law enforcement Eliminates expanded operations supplements and temporaries Reduces compliance costs Promotes operational flexibility Eliminates concerns of unfairness for industry for second year estimates

8 What are the potential issues? Revenue loss for 2 nd and subsequent year estimates Start-up system programming costs Transition training Trip permit fee revenue Citation revenue

9 What is the impact on auditing? Audits are more important All renewals are auditable Reduce audit requirements Simplify audit procedures Audit unreported distance Task force working with CAWG

10 What is the revenue impact? Transmittal data was requested from the CH: Fees collected/distributed by all participating members whose transmittals reflect estimated distance (both E1 and E2). CH data was also received that included the total fees collected/distributed (actual and estimated) for each jurisdiction. A comparison of estimated fees to total fees was determined for each jurisdiction.

11 What is the revenue impact? Expected revenue gain or loss from FRP based on: New fleets from 2009 Annual Reports An average of 2 vehicles per fleet The estimated distance charts used to calculate fees for each jurisdiction using the following parameters: Tractor, Year , Unladen - 17,000 lbs, GVW - 80,000, 3 axles, Diesel, Factory Price $80,000, Purchase Price $70,000, For Hire, All Commodities, 12 month registration

12 Alabama Revenue Comparison $40,000, $35,000, $30,000, $25,000, Total Current Estimated Distance Revenue $20,000, $15,000, $10,000, Total Proposed Estimated Distance Revenue Total Revenue $5,000, $

13 Alabama Revenue Comparison Current Estimated Distance Revenue $3,618, % Proposed Estimated Distance Revenue $1,425, % Total 2010 Revenue $31,019,079

14 Revenue Comparison Estimated Distance Revenue Comparison 14,000,000 12,000,000 Jurisdiction Current Proposed AL 3,618,657 1,425,725 10,000,000 AZ 12,141,493 8,879,938 BC 1,932, ,703 Fees 8,000,000 6,000,000 MA 3,414,237 1,990,530 MO 5,934,570 3,153,894 UT 2,718,075 1,127,770 Current Proposed 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 AL AZ BC MA MO UT Jurisdictions

15 $ + s and s Revenue Increases + New registrants use estimated mileage chart + Less staff time required for permit issuance + Simplified on-going systems programming + Reduced need for ongoing training + Improved enforcement + Expanded trucking operations + Reduced paperwork Revenue Decreases - Second year estimates - Trip permits - Initial systems programming costs - Start up training - Potential fee evasion - Increased audit reliance - Decrease in citations

16 $ + s and s Revenue Increases Fewer staff needed to administer less complicated Plan Eliminates dropped jurisdictions and jurisdiction transactions Internet applications and renewals become possible for more jurisdictions and carriers Continued

17 Transition to FRP Similar to Plan rewrite, potentially 2 years from passed ballot to allow for transition. Jurisdictions would need time for programming changes, training, and communication Initial costs offset with a Plan that is easier to administer, both for jurisdictions and industry

18 Summary Task force has examined alternatives and reviewed issues Result will be a simpler process with increased operational flexibility Further analysis required and underway by task force Ultimate goal is to make the Plan more efficient, equitable and fair

19 Next Steps White Paper (September 27, 2010) IRP website webinar Revenue Model (January 14, 2011) IRP website webinar Ballot language (February 2011) webinar (mid February?) Ballot May 2011?

20 Questions? Send comments and questions to: or contact any task force member: Jay Starling (AL) Scott Greenawalt (OK) Cathy Beedle (NE) Kim Russell (MO) Matthew Poirier (MA) Bob Pitcher (ATA) Rob Termuende (BC) John Jabas (Transcore) Donna Burch (Ryder)