CHAPTER 6
Funding

6.1 Determining Costs

The costs of roadside vegetation asset management tasks reflect staff salaries along with the costs of equipment, materials, tools, technology, and subscriptions. Except for software costs, state DOT staff stated that they can identify where funds go across the state DOT through either COTS or solely proprietary software (e.g., Power BI or FIRS) that can pull data from spreadsheets or other software programs and analyze the information to determine where the state DOT is spending funds. However, the availability of cost information depends on whether the state DOTʼs management software incorporates all relevant costs, including equipment, materials, and staff time. To compile the most accurate cost estimates, management software needs to include categories for each individual task (including specialized equipment relocation if it needs to be moved from one location in the state to another, or for mobilization and demobilization at the beginning and end of the day).

Using the information obtained through the state DOTʼs management software, state DOT staff can identify what tasks, staff time, and equipment use are listed under each task type and the associated purposes. The information obtained by staff through the DOTʼs management software can include the amount of time spent moving equipment around the state and equipment repair costs. These numbers can provide insight into the equipment, tools, and technology that the state can purchase to ensure all tasks are completed in an effective and timely manner. Using management software can also help state DOT staff identify when equipment, tools, or technology should be moved between locations within the state DOT for the highest return on investment. State DOT staff, particularly local staff, complete various tasks, including repaving, herbicide application, mowing, vehicle maintenance, tree removal, pavement resealing, and snow and ice removal. State DOT staff move among multiple tasks each day to maintain their assigned county or maintenance area properly. Sometimes management software incorrectly categorizes state DOT staff time, or the management software requires tasks (e.g., equipment maintenance or relocating equipment from one part of a state to another) to be entered under the task for which the equipment will ultimately be used. For instance, a staff member could log the time it takes to sharpen mower blades, locate the mower, and drive it from another area of the state under the mowing task. This can (1) lead to the central office being unaware of how much time is spent annually on specific tasks and (2) make it difficult to determine the associated costs. This lack of specificity compromises the usefulness of the data and can make it difficult to analyze when equipment is unavailable due to repairs or to determine costs associated with transferring equipment around the state. To resolve this issue, state DOTs can add subtasks that separate the equipment transfer, equipment maintenance, and asset management within the management system to allow upper management to see what tasks staff complete daily.

The use of multipurpose equipment (e.g., dump trucks for herbicide, snow and ice removal, and hauling large items) can cause issues determining what tasks were completed with said equipment. When equipment is used for multiple unrelated tasks, the management system may not recognize equipment as being used for all its purposes. This can lead to underestimating costs associated with such equipment for one or more of the tasks for which it was used. State DOT management staff can perform quality control checks on timesheets to ensure the equipment is listed under the appropriate task according to the employeeʼs timesheet.

Many states interviewed during the case studies indicated that determining the actual cost of software systems was difficult because software system costs are tied up in IT and GIS staff salaries and the use of statewide contracts include departments other than the state DOT. Each case study state DOT has at least one PCCA system, and four of the five DOTs interviewed also have solely proprietary software systems they are using. A couple of states indicated that they could not provide the cost of the system statewide because that information was not available within their department.

States with dedicated IT staff within the maintenance department indicated that their systems have been active for 5-plus years, with the oldest systems still in use having been developed in 2010 for WSDOT. WSDOT shared that they had two full-time IT staff members and one part-time IT staff member who created several of their proprietary systems. These staff members primarily support the maintenance department within the state DOT. ODOT indicated that it has four IT staff members dedicated to the maintenance division to ensure IT needs are met, including developing and updating software. During the case study interviews, states without dedicated IT staff indicated that they assume a 5-year lifespan on all solely proprietary software systems, but that PCCA or COTS software has a longer lifespan because developers regularly provide updates.

The cost of subscriptions is a relatively new issue facing many state DOTs. Before the widespread use of data collection through tablets and other tracking devices and the associated systems used to analyze and share the data, many states relied on pen and paper to document information across the DOT. Using tools and technology improves accuracy, information retention, and communication but comes with yearly subscription fees for PCCA and COTS systems. State DOT staff members interviewed during the case studies stated the subscription fees were one of the reasons the DOT did not opt for PCCA software and instead purchased access for COTS or solely proprietary software (which have less expensive subscription costs). The states without dedicated IT support staff in their organization had issues with the solely proprietary software—IT staff members could not provide the necessary updates to ensure the software remained usable by the state DOT once the underlying system was out of date and no longer supported commercially. States without dedicated IT staff may want to identify and purchase COTS software to improve roadside vegetation asset management plans. States with dedicated IT staff within the maintenance department will have equal success with COTS, PCCA, and solely proprietary software.

6.2 Hardware and Software Replacement Budgeting

Determining an accurate roadside vegetation asset management budget can be difficult, especially given that many state DOTs do not know the exact size of their right-of-way or the amount of acreage they maintain yearly. This situation is complicated further by the issues listed in the previous section. Some of the state DOTs interviewed for the case studies stated that most of the budget for roadside vegetation asset management tasks goes toward staff salaries. To incorporate tools and technology, additional funding is necessary to purchase and support the use of the equipment. State DOTs can expect to replace hardware (e.g., tablets and cellular phones) at

least every 5 years, possibly sooner depending on the extent of use. If a state DOT expects staff to use tablets extensively, it is recommended that the agency budget for replacements every 3 to 4 years. Computers should also be replaced regularly to ensure all systems are compatible and that the underlying operating systems of the devices are supported. In states such as Washington or Ohio where DOT staff record all maintenance and monitoring on tablets, a 3- to 4-year lifespan is expected. TDOT, with limited staff access and use, expects a 5-year lifespan from the tablets used by staff.

The lifespan of software varies depending on factors such as the type of IT support and the software classification. COTS software tends to have a longer lifespan than solely proprietary software, given that the developer releases necessary updates to provide users with a positive experience with their software. Solely proprietary software requires state DOT IT staff to update the system regularly, including switching the systemʼs operating system when manufacturers cease to support it.

6.3 Training Budgets

As states move toward a more technologically driven asset management process, agencies must budget for training to ensure state DOT staff are adequately trained on the system. Several of the states interviewed for the case studies stated that the person chosen to develop and run the roadside vegetation asset management program was selected because they were staff members with experience using mapping and tracking software. State DOTs can budget for retaining or hiring staff who can use the desired software to ensure state DOTs can meet their roadside vegetation asset management program goals. State DOTs may choose to authorize regular training for employees to ensure they can use the tools and technology required for their positions, including local staff who spend much of their time in the field. Local field staff can provide the most current information on roadside assets and will be able to provide most of the mapping and tracking of the assets.

6.4 Funding Sources

Obtaining funding to complete necessary work is one of the most important tasks for state DOTs. The main source of federal funding related to roadside vegetation asset management is for restoring roadside revegetation at the conclusion of construction projects; otherwise, general vegetation management is typically state funded.

State DOTs are primarily funded through the state legislature, with federal funding constituting a small amount of total funding. The state legislature collects funds through state taxes (e.g., gas taxes) and other road and vehicle taxes. Most federal funding is slated for construction or federally regulated assets such as bridges and pavement, resulting in DOTs using state funding to provide roadside vegetation asset management. State DOTs seeking federal funding sources for roadside vegetation asset management have had difficulty identifying sources in the past. This might be due to state DOT staff looking primarily for funding available exclusively to state DOTs. However, roadside vegetation asset management funding is not limited to funding opportunities directed at state DOTs. Because state DOT land is public land, grants and other funding opportunities designated for public lands for wildlife or habitat restoration are applicable (e.g., invasive plant species control or establishing and maintaining pollinator habitat through native plant seeding). These funds can be awarded to state DOTs if the agencies can prove that the goals of the funding will be met.

The application submittal window for federal grants is generally several months long, but there is no guarantee a DOT will be awarded any funding through these programs. For example, the

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), provides funding through grants to state DOTs if the grants and the DOT goals are compatible. These funding sources can be directed toward pollinator support, invasive plant species removal, or habitat corridors. To increase the possibility of receiving grant funding, states can develop clear and distinct roadside vegetation asset management goals. These goals will vary among states depending on the region, the ultimate goals of the DOT, and other factors. Distinct, clear goals can help guide the search for both external and internal funding opportunities by convincing state legislatures and upper management within the DOT to provide funding for roadside vegetation asset management.

Federal funding sources vary from year to year. Grant opportunities designed for public lands and available through the IIJA have short application periods. State DOT staff must be on the lookout and ready to apply for funding opportunities when they arise.

Locating these funding sources can be time-consuming, so state DOTs will either want to have an in-house grant writer or to hire a contractor to locate and apply for grants. Using a grant writer will improve a stateʼs chances of receiving the type and amount of funding desired. However, the grant writer will require clear and specific information regarding the state DOTʼs goals and desired outcomes when locating and applying for funding through these programs. These goals can be provided by upper management and possibly the state legislature. Specific grants found by the research team during this project include those designed to assist with fish crossing through culverts per the IIJA as identified on the grants.gov website. Additional funding from prior years was identified through FHWA grants for controlling noxious and invasive plants and expanding and protecting pollinator habitat along the right-of-way (FHWA 2006; Grants.gov 2024). The pollinator habitat funding application was available on grants.gov for several months in early 2024.

Funding can also be provided through construction grants. Historically, state DOTs have been able to ask for up to 3 years of funding to establish vegetation along the right-of-way. One state DOT recently received 10 years of federal funding for specific roadside vegetation asset management tasks by ensuring its goals and priorities were clear to the funding agency. This was possible because of the extent of native vegetation installed along the roadway for the project and the longer establishment period associated with these species. This shows that, although most funding is available for vegetation installation, it is possible for state DOTs to receive funding for vegetation management when there is a need for longer vegetation establishment times (e.g., when native vegetation is seeded or trees are planted along the right-of-way). When using funding sources for habitat management, state DOTs may be required to provide regular updates on the asset being funded. These updates will be separate from the requirements for participants to show compliance with a specific program (e.g., completing annual surveys to demonstrate pollinator habitats are being maintained appropriately and benefiting pollinators as required).