The State of California has come up with a new fleet replacement program that has me puzzled.

According to Robert L. Harkness, director of the California Department of General Services, the new program involves a "more flexible policy on automotive equipment aimed at reducing maintenance costs." Basically, California will now take a look at replacing vehicles at 70,000 miles rather than 100,000 miles as has been the case in the past. The thing that has me puzzled is that it is going to cost California $400,000 to implement the program. Maybe I'm old fashion, but I think that a program cannot be classified as a cost-saving program if it takes additional money to put into effect.

The new program is an outgrowth of a study by the Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. The commission, after an intensive study, reported that California is driving its fleet of cars too long and called for a policy of selling vehicles after not more than three years of use. The study also urged that "careful consideration" be given to annual replacement. By replacing vehicles annually, the state could save $125 to $175 a vehicle per year in maintenance costs.

"This is a judgment question for mechanical experts, which we have, and at this 'critical period' inspection time the issue should be left in their hands," Harkness said. "For the state to make major repairs costing hundreds of dollars on some car in order to get another 30,000 miles from it does not pay off. Earlier replacement of some cars will require an increase in capital appropriation for the next few years, but we believe it is justified because major repairs and lost use time will be avoided."

It seems to me that the new "more flexible" policy represents a compromise between the commission report and the old 100,000 mile policy. While I am in favor of any policy that gives the fleet administrator more authority, I don't think that the California program really means much. While I have no specific knowledge, I would hazard a guess that California had many vehicles that were replaced before the speedometer hit 100,000 miles, I don't believe that any state can strictly adhere to a 100,000 mile replacement program.

If we agree that California has been replacing vehicles before the 100,000 mile limit, what does the new policy mean? I think it will result in a general acceptance of the belief that vehicles will be eligible for replacement when they reach 70,000 miles. In effect, it will lead the individual operators to conclude that maintenance and care of the equipment need only be sufficient to reach 70,000 miles.  It could, in fact, result in the condition of cars with 70,000 miles to approximate the condition of vehicles with 100,000 miles. Where is the savings?

A better policy for California, I believe, would allow the various state fleet administrators to determine when vehicles should be replaced, ignoring any rigid mileage requirements. I personally know several California fleet men and I know that they have the ability to determine proper replacement procedures. Rigid rules only tend to tamper efficient operations. A program of 70,000 or 100,000 mile replacement should be a goal, not a mandate.

I also feel that the additional $400,000 expenditure will become a permanent thing. Rarely do state officials give up money once they have their hands on it. So, California citizens might just as well condition themselves to the fact that the state's fleet program is going to cost $400,000 more per year.