1. IFTA / IRP Combined Review Update by Debora K. Meise Program Director IFTA, Inc. IFTA Annual Business Meeting New Orleans, Louisiana July 18-19, 2008

2. This committee was formed as a result of the IFTA, Inc. Strategic Plan. The goal was to promote confidence and stability through partnerships between jurisdictions, industries, and other government agencies. One suggestion to meet this goal was to combine the IFTA Program Compliance Reviews and the IRP Peer Reviews.

3. Identify jurisdictions operating IFTA & IRP in same agency Confirm interest with IRP Form a Committee

4. Jurisdiction Representatives Gerald Jackson (WY Audit) Chair Tim Galbraith (WI Admin) Beth Hartley (NE Admin) Jay Starling (AL Audit & Admin) Renee Kyser (AL Audit) Art Farley (WA Admin) Patricia Platt (KS Admin) Wayne Brown (ME Audit)

5. Organizational Representatives Debora Meise, IFTA, Inc. Dick Beckner, IFTA, Inc. Joelle Ward, IRP, Inc. Ken Carey, IRP Peer Review Coordinator

6. Board Liaisons Rena Hussey, IFTA Board Liaison Rollie Marr, IFTA Board Liaison Kirk Davenport, IFTA Board Liaison Scott Greenawalt, IFTA Board Liaison John Willey, IRP Board Representative Ruth Skluzacek, IRP Board Representative

7. IFTAIRP 2526 Jurisdictions have a combined IFTA / IRP shop 3231Do not have a combined shop 3034 Jurisdictions who would like a combined review 17 Would not like a combined review 106 Would like a combined audit review

8. Minnesota Review was held on July 12-14, 2006. Wyoming Review was held on May 16-18, 2007 Oregon Review was held on September 18-20, 2007

9. Gerald and Debbie met with the IRP Peer Review Committee in December 2005 to begin development of the Worksheets Audit worksheets were developed and utilized for all three test reviews. Administrative worksheets were developed, however there were too many differences identified to come up with one set of worksheets in the time frame allotted.

10. The steps necessary for travel arrangements were pretty much the same for the Combined Review process. IFTA, Inc. selected the hotel and secured the rooms. The Committee was divided into two teams, IFTA and IRP. Each organization handled the air travel and travel reimbursement for their designated team as they would for any other Review. IFTA, Inc. representatives led the Reviews with the full support and cooperation of the IRP team. Both teams were copied on all correspondence and documentation with the Jurisdictions. Separate Administrative Licensee/Registrant listings were secured and samples were selected from each. A combined listing for Audit was secured with the assistance of both IFTA and IRP. One audit listing was used in all three Reviews.

11. An overview of the process was provided by Debbie Meise followed by the IRP Opening Conference Report/Remarks by Ken Carey; then the IFTA Opening Conference Report/Preliminary Administrative Review Remarks were provided by Dick Beckner. Tours of the IFTA and IRP processing areas were provided by the jurisdictions. Once the tours concluded, the Review process began. Concluding the process, a Closing Conference was held. The IRP Closing Conference Report/Remarks were presented by the IRP Review Representatives and the IFTA Closing Conference Report/Remarks were presented by Dick Beckner.

12. The Jurisdiction Survey Question: How satisfied are you with the way in which you received the Pre Review Communications. Response: All three jurisdictions were satisfied. Question: The jurisdictions were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the following services provided by the Review Team prior to the On Site Review:  Preliminary administrative review information request.  Additional information requested prior to the on site Review.  Receipt of licensee/registrant and audit files selected prior to the on-site Review. Response: All three were satisfied with the exception of number three. All three expressed that they would have preferred the IRP Administrative sample ahead of time.

13. The Jurisdiction Survey Question: The jurisdictions were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the following services provided by the Review Team while On Site:  Opening Conference (including Team and Jurisdictions Introductions, Review Overview and Presentation of Preliminary Review findings)  Completion of the Review (including manner in which Team members conducted the review, procedural issues that may have arose, process thoroughly explained)  Closing Conference (including Review Findings, Post Review Procedures)  Overall On-Site Experience Response: All three jurisdictions were satisfied and offered comments for improvement.

14. The Jurisdiction Survey Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with the way in which the team conducted the Review? Response: All three jurisdictions were satisfied. Question: How likely would you be to recommend Combined Review to member jurisdictions? Response: Two of the three jurisdictions would recommend a combined Review.

15. The Jurisdiction Survey General Reviews Comments Review experience will help the programs become better and help us in ensuring compliance. The review gave us the incentive to focus on quality assurance, as our primary focus was on production. It would have been helpful to have received a listing of IRP accounts in advance. Overall, the review team members were easy to work with; knowledgeable and professional.

16. The Team Survey Question: What are your overall reactions to the combined review compared to your past experience conducting individual reviews? Response: By the final review the comments were similar in that the combined reviews were a little more cumbersome due to the number of participants; however the overall experience was good. Question: What parts of the combined review were more efficient? Response: Biggest benefit is to the audit portion. With two auditors more files can be reviewed. Question: Was the information and instructions you received in advance adequate and timely? Response: Yes.

17. The Team Survey Question: Did it appear the combined review presented any problems or unexpected burdens to the staff of the jurisdiction that you have not seen in single reviews? Response: No. It was apparent that the jurisdictions were pleased with the combined review team/process. Question: What didn't you like about the Combined Review Process? Response: The only negative comment was that the Administrative reviews were conducted separately. Question: What were its strengths and weaknesses? Strengths: The success of the combined audit review, one audit sample, two audit reviewers, beneficial to the jurisdictions. Weaknesses: Separate administrative review and time management.

18. The Team Survey Question: How can we improve this process? What suggestions do you have for improving the next combined review? Response: Conduct further reviews to perfect the process. Question: Would you recommend combined reviews? Response: Yes, especially in combined IFTA and IRP shops. General Reviews Comments A very positive experience. Beneficial for the jurisdictions. Overall excellent experience. Sign me up for future combined reviews.

19. Pros One Review for Jurisdictions (Time Savings) Review Same Audit /Administrative Files Two Auditors Cross Training of Review Teams on Admin Combined pre and post review conferences Future: Number of Reviewers from 6 to 5 utilizing one Review facilitator either from IFTA or IRP Cons Time of Reviews (IRP 1 ½ days v. IFTA 2 ½ days) No Cost Savings for Organizations or Jurisdictions Number of Reviewers does not change

20. The Audit portion of the combined reviews was a very good fit. The same audit sample was used for both IFTA and IRP. The combined worksheets, with some tweaking, proved to be a very good tool for the combined review process. Additionally more audit files could be reviewed with two (2) auditors. The committee concluded there was little common ground on the administrative portion due to the different styles of selecting the licensees/registrants lists for review, i.e. IFTA selects its licensee sample prior to the on-site review and IRP selects it’s registrants on site. However, combining the Reviews had no negative impact on either portion, audit or administrative. The biggest benefit is to the jurisdictions. The committee recommends combined reviews be performed whenever possible.

21. 4 Year Review Cycle v. 5 Year Review Cycle Regional Reviews v. Implementation Year Review Rotation Combined Review v. Separate Reviews at the same time