LIHU‘E — The Office of the Kaua‘i County Auditor released the results of a county road maintenance program audit on Wednesday, noting deficiencies in management and non-permitted use of roads resources. “The takeaway from this audit is that roads are
LIHU‘E — The Office of the Kaua‘i County Auditor released the results of a county road maintenance program audit on Wednesday, noting deficiencies in management and non-permitted use of roads resources.
“The takeaway from this audit is that roads are valuable county assets, and an asset management plan is needed to ensure proper maintenance,” said County Auditor Ernesto Pasion.
County Engineer Larry Dill and County Manager Gary Heu concurred with all seven findings and recommendations in a written response to Pasion.
“The good news is that the public works department and its roads division have already improved the annual road maintenance program,” Pasion said. “They also agree with the audit recommendations. We encourage the administration and the county council to continue providing them with the resources they need to implement the recommendations.”
Sometime after 2006, the roads division started maintaining its own road use information, when this historical data had been managed by the industry standard MicroPaver system, the report said.
MicroPaver is necessary for an adequate analytical assessment of road conditions and public needs. The information is used to prioritize needs based on condition, and without the system, the report said selection is subjective and non-transparent.
Dill and Heu replied that the MicroPaver program would be utilized. They said the director of finance does not determine funding allocation of the roads resurfacing program.
The report said that funding provided to the road maintenance program is designed with a formula based on needs and the limits of available funds as determined by fuel and weight tax revenues.
County asset management is not based on needs and priorities of road maintenance, the report said.
The standard practice is that road value and conditions determine the public need.
Instead, the report states that the roads division is provided a resurfacing funding allocation determined by the director of finance.
It recommended the administration, director of finance and county council perform an economic trade-off analysis to determine optimum investment to achieve the highest economic return.
Dill and Heu replied that the director of finance does not determine funding allocation of the roads resurfacing program.
The county is using a one-size-fits all for road resurfacing programs, the report said. It does not consider road conditions or alternative methods and materials.
The concern is that roads are allowed to reach the end of their usable life before they are resurfaced.
The report said the standard is a preventive maintenance method and resurfacing at 75 percent of lifetime use, which is, on average, 15 years.
The county has been waiting on average 20 years to resurface.
The county reply was that the roads division has hired additional staff to implement its pavement management program.
Other concerns were that road reconstruction estimates were not always figured in with road maintenance solicitations when the exact location cannot be specified at the start.
The report recommended that contractors complete reconstruction estimates within the bid price rather than re-negotiate at a later date.
The division is using out-of-date standard operating policies for project tasks, the report said, and recommended support to accelerate the revision process. It identified concerns with budget and actual costs, tracking and early detection of mitigation of overruns and approval of estimates.
The report said management of the highway fund is not consistent with state and county restrictions.
The county road resurfacing program is a repair and maintenance project and is not allowed to be categorized as a capital project under the county charter, the report said.
The county highway fund is subject to restrictions, which include fuel and vehicle weight taxes and public utility franchise fees.
The report says that funds are commingled with non-permitted and non-highway-related use.
Non-permitted use of roads personnel to work on non-roads related duties is widespread, the report noted.
The county fuel dispensed through the Gas Boy system is funded by highway funds, and is being used by other departments, the report said.
Public works and finance departments should amend existing policies regarding administration use of the highway fund, using charts to ensure compliance with state restrictions on use of fuel and vehicle weight taxes and public utility franchise fees, the report said.
The decision to fund the road resurfacing program under capital improvement was set by the county council and administration decades ago, the reply said.
It was to provide public works and roads division more time to obtain approvals, bids and contracts for work.
The reply said the county has not been able to generate much competition for work and that one paving firm had to coordinate scheduling between state, county and private sector work.
The audit is one of three about the county’s management of capital projects. The others are a follow up audit of the building and an audit of the Kaiakea Fire Station construction project.
Read the audits at neighborhood libraries or online at www.kauai.gov/auditor/reports.
• Tom LaVenture, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or by emailing tlaventure@thegardenisland.com.
