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

Home

in police service for an additional two years with departmental approval, the total al I owance received over 10 years ($488 x 120 months = $58,560) 1 i kd y reduces the I i feti me cost of the car to $0. Thi s scenari o creates a di si ncenti ve for county pot i ce off cers to abandon the subsi dy system, i n parti cut ar those officers who purchase more expensive 4 -wheel drive vehicles. The department's 1994 study acknowledged this problem by recommending that officers selected for i is fl eet car pi 1 of project be a mix of rooki es (not yet recei vi ng a car al I owance) and veteran off cers whose cars were approachi ng or had met the expi rati on date (8-10 years) for subsi dy d i gi bi I i ty. M eanwhi I e, a taxpayer mi ght ask: why shout d my takes pay for an al I owance that exceeds actual costs after the officer has finished making payments on the car? In turn, the officer might reply, why shouldn't I recei ve the bal ance the actual costs I i ncurred duri ng the f i rst four years of the I i f of my car? I s the al I owance system meant to pay al I costs i ncurred by offi cers for the I i f span of thei r vehi cl es? Nothing in the SH OPO contract says so. Instead, the al I owance system seems to be constructed in such a way as to nearly, or very nearly, generate that result, without ever saying so. All the studies summarized above are si I ent on the matter. Shout d an al I owance system pay for al I costs of car ownershi p i ncurred by county pot i ce offi cers? None of the studi es ci ted above attempted to answer that questi on. I n i is 1972 assessment of the car al I owance system, PM M & Co. suggested a 70% " off i ci al use' f ormul a based on off i ci al mi I eage, and exd udi ng off - duty mileage, to reflect actual costs. No subsequent proposal emerged to implement a distinction between on -duty and off -duty costs. Whi I e off cers and thei r fami I y members enj oy personal (al bei t I i mi ted) use of subsi di zed cars, no formul a has set a val ue for the personal use of subsi di zed automobi I es. L i kenri se, despi to noteti ons i n H CPD studi es that the department's 1 gal I on:10 official miles ratio for i ssuance of gasol i ne al I owed " the use of excess fuel by subsi di zed vehi d es with better than al I owed for gas mi I eage," no initiative has been undertaken to al I of gas i n accordance wi th actual f ud performance. I n fact, the most recent M i chi gan State POI i ce fuel economy tests of pot i ce package vehicles [see Exhi bi t 8, M SP Tests, 2004] i ndi Cates that even the hefty V -8 Ford Interceptor delivers combined ci ty /hi ghway EPA 18 mi I es per gal I on. The county's 1 gal I on: 10 off ci al mi I es reti o may have made sense 30 years ago when cars were I ess fuel effi d ent. But why shout d thi s standard prevai I i n 2004? Exhibit a Fuel economy EPA Miles Per Gallon Meaufacturer+PAodeI City Highway Combined Chevrolet Impala 20 29 23 3.8L 1231 cid) SPFI Chevrol at Te hoe (2 -wheel drive) la 20 I6.5 5.3L x327 oid} SPFI Chevrol at Te hoe (4 -wheel drive) 14 1s 16.5 5.3L M27 cid) SPFI GaimlerClirysler Dodge Irnrepid 19 27 22 3.5L (214 cid i SPFI Ford Police Interceptor X16 21 18 4.6L (281 cid) SPFI Ford Expedition 12 -wheel drive, 13 17 15 SAL (330 cid) SMPI F©rd Explorer (2 -wheel drives la 20 17 4.6L (281 cid) SPFI 2004 Michigan State Police Test Fuel Economy Summary There i s i nherent confI i ct and tensi on i n any rei mbursement system that di verges f rom actual costs. The present al I owance system has the potenti al for di storti on and vague enti tl ement. The I ack of a d ear, wri tten rei mbursement pot i cy for i temi zed expenses exacerbates thi s probl em. I f the subsi dy system i s Conti nued, we recommend that rei mbursements shout d be based upon actual, i temi zed, documented costs. M oreover, we recommend that the rati o of gasol i ne i ssued at 1 gal I on per 10 offi ci al duty mi I es be revi sed to correspond to actual mi I es per gal I on I ogged by county pot i ce cars.