PennDOT Performance Audit

Transcription

1 Legislative Budget and Finance Committee PennDOT Performance Audit Report Presentation by Elizabeth Voras, February 24, 2015, Meeting Good morning. Act requires the LB&FC to conduct a performance audit of the PA Department of Transportation (PennDOT) every six years. This, the sixth such review, focused on revenue and expenditure trends, performance measures, a follow-up of recommendations made by the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission, and a review of PennDOT district office structure and select activities. With regard to revenue and expenditure trends, we found that Motor License Fund revenues, when adjusted for purchasing power, have been generally flat since FY In FY , MLF revenues totaled $1.47 billion. In FY , MLF revenues were $2.41 billion. But when expressed in 1991 dollars, this represents virtually flat funding. Over the next 12 years, PennDOT expects the new revenues generated by Act 89 of 2013 to fund $15.8 billion in additional highway, bridge, and transit capital improvement projects. This is almost twice the $17.6 billion in projects that could have been funded without the new revenues. The report contains a table which shows this anticipated spending by county. 1

2 The new transportation spending resulting from Act 89 should yield significant benefits in terms of job growth, reducing the backlog of reconstruction and resurfacing projects, improving safety, and relieving traffic congestion. The Federal Highway Administration reports that every $1 billion invested in highway construction supports about 27,800 jobs in a wide range of economic sectors. Various other economic and social benefits are also derived from transportation spending and improved transportation infrastructure. Our review of long-term spending trends dating back to the early 1990s found that spending on state highways and bridges increased gradually through FY , but fell significantly in FY (from $4.25 billion to $3.66 billion). Spending for mass transit and intermodal increased rapidly between FY and FY , then decreased in FY Our review of PennDOT s performance measures found that, while they do provide a historical record of performance, they can be difficult to interpret because PennDOT does not set performance goals and, like some of the expenditure categories, what is included in many of the measures has changed over time. Nevertheless, the report contains historical information on a variety of PennDOT s performance measures, including highway and bridge construction and maintenance, transit and shared ride, rail and aviation, safety administration and licensing, and 2

3 certain administrative measures. For example, the number of miles of new highway construction has fallen from about 40 miles a year 20 years ago to fewer than 20 miles a year in recent years. On the other hand, the number of bridges replaced or repaired has increased from fewer than 300 in the 1990s to about 500 a year since the mid-2000s. When compared to their counterparts, we found that PennDOT ranked well in a 2011 national comparison of states in terms of having the essential tools in place to make cost-effective transportation funding and policy choices. Pennsylvania was ranked in six categories, and PennDOT ranked among the top states in all but one category. PennDOT is divided into 11 district offices, which are comprised of between three and nine counties. Our review of the district organization charts found there is wide variation in how these districts are configured and staffed. We also compared PennDOT s central and district office structure to three other large state agencies (the Departments of Environmental Protection, Labor & Industry, and Human Services). The departments vary in how they are structured, with DEP and L&I appearing to have more functions carried out at central office, and PennDOT and DHS allowing greater autonomy at the district level. It was not clear, however, that PennDOT s overall operations could be improved by greater centralization. 3

4 We did, however, have concerns that some PennDOT district office staffing levels appear to have little relationship to the level of activity within the district. For example, one district office had a ratio of 1 HR staff person for every 43 employees, whereas another district office had a ratio of 1 HR staff person for every 26 employees. We found similar variations in levels of permitting staff. We recommend that PennDOT review its district office staffing levels against key activity levels and make adjustments as appropriate. We also found that the personnel complements as shown on the district organizational charts we were provided did not match the figures shown on Penn- DOT s Strength and Activity reports. While some of the discrepancy between these documents may be due to timing differences, the differences were such that they could materially affect Central Office management decisions if incorrect figures are used. We recommend PennDOT s human resources department ensure that both the Strength and Activity reports and the district organizational charts are current and accurate. We also found that PennDOT district office websites vary considerably in the content they provide, particularly with regard to district services We recommend that PennDOT review district websites with the goal of providing consistent content and terminology across all districts. 4

5 Our review of PennDOT district office expenditures found wide variation in some categories. District spending on such items as gas, training, office equipment, and food varied more than would be expected or at least more than what we would have expected based on staff size. We recommend that PennDOT s Central Office review district expenditures and follow-up in those areas where expenditures appear unusual. We also recommend PennDOT s fiscal office ensure that its accounting manuals are clear to district staff as to how these expenditures should be classified and reported, as that appears to be at least part of the problem. As part of our review of district office operations, we spoke to PennDOT about the possibility of using technology to allow districts to specialize in certain areas. PennDOT has already undertaken such an initiative, which they call workload balancing, in the area of highway and bridge design. We recommend PennDOT use this initiative as a model for how to optimize staff in other areas, such as permitting, where an on-the-ground presence is not necessary. In 2011, the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission issued a comprehensive report that contained 26 recommendations covering a wide range of Penn- DOT operations. As part of this study, we reviewed PennDOT s implementation of the Commission s recommendations and found that the department has fully or partially implemented 18 of the 26 recommendations. We also noted that, in some 5

6 cases, the recommendations that were not implemented were not fully within Penn- DOT s control. The report contains a chart listing each recommendation and a brief comment regarding our assessment of its level of implementation. PennDOT has incorporated many of the Commission s recommendations into its own initiative, known as Next Generation. Next Generation encompasses initiatives in several areas, largely with the goal of modernizing and working more efficiently with outside entities. The report contains information on the Next Generation initiatives and PennDOT s reported progress on these initiatives, several of which have been very successful. Before closing, we thank PennDOT staff at both the Central Office and the district offices, who provided information and cooperation during this study. In particular we express our gratitude to Dave Margolis, director of PennDOT s Bureau of Fiscal Management, who served as coordinator for this study. We also wish to thank the staff at DHS, DEP, and L&I for providing input on their organizational structures and the other transportation stakeholders who assisted in this project. Thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions you may have. 6