2004-01-AU Hawai‘i County Police Department Vehicles

Home

The report further i ndi cated that i is cost esti mate ref ected $138,376 i n col I i si on/vehi d e damages, based upon actual collisions and property damage costs averaged over the past three years. However, it noted that "wi th a sel f -i nsured f I eet program ... H CPD would save approxi matel y $320,022 a year in insurance premi ums." The report al so proj ected savi ngs i n gasol i ne expenses due to the exd usi ve use of gas i n fl eet vehi d es, thereby el i mi nati ng " the use of excess f uel by subsi di zed vehi cl es wi th better than al I owed for gas mi I eage." The report cauti oned that i is cal cul ati ons were " not meant to be concl usi vd' but di d proceed to propose a " smal I -scal a pi I of program" to test " the effecti veness and feasi bi I i ty of a fl eet program for H CPD." I t suggested that a pi I of program shoul d be based out of the South H i I o Patrol D i stri ct to enabl e a I arge percentage of departmental personnel to be exposed to the program. H i I o was al so proposed due to i is range of car deal ers, repai r garages and detai I i ng shops to servi ce the program. Fi nal I y, H i I o was seen to offer " a good base i n determi ni ng the publ i d s reacti on to the use of f eet vehi d es." To mitigate the circumstance of officers paying for a subsidized car while participating in the pilot program, the study recommended that either new hired officers or volunteer veteran officers be used. The study proposed that rooki a off cers be assi gned to the proj ect after graduati on from the Fi d d Trai ni ng Program and prior to permanent assignment. It was suggested that veteran officers could be selected upon determination that their vehicles exceeded the established age limit for a subsidy al I owance. Moreover, a mix of new and veteran officers offered "a better perspective into the advantages and di sadvantages of a fl eet vehi d e program." The pi I of program was proposed for one year, al though the study suggested that " a I onger peri od may be more desirable." Data to be gathered from the pilot program would be used to "determine the feasibility and effi ci ency of a parti al or enti re fl eet program by extrapol ati ng the expenses and responses attai ned i n the pi I of program to a deli red fl eet si ze." Despi to the consi derabl a cost anal ysi s and i ncremental recommendati ons offered i n H CPD' s 1994 fl eet vehi d e study, the proposed South H i I o pi I of program was never i naugurated. In March, 2003 severed new reports from the Maui County Pot i ce Department, West Hawai ` i Crime Stoppers, I nc. , and the H awai ` i County Pot i ce Department aged n took up the i ssue of subsi di zed vs. f I eet pol i ce. F. Maui Police Department "Subsidized Automobile Study," 2002 The f i rst, ti tl ed " %b§ di zed Automobi I e Study' and compl eted i n Jul y 2002, was transmi tted by M aui Pol i ce Chi of Thomas Phi I I i ps to Kenneth Tall ra, Deputy Di rector of Personnel, M aui County, on M arch 19, 2003. Its preface stated that "previous studies and reports submitted by the SH OPO Union have stated that a subsi di zed fl eet i s ... a cheaper and more effi ci ent pol i ce force than usi ng county -owned fl eet vehicles." While noting that "it i s our opinion that a standing f I eet is probably cheaper to operate than a subsi di zed fl eet," the M aui report asserted that " the benefi is of a subsi di zed f I eet, both to the communi ty and to the officers, far outweigh the additional cost per year that maybe expended." It concluded: "The 'bottom I i ne' i s that a subsi di zed vehi d e f I eet wi I I i mprove the qual i ty of I i f i n M aui County, therefore i t i s cost effecti ve and shoul d be consi dered." The M aui report i ndi cated that a " cauti vd' i nsurance company was expected to " be created by Jul y 2003." The report suggested that accordi ng to H onol ul u Ci ty & County Ri sk M anager Beverl y Braun, a cauti ve insurance company would offer coverage for county subsidized police vehicles and reimburse excess 28