Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0551.000 2002-2004
M~v os N1 Joseph Reynolds ~ Cel: (808) 326-5684 Courcci! Member Fax: (808) 326-5697 ir.;: r~ ~r~ p~~H~'v1 c+ c> s t7 COUNTY COUNCIL ~ (~ounty of llawni'i - Kona (~uw~cil O(Jice ~ -~-(3l9 Nalanl ~S[r'ee(, Suue IOJ Kalhia-Kona. llaneii'i 96 ~d0-X )RO _ ~ March 4, 2004 s MEMORANDUM = ~ TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair, and Council Me s FROM: Council Member Joseph Reynolds SUBJECT: Attached Report on Hawai°i Coun o ice Department Vehicles For your review, please find a copy of the "Keport on Hawai' i County Police Vehicles" prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office pursuant to Council budget discussions in April/May, 2003. Along with former Council Member Bobby Jean Lcithead-Todd, 1 requested that the Auditor's Oftce prepare this report last year in order to more fully inform the Council on policy directions and options relating to county police cars. With your agreement, I request that this report he placed on the April 6, 2004 agenda of the Finance Committee. Along with a presentation by the Auditor's Office, I wish to invite Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna or his representative, Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida, and William'Lakaba or his designate from the Finance Department to comment on the report and its recommendations. I hope this transmittal prompts a positive and thoughtful discussion on this subject. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JR/rf Attachment: "Report on Hawaii County Police Department Vehicles" cc: Mayor Harry Kim Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Members, Hawaii County Police Commission William Takaba, Finance Director Comm: No. 5~ Ref. To: Ref. Uate ~''~QR~ REPORT ON HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES rr or ~ c. ~.«•N'+ .4~C LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR'S OFFICE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL FEBRUARY, 2004 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION t SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 SECTION 1: KEY PROVISIONS AND BUDGETARY OVERVIEW OF THE HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE PROGRAM A. Key Provisions of the HCPD Subsidized Vehicle Program 6 B. Current Vehicle Allowance Costs 8 C. Insurance Costs 8 D. Five-Year Budget Summary 9 SECTION 2: AUDITOR'S OFFICE INQUIRY TO CORPORATION COUNSEL RE: SHOPO CONTRACT A. Auditor's Office Inquiry Re: SHOPO Contract 10 B. Corporation Counsel Guidance dated August 26, 2003 11 SECTION 3: REVIEW OF HAWAII COUNTY'S PAST STUDIES ON SUBSIDIZED vs. FLEET SYSTEMS A. Police Cars in Hawal`i and Guam 13 B. "A Study of the Automobile Allowance System of the Hawai i County Police Department,,, 1972 14 C. Hawaii County Police Department "Pilot Police Fleet Study," 1978 18 D. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Review of the Puna Fleet Study, 1979 21 E. "Police Automobile Fleet Study for the Hawaii Police Department," 1994 22 1. Maui Police Department Fleet Program Findings 22 F. Maui Police Department "Subsidized Autonobile Study," 2002 28 G. "The Price of Visibility," West Hawai i Crime Stoppers, Inc., 2003 29 H. Hawal`i Police Department Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report, 2003 30 I. Hawal`i Police Departmem Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report II, 2003 32 J. summary 35 SECTION 4: POLICE VISIBILITY AND MARKED POLICE PATROL FLEETS - A REVIEW A. An Examination of the Effectiveness of Traditional Police Patrol 38 1. National Institute of Justice Findings 39 2. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment 40 i CONTENTS B. Snapshot: Crime Statistics in Hawai`i 42 C. The Merits of Take-Home Cats and "Assigned Vehicle Programs" 46 D. The Importance of Transparency in Police Work 48 E. Police Visibility and Traffic Enforcement 50 F. Proposed Guidelines for Police Patrol Car Markings Sl G. State Statutes Relating to Inscription of Government Motor Vehicles S4 1. Auditoi s Office Inquiry Re: HRS Statutes 54 2. Corporation Counsel Guidance dated January 29, 2004 55 H. Summary 57 SECTION 5: POLICE VEHICLES -PRACTICES, SPECIFICATIONS, TRENDS AND PURCHASING GUIDELINES A. No Accreditation Standard for Police Cars Used by State or Local Police Departments 59 B. U.S. Department of Justice National Survey Data re: Police Vehicles and Related "In-Field" Equipment 60 1. Take-Home/Personal Use of Police Cars 61 2. In-Field Technology 61 3. Computers and Information Systems 63 4. Computers in the Field 64 C. A Review of Police Package Car Design and Technology Trends 65 , 1. The Problem of Equipment-Crowded Vehicles 65 2. Advances in Vehicle-Mounted Mobile Data Temunals 67 3. The Future of Car Batteries 68 4. Meeting the Challenge of "In-Field" Technology 68 (1) Funding Equipment Costs 68 (2) Officer Training 69 (3) Microwave Infrastruaure 72 D. Summary Results of the "2004" Model Year Police Vehicle Evaluation," Michigan State Police and National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center 77 1. Suttunary: NLEGTC Bulletin, January, 2004 79 (1) What's New for 2004 80 (2) Vehicle Dynamics Testing 81 (3) Acceleration and Top Speed Testing 82 (4) Braking Testing 83 (5) Ergonomics and Communications 83 (6) Fuel Economy 85 E. Considerations & Options for Police Vehicle Purchasing, Leasing and Fleet Management 85 F. Summary 89 ii APPENDICES A, SHOPO Agreement, Article 18 ("Subsidized Automobiles") 92 B. Hawaii County Police Department General Orders Relating to Subsidized Vehicles 1. General Order No. 802 - "Police Vehicles and Equipment" 95 2. General Order No. 803 - °Gasoline, Oil & Mileage Record" 97 3. General Order No. 808 - "Transporting Persons in Patrol Cars" 100 4. General Order No. 809 - "Use of Temporary Vehicles for Official Police Duty" 101 5. General Order No. 814 - "Police Subsidized Vehicle Extension Request Procedures" 102 C. HRS Sections Relating to Government Motor Vehicles 1. Section 105-1 Govenunenc motor vehicles; certain uses prohibited 104 2. Section 105-2(3) Exceptions 104 3. Section 105-7 Inscription on county motor vehicles 104 4. Section 105-8 Character of inscription 104 5. Section 291-31.5 Blue lights prohibited for motor vehicles, motorrycles, motor scooters, birycles, mopeds 105 6. Section 710-1027 Resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle 105 D. Auditor's Office Inquiry to Corporation Counsel re: SHOPO Contract 1. Memorandum dated July 15, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie IGriu to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida requesting an Opinion re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO contract 107 2. Copy of July, 13, 2003 West Hateeni Tory article titled "SHOPO Official: Urdilcely police will switch to fleet" 109 3. Memorandum (WRK No. 03-5909) dated August 26, 2003 from Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia K. OToole to Legislative Auditor Connie ICiriu re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Contract; and 110 4. Memorandum dated September 8, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu to Mayor Harry Kim, Chief Lawrence Mahuna and Council Members transmitting Corporation Counsel Opinion/WRK No. 03-5909 114 E. BIBLIOGRAPHY iii REPORT ON HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES t±?! n ~4 LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR'S OFFICE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL February, 2004 Introduction Since its inception in 1943, the Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) has utilized a subsidized reimbursement program for the use of private vehicles by its officers. Reports on file in the Legislative Auditor's Office indicate that the feasibility of continuing HCPD's subsidized vehicle program vs. purchasing marked "blue & white" police cars has been evaluated by HCPD in 1972, 1978, 1994 and 2003. Recently, a study titled "The Price of Visibility" prepared by West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. proposed that a phased two-year purchase of 351 police fleet vehicles would generate savings of $225,399 annually. The study further surmised that conversion to a fleet of marked police cars would increase police visibility in the community and thereby deter crime, as well as enable more effective utilization of manpower and installation of the latest technological equipment in police cars. The report was submitted by Alan J. Pratt, president of West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. and immediate past president of Crime Stoppers International. Mr. Pratt presented his study for consideration by the County Council at its public hearing on the proposed FY 2003-04 budget on March 19, 2003 in Kona. Pursuant to the Council's discussion of the West Hawaii Crime Stoppers study, South Kona Council Member Joe Reynolds and former Council Member Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd asked the Legislative Auditor's Office to review available literature and findings relating to HCPD's subsidy program vs. a county-owned and maintained police fleet. This report prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Oftce summarizes past report findings and seeks to shed light on key issues and considerations for policy-making relating to county police cars. Considerable investigation of national practices and trends was undertaken to provide objective guidance and insight. As the Council gave no specific instructions by resolution to the Legislative Auditor regarding the scope or findings of this inquiry pursuant to the Council's protocol for special studies, the Auditor's Office proceeded to organize its fact-finding in five subject areas, as follows: Section 1: Key Provisions Aod Budgetary Overview of the Hawaii County Police Department Subsidized Vehicle Program Section 2: Auditor's Office Inquiry to Corporation Counsel re: SHOPO Contract Section 3: Review of Hawaii County's Past Studies on Subsidized vs. Fleet Systems Section 4: Police Visibility and Marked Police Patrol Fleets - A Review Section 5: Police Vehicles -Practices, SpeciTications, Trends and Purchasing Guidelines For reference, a binder containing key documents and articles listed in the bibliography appended to this report is maintained in the Legislative Auditor's Office for review. While this study presents some forthright recommendations, it is not intended to be "the last word" on the issue of subsidized vs. County-owned or leased police cars. Rather, it attempts to ask pertinent questions, gather information and objective empirical data, and invite an open-minded dialogue on the policy of subsidized vs. county-owned police cars. Policy respective to police cars may be driven by budget considerations (and perceived savings) or by objectives-i.e., what is the best police vehicle for job performance and enhanced public safety. This report recommends that a thoughtful combination of performance-based law enforcement objectives and astute budget analysis should guide decision-making regarding vehicles used by the Hawaii County Police Department. 2 Summary Findings and Recommendations A. Extent of Policy Direction and Union Contract Several legal concerns related to the SHOPO contract emerged during the course of preparing this study. A memorandum dated July I5, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida posed questions relating to Article 18 ("Subsidized Automobiles") of the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) contract and the policy-making authority of the County Council as it relates to county police vehicles. The responses to these queries from Deputy Corporation Counsel Pat O'Toole (Corp. Counsel Wrk. No. 03-5909) dated August 26, 2003 provide guidance for conversion to a county-owned police fleet, should such action be initiated by the Police Department in the future. Key findings in the Corporation Counsel opinion include the following: (1) The County may change its policies respective to subsidized automobiles during the life of the SHOPO contract, upon consulting the Union; (2) The County is not obligated to pay for the cost of subsidized private vehicles if it converts to a county-owned fleet system; (3) Provisions in the present SHOPO contract (Section M) specific to Maui and Kauai do not apply to the Hawaii County Police Department. For Maui and Kauai, these provisions in the SHOPO contract require that, upon termination of a policy requiring officers to use private automobiles for official duty, any subsidized vehicle in satisfactory operating condition must be retained as a subsidized vehicle until said vehicle has aged six years from the date of sale. Prudently, the Corporation Counsel notes that "should the policy on subsidized vehicles change, we expect that SHOPO, the employer [County of Hawai`i], would meet to negotiate items relating to the effects of change in policy since they would likely fall under the category of `terms and conditions' which must be recognized. A similar provision [like Maui and Kauai) might result." While the outcome of any future negotiation is unknown, should the negotiation replicate the provisions of fleet conversion for Maui and Kauai, the County of Hawaii (and its taxpayers) could end up paying the cost of new police package fleet vehicles plus continuing allowances for subsidized cars for, in some cases, up to six years. (4) Re: County Council policy-making authority over the matter of police cars, Corporation Counsel notes that "to the extent that the subsidy for a police vehicle is a cost item, the Council has the authority under the law to reject it if desired." However, the Council is advised to take note of the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in the case of City Council of the City and County of Honolulu v. Fasi 52 Haw. 3 (1970). In that case, the Hawaii Supreme Court said that `policy' refers to decisions of broad and general applicability and not an ad hoc command to take specific action. Copies of the Auditor's Office inquiry with attachments and Corporation Counsel response referenced above are appended to this report [Appendix D]. 3 B. Recommended Standard Markings of County Police Cars We find that some of the most compelling trends in police work -community policing, the principle of transparency, the emergence of high-tech "smart cars" -all point in the direction of community partnering conspicuous professionalism, and service to the public. In the years ahead, this standard should prevail for the Hawaii County Police Department. The standardized police patrol caz markings proposed by Law and Order magazine and presented in Section 3 of this report provide guidance in this azea. Not all county police cars need to be marked cazs. A nationwide U.S. Department of Justice survey cited in this report indicates that for jurisdictions comparable to Hawaii County (populations of 100,000- 249,999 residents), 42% of police cazs are unmarked. Typically, many cars used by police administrative personnel and detectives are unmarked; a quota of "undercover" cars is commonplace in police work. Many police departments allow atake-home policy, including personal use of marked patrol cars, by their officers. Accordingly, we have not seen a legitimate reason why county-subsidized cazs should not be painted a standard color and prominently marked with the HCPD shield to enhance their visibility and professional appearance, without otherwise altering the department's existing personal use policies. Short of any partial or complete conversion to county-owned police package vehicles, the issue of "police visibility" in Hawaii County can be resolved, in large part, by administrative directive and the will to do so. While inscription of privately owned vehicles may not be required pursuant to § 105-7 and § 105-8, HRS (per Corporation Counsel opinion), such inscription may be instituted by a general order directive from the Police Chief, in line with many other regulatory specifications imposed on subsidized vehicles in County police service. We urge the Hawaii County Police Department to reconsider its posture toward unmarked police cars. Fora ]aw enforcement agency whose historic mission is to "serve and protect," it is ill-advised to persist in defending a policy of unmarked cars in an era when public safety and assurance aze ever more linked to conspicuous identification of essential, first responder public safety providers. In this matter, an ethic of forthright public service should prevail. C. Recommended Revisions of the Automobile Allowance Subsidy If continued, the subsidy program should be revised to reflect: (1) greater accountability of documented reimbursable costs for the use of personal cazs for official police duty; (2) a fonnu]a delineating the percentage of official use costs from off-duty personal use costs; and (3) an adjustment of the gasoline issuance ratio of 1 gallon per 10 official duty miles to a ratio in conformance with the actual miles per gallon (mpg) performance of subsidized cars. D. Strategic Conversion to Police Package Vehicles We believe that any major conversion to a county-owned or leased fleet of Detroit manufactured "police package" cars and "specialty service" vehicles should occur only after - (1) The Police Department undertakes a methodical assessment of its patrolling needs-i.e., how would police package cars enhance patrol performance and officer capabilities in each of the eight police districts? What strategic public safety objectives would be accomplished? What are the needs for 4-wheel drive and other specialty vehicles? How many are needed? How many cars should have a backseat "cage" for detainee transport? Ideally, what mix of standard and specialty 4 equipment should be stored in the trunk; how many cubic feet of trunk space are required? What in-car communications equipment is needed? The Auditor's Office makes no assumption that "one size fits all" with respect to the make/model, add-ons, or assigned use of police vehicles. The Police Department is best equipped to make these determinations. It is entirely possible that some combination of marked fleet vehicles and subsidized private cazs may yield the best mix for the sake of public safety performance and economy in vehicle operations. (2) The Police Department undertakes an exploratory (and networking) training in police fleet purchasing and management. The upcoming August 2004 National Association of Fleet Managers/Law Enforcement Group conference in Las Vegas should be attended by the police chief or a motivated designate, accompanied by an experienced purchasing agent from the Finance Department. Police Departments that excel in fleet management develop skill sets-in maintenance scheduling; in life/cost and depreciation analysis, in fuel economies; in loss prevention/driver education efforts to reduce losses/claims due to officer accidents; in keenly attuned monitoring of technology trends and upgrade opportunities. These skills are not mastered quickly; there is trial-and-error and a learning curve. The challenge begins when the task is accepted. (3) A thorough examination of purchasing and/or leasing strategies which precedes any action to convert to a County-owned and operated police fleet. Such examination should also include exploring the possibilities of "piggy-back" purchasing in consultation with other counties. The specifications of police cazs purchased by the City & County of Honolulu, Maui or Kauai may meet the needs of Hawaii County. Such a purchasing strategy is employed in many states and has been shown to yield savings. (4) Hawaii County upgrades its microwave system to accommodate today's "smart" police package cars. Police car technology trends point to a vital synergy between police voice/data radio systems, computers such as mobile data terminals, and the "backbone infrastructure" provided by interoperable 800 MHz wireless communications systems. The 800 Megahertz upgrade deemed essential for county public safety agencies presents a daunting $24 million CIP funding challenge. It also allows time for thoughtful, strategic planning for the deployment of the police cars of the future. 5 SECTION 1 KEY PROVISIONS AND BUDGETARY OVERVIEW OF THE HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE PROGRAM This section presents: A. Key provisions of the HCPD subsidized vehicle program B. Current vehicle allowance costs C. Insurance costs D. Five-year budget summary A. Key provisions of the HCPD subsidized vehicle program All sworn Hawaii County Police Department officers participate in the subsidized vehicle program with the exception of recmits, officers on light duty status, and motorcycle patrol officers. The program provides a monthly cash allowance set by a negotiated SHOPO contract with the four counties, as well as liability insurance and a gas mileage reimbursement rate also set by union bargaining agreement. The current SHOPO bargaining agreement stipulates that any changes to the subsidized vehicle program "will not be made without prior consultation with the Union." Key provisions of the Police Department's subsidized automobile program include the Following: • Monthly Allowance: Police officers who regularly use their private cars for official duty receive a monthly allowance. The allowance for "Group I" officers consisting of Patrol (Sergeants, PO), Traffic Task Force and Uniformed Lieutenants is $488 per month. The allowance for "Group II" officers consisting of the Criminal Investigation Division, Criminal Intelligence Unit, Community Relations, Vice Division, Juvenile Aid Bureau, Records and Traffic Division is $450 per month. Officers may continue to receive allowances during authorized leaves of absence with pay, including industrial injury leaves, not exceeding a continuous period of six months. Allowances are cancelled when an officer is under suspension, on sick or injury leave in excess of six months, and during al] leaves of absence without pay. • Insurance: Officers granted a vehicle allowance are entitled to no-fault, public liability and property damage insurance provided by the County. Comprehensive and collision insurance are the responsi- bility of the employee. Repairs for damages to a subsidized vehicle are reimbursed under circumstances which indicate that the damage occurred "on duty" or while performing an official police function and (1) was the malicious or negligent act of a third party, or (2) was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the officer. Exemption from the vehicle weight tax may be granted to officers upon application and approval of the Police Chief. • Gas/Oil: Gasoline for subsidized police vehicles is issued/drawn at the rate of 10 official duty miles per gallon. Oil is drawn from police headquarters and/or county pools for each 500 miles of official duty travel Officers receiving an auto allowance must maintain a Daily Auto Record logging gas/oil drawn and daily duty tour odometer readings. Time Limit: Officers required to provide a subsidized vehicle may use the automobile for up to eight years from the date of purchase, provided that the automobile meets the approved standards of the Police Department. Such automobile may further be used for an additional two years upon application of the employee and approval by the Department Departmental decisions on such additional extensions are not subject to the grievance procedure. 6 • Private Use: During off-duty hours, officers and their family members may drive a subsidized vehicle for personal use. • Window Tint: Subsidized vehicles may have tinted windows that meet all applicable State and Federal standards regarding window tint. Any disagreement regarding compliance with such standards is resolved by conducting a tint test at an authorized State safety inspection station; the results of the test are binding on all parties. • Vehicle Specifications: The specifications for subsidized vehicles are set forth in HCPD General Order No. 802, "Police Vehicles and Equipment." Automobiles to be used in police service are subject to the approval of the Assistant Chief of the officer's respective bureau. Such vehicles include a variety of four-door and two-door sedans, SUVs and station wagons. All vehicles must accommodate four adult males comfortably. Trucks and vans, as well as vehicles with diesel engines, are prohibited. Minimum required dimensions include a wheelbase of not less than 100 inches, an eight cylinder engine or, alternately, the largest six cylinder engine manufactured for the make and model. • Equipment. The employer (County) is responsible for the cost of installing and removing in-car equipment and for any damages associated with such installation and removal. Officers are held responsible for the proper use and security and all required equipment. Any form of commercial advertising, political campaign advertising or slogans on subsidized vehicles, whether permanent or temporary, is prohibited. • Realacement Vehicle. Officers are held responsible for providing an acceptable replacement vehicle whenever the employee's automobile is being repaired as the result of off-duty damages. When damages are incurred on duty due to no gross negligence on the part of the officer, the department is responsible for providing a replacement vehicle for official use at no cost of the employee, or may reassign the officer to non-motorized duty. Regulations governing the use of government vehicles and HCPD's subsidized vehicle program include Article 18 ("Subsidized Automobiles") of the SHOPO bargaining agreement with Hawaii's four counties, various general orders issued by Hawaii County police chiefs. For additional reference, these documents, in their entirety, are appended to this report, as follows: Appendix A: SHOPO Agreement, Article 18 ("Subsidized Automobiles") Appendix B : HCPD General Orders Relating to Subsidized Vehicles 1. General Order No. 802 - "Police Vehicles and Equipment" 2. General Order No. 803 - "Gasoline, Oil & Mileage Record" 3. General Order No. 808 - "Transporting Persons in Patrol Cars" 4. General Order No. 809 - "Use of Temporary Vehicles for Official Police Duty" 5. General Order No. 814 - "Police Subsidized Vehicle Extension Request Procedures" The unique blue dome lights atop county police cars are specifically reserved for county police and state department of public safety vehicles under the provisions of Chapter 291, HRS. Section 291-31.5 prohibits members of the public from affixing "any lamp, reflector, or illumination device which appears to be the color blue upon any motor vehicle..." 7 B. Current Vehicle Allowance Casts The FY2003-04 County operating budget reflects a total of 396 car allowances for 298 "Group I" vehicles and 98 "Group II" vehicles, respectively. The disparity between actual and budgeted car allowances reflects vacant but funded positions in the department. A current operating budget summary for the Police Department's "Mileage & Auto Allowance" is shown below: POLICE MILEAGE & AUTO ALLOWANCE Aocount~5203.02-112 FY2001 A2 FY2002-f/3 FY2003-04 Actual B at timete 82,018,697 82,201,740 8 2,290,788 - /temlzed Expenses jor FY2003-01 - A. Group 1: 8488 x 298 vehicles x 12 mas . 6 1,745,088 B. Group 11: 8450 x 98 vehicles x 12 mos . 8 529,200 C. Milea9e: 8 18.500 9 Y,290,788 The FY2003-04 operating budget shown above and approved by the Council on June 4, 2003 does not include a $475,200 annual increase in the motor vehicle allowance requested by SHOPO. SHOPO supports an increase as the vehicle allowance has not been raised during the past eight years. [n a letter (Communication No. 140.3) dated March 13, 2003 to Finance Committee Chair Aaron Chung, SHOPO Hawaii Chapter Chairman Emory J. Springer stated that he had met with Mayor Kim on several occasions and "asked for an increase in the motor vehicle allowance." He expressed his support for the department's budget "as long as the language includes the request for an increase in vehicle allowance." if SHOPO's requested vehicle allowance increase had been approved, Hawaii County's Police Mileage and Auto Allowance FY2003-04 budget would have totaled $2,765,988. That amount would have represented a 26% increase over the FY2002-03 budget amount of $2,201,740. C. Insurance Costs Current FY2002-03 insurance premiums for county police vehicles total $661,371 ($1,956.72 x 338 police vehicles). A prior "loss run" study by Aon Insurance Managers, Inc. cited by the Finance Department's Purchasing Section indicates that from 1994-2003, insurance premiums for subsidized HPD vehicles averaged $374,000 with total annual losses averaging $292,000. The resulting 78% "loss ratio" -considered steep by insurance industry standards -coupled with a high incidence of accidents incurred by police officers led to the cancellation of the department's no-fault insurance policy by TIG Crum and Foster, Inc. effective March I, 2002. At that time, the county's no-fault insurance policy was $428,400 and covered 360 police officers driving on and off duty in subsidized cars. In a Honolulu Star-Bulletin article dated January 23, 2003, Assistant Police Chief Larry Mahuna stated: "I guess there were too many claims against our officers driving subsidized vehicles in terns of either injuries to themselves or others. They [TIG Crum and Forster Inc.] referenced 39 cases they had to pay out." The 39 claims represented an accident rate exceeding 10 percent. "When you accumulate that much," Mahuna said, "I guess the insurance company is saying, basically, `You're not a good risk."' He added that he didn't think the accident rate of officers reflected driving "worse than the public at large. I just think that's just a nature of police work," he said. "The more times you respond in an emergency mode, the more chance you have of getting into an accident:' 8 The February 22, 2003 minutes of the Hawaii County Police Commission reiterated that department view, as follows: `Business Mnnager Maesato summarized the report that was distributed and filed. He stated that the) have no bids for auto insurance, and that they probably will have to pay a higher premium. Chief Correa reported that in the last seven years, they added 35 more vehicles. In the past hvo gems they had 39 claims out of approximately 350 vehicles. He doesn't believe this is an inordinate number. Vehicles are subsidized, not county-owned, and officers pay for their own comprehensive and collision insurance. " County self-insurance would lower costs considerably, but the State of Hawaii does not allow the counties to self-insure a vehicle unless it is county-owned. The savings, essentially, would represent the difference between premiums and actual losses. For the years surveyed (1994-2003) by Aon Insurance Managers, Inc. when premiums averaged $374,000 and losses from claims averaged $292,000, the difference (and theoretical savings) amounted to $82,000 annually. Improvement in the accident rate of officers and subsequent reductions in claims would further add to savings. D. Five-Year Budget Summary A five-year summary of actual expenditures reflecting (I) mileage and auto allowance; (2) fuels and lubricants; and (3) insurance from County operating budgets extending from FY1997-98 through FY2001-02 indicates that while the total number of subsidized police cars has not risen dramatically, insurance and fuel costs account for most of the increased costs associated with HCPD's subsidized vehicle program. The number of budgeted subsidized vehicles rose from 352 in FY 1997-98 to 396 in FY2001-02. Actual expenditures for the HCPD mileage & auto allowance program rose only slightly over five yeazs, from $1,906,289 in 1997-98 to $2,018,897 in 2001-02. However, actual insurance costs rose dramatically in recent years, from $336,528 in 1999-00 to $632,337 in 2001-02. Additionally, actual fuel & lubricant costs increased from $450,620 in 1999-00 to $593,809 in 2001-02. A five-year expenditure summary is provided below: (1) Mileage 8 Auto Allowance Actual Expenditures No. of Cars (for butlget estimate) Expenditure 8 Percent Chance from Prior Year 1997-98 - $1,906,289 352 N/A 1998-99 - $1,899,150 372 7,139 -.004% 1999-00 - $1,974,402 376 $ 75,252 +.039% 2000-01 - $2,036,158 380 $ 61,756 +.031 2001-02 - $2,018,897 396 - $ 17,261 - .008% (2) Fuels 8 Lubricants Actual Expenditures No. of Cars (for budget estimate) Expenditure 8 Percenl Chance from Prior Year 1997-98 - $ 515,083 352 N/A 1998-99 - $ 437,051 372 - $ 78,032 - .151 1999-00 - $ 450,620 376 $ 13,369 +.031% 2000-01 - $ 615,781 380 $ 165,161 +.367% 2001-02 - $ 593,809 396 21,972 - .035% (3) Insurance Actual Expenditures Cost Per Insured Car Expenditure 8 Percent Chance from Prior Year 1997-98 - $ 345,000 365 cars @ $1,050.00 N/A 1998-99 - $ 329,640 372 cars @ $1,020.00 - $ 15,360 - .045% 1999-00 - $ 336,528 376 cars @ $ 994.31 $ 6,888 +.021 2000-01 - $ 406,272 380 Cars @ $1,190.00 $ 69,744 +.207% 2001-02 - $ 632,337 396 cars @ $1,620.41 $ 226,065 +.556 9 SECTION 2 AUDITOR'S OFFICE INQUIRY TO CORPORATION COUNSEL RE: SHOPO CONTRACT This section presents: A. Auditor's Office Inquiry Re: SHOPO Contract B. Corporation Counsel Guidance dated August 26, 2003 A. Auditor's Office Inquiry Re: SHOPO Contract In July, 2003 the Auditor's Office requested an opinion from the Office of Corporation Counsel regarding certain provisions of Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") in the SHOPO contract. A copy of the request for opinion dated July I5, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu is attached to this report in Appendix D. Specifically, we sought to clarify and determine five questions, summarized below: (1) Whether the County could change policies regarding automobiles for police use upon consulting the Union as stipulated in Section J, Article 18 of the SHOPO contract and, relatedly, if such consultation could be initiated at any time during the life of the current SHOPO contract or any subsequent contract; (2) Whether the County could terminate allowances for subsidized cars at any time during the eight years of authorized use as outlined in Section P, Article 18 of the SHOPO contract, in the event that the Police Department transitioned to county-owned police fleet vehicles; (3) Whether the County incurs a lawful, contractual obligation to provide an allowance to subsidize the cost of a personal vehicle, in whole or in part, used in police service; (4) Whether the provisions of Section M, Article 18 of the SHOPO contract relating to the Counties of Maui and Kauai, pursuant to their conversion to a police fleet program, apply to the County of Hawaii; and (5) The extent of policy-making jurisdiction of the County Council with respect to police vehicles. This question arose pursuant to a July 13, 2004 article in West Hawaii Today. The article stated that Big Island SHOPO Chairman Emory Springer said: "As long as there is a contract between the employer and employee, or its union, then the practice of converting from subsidized motor vehicles to fleet vehicles cannot be changed in part or entirely." According to the article, Mr. Springer also expressed his belief that "the councilmembers were apprised through Corporation Counsel that they have no jurisdiction over the matter." For reference, a copy of the 7/ 13/03 West Hawaii Todav article is attached to this report in Appendix D. The thrust of the Auditor's Office inquiry was to determine whether policy-making related to subsidized police cars was fundamentally governed by the SHOPO contract or by the decision-making of the Hawaii County Police Chief and/or the County Council. Relatedly, we sought to assess the potential fiscal impact of conversion to a county-owned fleet program based upon Corporation Counsel's interpretation of Sections J, M, and P, Article 18, of the SHOPO contract. 10 Adverse Effects (To Officers) 1. Special equipment and extra safety devices such as roll bars, heary duty suspension, etc. are acquired at the officer's expense. 2. Low trade-in value of police vehicle due to excessive mileage and use. 3. The automobile allowance has remained the same whereas the cost of automobiles, tires, parts and repairs keep increasing. 4. Officers find it difficult to obtain collision and comprehensive insurance and when they do, the rates aze very high because of the extra hazazds involved in police work. 5. Disadvantage to individual officer in that he has to buy a vehicle which meets the department's specifications." The study determined that the present allowance system "did contain several inequities" and concluded that "officers were not receiving a fair return for the use of their vehicles." To correct these inequities, the study proposed an allowance system based a combination of "fixed" and "operating" costs. Fixed costs were determined to be the cost of a new 1972 Ford Custom Police Special ($4,500), plus interest payments calculated at 5.75% for three years ($777), plus collision insurance for three yeazs ($501), plus the cost of a blue emergency light ($60), minus an estimated trade-in value of $950 after three years, for a net three-yeaz cost of $4,888. This amount was then divided by a 70% "official use" formula that yielded a total cost of $3,422 divided by 36 months for a monthly "fixed cost" allowance of $95.06. Additional operating costs including parts replacement, unscheduled repairs were estimated to be $858 per year based on 24,000 annual mileage or $2,574 over the course of three yeazs, thereby averaging $65.45 monthly for operations personnel and $38.68 monthly for staff. Based on this cost analysis, the study concluded that equitable total monthly allowances would be $160 for operations officers and $135 for staff. Based upon this formula, the study estimated a total six-year cash allowance cost of $3,411,107. Comparable six-year projected estimates for acounty-owned fleet were based on two-year and three-yeaz trade-in options, coupled with various maintenance options, as follows: County-owned fleet, private garage maintenance (2-yeaz trade-in) $3,205,481 County-owned fleet, private garage maintenance (3-year trade-in) $3,813,822 County-owned fleet, county motor pool maintenance (2-year trade-in) $3,725,782 County-owned fleet, county motor pool maintenance (3-year trade-in) $3,261,135 County-owned fleet, police department maintenance (2-year trade-in) $4,778,197 County-owned fleet, police department maintenance (3-year trade-in) $4,313,550 The study further estimated that an "assigned" fleet of vehicles permanently assigned to officers comprised of 169 marked cars and 43 unmarked cars would cost $4,752,820 over six years with cars traded in every two years and $4,346,758 over six years with athree-year trade-in. The study suggested that assigned vehicle plans "recently introduced on the mainland" were "gaining popularity among police agencies" and offered the prospect that "high exposure of the public to marked police vehicles" would 16 create "omnipresence" and an "added deterrence" [to crime]. No studies were cited in support of these assertions, however. Other six-year cost estimates provided in the 1972 study included mixed fleet and leased fleet options, as follows: Private/County-owned fleet (33 private cars/]03 county cars) with 3-year trade-in $2,732,103 Private/County-owned fleet (168 private cars/14 county cars) with 3-year trade-in $3,294,010 Leased Fleet, Non-Maintenance Plan $3,250,253 Leased Fleet, Maintenance Plan $3,554,519 The first mixed fleet alternative was seen as offering "an avenue for the gradual phasing-in of a county- owned fleet." Its perceived disadvantage was separate administration of distinct systems and costs. The second mixed fleet option was based on a proposal to continue allowances for 168 cars operated by patrol officers and detectives and purchase 14 county-owned vehicles for administrative personnel. Other than projected cost estimates, no rationale or "pro and con" analysis was offered respective to the leased fleet options. The final option presented was a system based on a mileage reimbursement rate, determined to be $.15 per mile. This option was seen to be "equitable to the extent that allowances are paid according to actual utilization" but had the "potential for abuse by officers accumulating mileage for higher allowances." The 1972 report commented briefly on the systems utilized by the other three counties. At the time, Maui County paid monthly allowances of $110 to its patrol officers and, while considering the feasibility of converting to a county-owned fleet, elected to "remain with its present system because of the fewer problems it presented." Kauai County was in the midst of converting to a partial county-owned fleet pursuant to a study that indicated that the county "could realize a savings of $21,000 a year." Kauai's conversion, reportedly, "had an adverse effect on the officers' morale" due, in part, "to the lack of warning of the discontinuation of the cash allowance." In 1972, Honolulu operated a mixed fleet consisting of 895 patrol cars of which only 55 were owned by the City & County. The city-owned cars were customarily assigned to motor patrol trainees who later graduated to a private subsidized car. Honolulu's allowances ranged from $75 to $120 monthly depending on the average mileage recorded by the unit to which an officer was assigned. Honolulu's allowance computations were reviewed at six-month intervals. hi 1967, an independent consultant had recommended that the Honolulu Police Department convert to a 100% City & County-owned fleet, but Honolulu did not implement the proposed conversion. The 1972 Hawaii County Police Department study did not reach any final conclusion as to a preferred system or policy for police cars. Instead, it suggested that "no one perfect system exists" and cautioned that "what is advantageous to the County may be disadvantageous to the officer." It acknowledged that "most of the effects of the plans studied are cost-related." It did add the resolute comment that "the deciding factor should be the ability of the department to adequately carry out its mission of providing maximum protection to the public." However, the study offered no conclusive finding as to which of its fleet options best fit that "deciding factor." Based on the study's ftndings, however, the Hawaii County Police Commission recommended retaining the existing cash allowance system with higher allowances to be paid to each officer. 17 C. 1978 Hawaii County Police Department "Pilot Police Fleet Study" In 1978, the Hawaii County Police Department conducted a "Pilot Police Fleet Study," pursuant to a critical evaluation of its 1972 study by the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company. A "background" statement prefacing the 1978 HCPD pilot study stated that the "auditors, in their report of the 1971-72 fiscal year examination, submitted a critical evaluation of the police department's study and strongly recommended the immediate conversion to a 100% county-owned fleet of 95 vehicles:' The department disputed the recommended number of vehicles, though, while stating that it was "not opposed to the concept of a county-owned fleet." In the wake of this disagreement, the 1978 pilot study preface stated that "the matter fell upon the Mayor's Office and the County Council to resolve." Additionally, the pilot study noted the impact of "several new factors" as follows: 1. The enactment of Hawai`i's collective bargaining law [Chapter 89, HRS] which permitted police officers to unionize and negotiate changes in pay and working conditions; 2. Rising costs of automobiles, purported to have increased by 26% between 1970 and 1975, along with spiraling gas, oil and repair costs; and 3. "Apparent" changes in officer attitudes due to higher car costs, resulting in a shift "leaning in favor of county-owned vehicles:' These factors, combined with "the present administration's desire to resolve the question of which avenue to pursue," prompted the department to undertake "a pilot program to determine the feasibility of a county-owned police fleet," according to the study authors. The scope of the 1978 study was "confined to the gathering of data relating to the operation of a county-owned police fleet with respect to cost and effect on police operations." The pilot study experiment deployed seven Chevrolet Impala "police special vehicles" leased from Hilo Motors Leasing, Inc. in the Puna District for one year. During the study period, the Puna District was manned by 15 officers operating on a three shift schedule. The project commenced on August 9, 1976 and was terminated on July 31, 1977. The Puna police district was chosen due to its mix of roads, representative rural nature, normal caseload, and proximity to Hilo for service/maintenance of leased cars and on-site visits by police persoltnel. Cost and operational data accumulated during the one-year trial was compared to the estimated operating costs of a 15-vehicle privately owned fleet. Major cost findings from the Puna pilot experiment, reflecting Puna Pilot Studv: Cost Summation actual expenses for the seven leased cars, are shown in the cost Lease szs,77e.Go summary at right. [Regarding cost items: "Safety slide shields" Maintenance s s,s5z.ss were installed to separate back seat prisoners from the driver's Excess Mileage S 2,285.47 Safety Slide Shield 5 1,680.00 Compartment.] Gas & Oil 515,349.09 Upkeep Iwashlpolishl 5 2,506.00 The additional $3,229.82 in repair costs not covered under the 6epairslnotcoveredl s 3,z2s.az Insurance 5 371.04 maintenance agreement largely represented damages sustained in tarot 561,652.88 eight traffic accidents. During the one-year trial, the seven vehicles drove 277,878 miles, an average of 39,696 miles per vehicle. Based on the total miles travelled (277,898) and gallons of gas consumed (21,052), the seven cars averaged 13.2 mpg. A total of 313 quarts of oil (averaging 44.7 quarts per car) were used by the seven vehicles. The study noted that "departmental records prior to and following the Puna Fleet Study indicate 18 that gasoline and oil consumption was 20% higher for private vehicles than the county-owned fleet during the study period." Significant operational data gathered during the study examined vehicle availability/downtime, as well as crime statistics/traffic accidents in the Puna district and citizen reaction to the county-owned marked police cars. During the one-year Puna experiment, "vehicle availability" was defined as "the total number of vehicles available for use on any given shift." During the project, there was a total of 1,071 shifts (357 days x 3 shifts = 1,071). During the project period, the total number of vehicle shifts totaled 7,497 (357 days x 3 shifts x 7 cars = 7,497). For 38 of the 1,071 shifts, the number of personnel assigned to duty exceeded the number of available vehicles, requiring officers to be sent home on compensatory time off. On 42 shifts, the vehicles available equaled the number of officers assigned, with no spare vehicles available for emergencies. "Downtime," representing the period of time a vehicle is out of service, totaled 918 shifts during the pilot project. Routine servicing and maintenance accounted for downtime of 357 vehicle shifts; motor vehicle accidents accounted the remaining downtime of 561 vehicle shifts. The study attributed extended downtime for vehicles involved in accidents to "the availability of parts for repairs." One car that sustained major trunk, right tail light and rear bumper damage remained inoperative for 64 days. During the pilot project (August, 1976-July, 1977), the total number of crimes committed in the Puna District increased by 8.9% over the preceding l2-month period. Traffic accidents increased 16% during the same period. The study concluded: "Despite statistics showing an increase in crimes and traffic accidents, there is no supportive data to conclude that the county-owned marked vehicles had a negative or positive effect on criminal activity and traffic accidents." The study stated that an "informal poll" revealed favorable citizen reaction to the presence of county- owned marked vehicles, due to their "high visibility" and "resulting feeling security." Citizens also expressed concern over the absence of marked vehicles that they related to an absence of police protection. Commenting on this citizen reaction, afollow-up audit by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company observed that "this latter statement would appear to be true for a fleet of unmarked, privately owned vehicles as well." The HCPD study stated that "these situations occur primarily as a result of heavy case loads and minimum watch strengths which directly affect the amount of general patrol." Gost and operational data gathered from the Pilot Fleet Study were subsequently compared to "what would have been expended to operate fifteen (15) privately-owned subsidized vehicles during the same period as the pilot fleet." At the time, monthly allowances for private cars were $195/month for Group I Officers and $165/month for Group II Officers. As it does now, the County then famished gasoline for subsidized cars at the rate of one gallon per ten miles of official duty travel; one quart of oil for every 500 official miles; and public liability and public property damage insurance. For these costs (car allowance, $34,380; insurance, $2,025; gas & oil, $21,417), the total cost of maintaining a subsidized fleet of IS cars was $57,822, as compared to the pilot fleet cost of $60,173 ($61,852.88 minus the $1,680 cost of safety shields). The table shown below summarizes the comparable cost items of a 7-vehicle county fleet vs. a 15 vehicle subsidized private fleet. 19 Thus, it was determined that a 15-car subsidized fleet was cheaper than the 7-car pilot study COST COMPARISON Puna Pilot Fleet vs Priva[ely Owned Fleet -August 1976-July. 1977 county fleet, as shown in the cost comparison table [right]. The disparity between these totals, county Fleet Private Fleet Cost Item t7 vehicles) (IS vehicles) however, is due largely to the cost of accidents ($3,230) incurred by the pilot fleet Eeasc $ 29,778 S - Car Allowance 34,380 Maintenance 6,653 - The study then computed asix-year cost Excess Mileage 2.285 - comparison of five different fleet plans, Upkeep 2,506 - including (I) two-year lease, (2) three-year Repairs(Non-Agreement) 3,230 - Insurancc 372 2.025 lease, (3) county-owned fleet with atwo-year Gas & oil IS 349 21 417 trade-in, (4) county-owned fleet with athree- TOTAL $ 60,173 $ 57,822 year trade-in, and (5) private subsidized fleet. In computing these comparable fleet costs, HPD developed 13 assumptions, as follows: I. Fleet and county-owned fleet plans based upon a 154-vehicle fleet. 2. Privately-owned fleet plan based on 232-vehicle fleet. 3. Two-year lease plan based on non-maintenance lease rate of $319.50 per vehicle per month with a 5% annual increase. 4. Three-year lease plan based upon non-maintenance lease rate of $253.00 per vehicle per month with a 5% annual increase. 5. Average annual mileage per unit for 154-vehicle fleet estimated at $18,048 miles based on total fleet mileage for FY1976-77 of 2,779,359 miles. 6. Purchase price of vehicles used in County-owned plan based upon $6,693 per unit as quoted by Hilo Motors, Ltd. For 1978 Chevrolet Impala sedan with annual increase of 4%. 7. Car allowances for privately-owned fleet based on $533,130 per year with a 5% increase very two years. 8. Residual (trade-in) values of vehicles used in County-Owned Plan based on March-April, 1978 Kelley Blue Book values with a 4% yearly increase. 9. Maintenance costs based on estimated $200 per vehicle per month with an annual increase of 6%. 10. Fleet management cost based on two officers (SR-18B) at an annual salary of $12,996 per officer and an annual increase of 5%. 11. Gasoline and oil costs based upon the department's 1977 expenditure of $170,270 for privately-owned vehicles and $136,216 for acounty-owned fleet (20% less) plus a 7% annual increase. 12. Insurance rates for leased and county-owned fleet plan based on $53.12 per vehicle per year and a 7% annual increase. 13. Insurance rates for the privately-owned plan estimated at $135 per vehicle per year plus a 7% annual increase. 20 Based upon these assumptions, the 1978 HCPD study developed a table reflecting comparable fleet costs, shown below: COMPARABLE TABLE I'" 2NO 2-YEAR 3"" 3-YEAR 4"' 4-V EAR 5"' S-YEAR 6°1 6-YEAR FLEET PLAN YHAR YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL 2-YEAR LEASF,D FLEET LU0,424 1,164,008 2,294.432 L2W,216 1,554,648 1198.178 4.852,786 1405,161 6,257.947 1,447,9RR 7,705,935 3-YGAR LGASF.D FLEET 1,007,532 1,041,116 2,048,648 I,U76.RU4 3.125,452 I,I 88,423 4,313.875 1,228,723 5.542,598 1,271,550 6,814,148 COUNTY-OWNED (2-YearTade-In) 1,570,710 577.572 2,144182 1,362,189 3.506,471 647,182 4,153.653 1,501.850 5,655,503 730,309 6,385,812 COUNTY-OWNED p-YearTade-In) 1.570,710 577,572 2.144,282 609,260 2.753.542 1,564,054 4,317,776 687,482 5.005,078 730,309 5,775,787 PRIVATP.LY OWNED FI,EEI' 734.720 748,831 1,483,551 790,587 2174,138 806,743 3,080.881 652,019 7972,900 870,51fi 4,803,416 D. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Review of the Puna Fleet Study The HCPD study was subsequently reviewed by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company (PMM&Co.), which transmitted its findings to Mayor Herbert T. Matayoshi in a report dated May 3, 1979. The purpose of PMM&Co.'s review was to advise the Police Department on: (1) the reasonableness of its underlying assumptions; (2) the accuracy and appropriateness of its analytical methodology; and (3) the appropriateness of the conclusions drawn in the HPD study. Broadly, PMM&Co.'s review concluded that "due to high interest cost implicit in leases, the consensus among [Police] department and County personnel and ourselves was that leasing was not a viable alternative to the County." PMM&Co. concluded that "based on the data collected, the conclusion that a fleet of I S privately owned vehicles would have been less costly was appropriate and correct." Similarly, PMM&Co. found that the "analytical methodology used for accumulating costs incurred by the seven leased Puna vehicles and for projecting costs of 15 privately owned vehicles was accurate and appropriately applied." PMM&Co. initially disputed HCPD's 6-year comparable cost survey based upon its assessment of the residual (trade-in) value of county-owned fleet vehicles at the end of the six-year period. PMM&Co. projected the costs to be $3,923,224 for aCounty-owned fleet with atwo-year trade-in schedule and $3,568,830 for athree-year trade-in, both lower than the projected costs of a privately owned fleet. However, in December 1978 PMM&Co. rescinded its findings upon presentation of a HPD addendum containing "assumptions for fleet mileage and resultant projections for new car costs and trade-in residual values." PMM&Co. concun•ed with the methodology contained in HCPD's addendum and found the "six-year costs of a County-owned fleet to be consistent with the original study's methodology with which we concurred." Additionally, PMM&Co. said that it had based its analysis of projected maintenance costs on a proration of actual costs incurred during the Puna fleet study, whereas HCPD assembled maintenance estimates based on figures provided by two Hilo automobile dealers. In summation, PMM&Co. stated that "although the [Puna Fleet] study does not state a conclusion or recommend whether the County should purchase, lease, or continue with monthly car allowances for privately owned vehicles, the projected six-year costs clearly favor continuing the present practice of privately owned vehicles." 21 E. "Police Automobile Fleet Study for the Hawaii Police Department", 1994 In February 1994, the Hawaii County Police Department issued a 71-page study titled Police Automobile F/eet Study for Hawaii Police Department for the "purpose of investigating feasible alternatives to the subsidized vehicle program of the Hawaii Police Department, County of Hawai`i." According to the report, HCPD's 1992 expenditures for its subsidized vehicle program accounted for approximately $2.6 million in expenditures and concluded that "this amount is substantial and warrants inquiry into alternate methods of making the use of police automobiles more efficient and feasible." It noted that $2.6 million or approximately l0% of HCPD's 1992 budget involved expenditures associated with the subsidized vehicle program. 'The 1994 report concluded that "the Hawaii Police Department has an obligation to the citizens of Hawaii County to search for the most efficient and feasible vehicle program. A fleet vehicle program may be the answer." The study examined possible conversion into a fleet vehicle program by analyzing Maui County's fleet program as well as the subsidized program of HCPD. The advantages and disadvantages of both programs were examined. In selecting the Maui fleet program for purposes of comparison, the study authors stated that "the geographical area and economic climate" of Maui County more closely resembled Hawaii County than Kauai or the City & County of Honolulu. While the report's findings were "not meant to be conclusive;' the HCPD study concluded that "the implementation of a fleet or partial fleet program for HCPD may be feasible, and further research through a pilot program is warranted." In 1977, Maui County converted to an entirely county-owned fleet. Its subsidized vehicle program was phased out through planned annual purchasing of fleet vehicles. In 1990, the Maui Police Department conducted a study to determine whether a return to a subsidized vehicle program would be more cost- effective. The study estimated that MPD spent $938,235 annually to operate 126 vehicles, whereas conversion to 263 subsidized vehicles would cost Maui County $1,503,321. The study concluded that the MPD fleet program saved approximately $565,086 annually on direct costs and $176,421 in indirect costs. 1. MPD Fleet Program Findings In 1977, Maui County converted from a subsidized vehicle program to an entirely county-owned fleet via the phased annual purchase of fleet vehicles. That year, a mototpool was established at MPD's main complex in Wailuku. The MPD fleet consisted of patrol cars, unmarked cars, trucks, paddy wagons, motorcycles and a public relations vehicle. MPD used Chevrolet Luminas as unmarked cars and Chevrolet Caprices and Ford Crown Victorias for patrol purposes. Purchased 4-door patrol vehicles met the specifications set forth by the Minnesota Stale Patrol and International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) for specially constructed rear seats, security cages, light bars, heavy duty suspension, V-8 engines and extended warranties. Four-wheel drive vehicles, most assitmed to the rural districts of Hana, Lanai and Molokai, included Jeep Cherokees and several Isuzu Troopers and Chevrolet Blazers. In 1993, MPD issued a bid for the purohase of 22 patrol vehicles. Valley Isle Motors, the winning bidder, proposed 1993 Ford Crown Victorias at $17,834 each, fully equipped, with the exception of police radios. Including an optional extended warranty of $1,083, Valley Isle's total price came to 22 $18,917 per car, $1,490 less than the second lowest bid. Their bid included atrade-in value of $6,410 for 20 MPD vehicles ranging from fair to poor condition, or $320 per car. The study reported that MPD patrol vehicles were kept on an average of 2.3 years and unmarked cars for five years. The relatively short life of patrol vehicles was attributed to a number of causes, including: expiration of warranties after two years due to excessive mileage; high cost of repairs after warranty expiration; irregular servicing of vehicles by dealerships or private shops, leading to major breakdowns as well as an "overall shortened life of the vehicles"; 24/7 use with high turnover of drivers handing off vehicles to subsequent shifts; and driver abuse, cited as an "it's not mine" attitude, described as driving on undesirable roads, reckless and high-speed driving, and careless parking [two vehicles were reported "totaled" in early 1993 with "many others either in repair shops or waiting to be repaired"] The motorpool established for the Maui police fleet provided scheduled 5,000 mile servicing of patrol and unmarked vehicles in the Wailuku district only. Outlying rural districts utilized private shops. Problems were experienced in rural districts, particulazly Molokai, due to the limited number of servicing shops. Where dealership repair was indicated, added costs were incurred by shipping damaged vehicles from Lanai or Molokai. Towing of damaged vehicles by private towing companies to the Wailuku motorpool, dealerships or other repair shops cost $9,746 in 1992. Despite implementation of a departmental mototpool staffed by a full-time supervisor, one full-time and two part-time service attendants, MPD spent $208,632 on vehicle repairs and maintenance performed by outside agencies in fiscal year 1991-92. Other problems cited in MPD's fleet program included: • Parking• The conflux of fleet vehicles, private cars of officers commuting to each shift, and unserviceable vehicles was cited at both the Wailuku complex and Lahaina station. In Lahaina, police consumption of available parking stalls impinged on the space available for citizen patrons of the police station and adjacent civic center. • Personal Conflicts• The study reported that some senior MPD officers made claims on preferred and newer Ford cars, relegating older vehicles to junior officers. An informal study showed that most officers preferred the Ford Crown Victorias to the Chevrolet Caprice models. In some instances, officers working overtime were called back to a station to be "relieved" of a particular vehicle a senior officer had grown attached to. In other cases, damage to vehicles went unreported, leaving supervisors to pinpoint what officer on what shift was responsible. • Hygiene/Smoking• Conflicts arose between officers complaining of litter strewn inside cars and the assignment of vehicles classified as "smoking "and "non-smoking." In 1990, MPD conducted a study to assess whether a subsidized vehicle program would be more cost-effective. The study estimated that MPD spent $938,235 annually to operate 126 fleet vehicles, whereas conversion to a subsidized program would cost the county $1,503,321 to operate 263 vehicles. It concluded [hat the fleet program saved approximately $565,086 annually in direct costs. 23 In his transmittal to the Maui Police Commission dated Mazch 19, 1990, Maui Police Chief Howard Tagomori cited indirect annual costs amounting to $176,421 associated with subsidized vehicles for, variously: • Clerical Costs -processing monthly subsidies and maintaining vehicle mileage and gas consumption records, review and processing of insurance reimbursements ($16,620); • Patrol Wagons -Five additional caged wagons @ $8,579 each needed for transport of prisoners ($42,895); • Four-Wheel Drives -Five additional 4-wheel drive vehicles at $8,579 each needed for use during inclement weather ($42,895); ¦ Replacement Vehicles -Five additional patrol and/or unmarked cars at $8,579 each needed as replacements ($42,895); and ¦ Radio Techniciau -One additional SR-19 Radio Technician position needed for increased mobile radios and light bars ($31,116). In addition to cost savings, Chief Tagomori cited other reasons for his preference of Maui's police fleet program over private subsidized vehicles. He stressed the "significant mechanical differences" of specially packaged police cars from private vehicles. These include high performance V-8 engines, heavy duty automatic transmission with overdrive, high axle ratio, heavy duty power steering, front disk brakes, special suspension, special speedometer, and heavy duty electrical system with special wiring and conduits. Chief Tagomori noted that the high speed pursuit, handling and braking capabilities of standardized police fleet vehicles affect the "performance and safety of the Officers using the vehicles." He concluded, "We are assured that our vehicles conform to such standards and our officers are using vehicles specifically designed for Police use." [NOTE: A subsequent 2002 report performed by MPD is presented (Item F) later in this section.] At the time HCPD's 1994 report was issued, the department had approximately 342 sworn officers and 129 civilian personnel. The department was organized into eight districts, with patrol services under the command of the Field Operations Division. The department's Criminal Investigation Division (CID) was staffed with plainclothes detectives who investigated major crimes, vice activities and juvenile crimes. The apportionment of sworn officers was as follows: Distric[/Division Assiened Personnel Administration 41 CID 46 South Hilo 72 North Hilo I I Hamakua 16 South Kohala 27 North Kohala 14 Kona 59 Ka`u 14 Puna 42 TOTAL 342 24 With the exception of police recruits, officers on light duty status and four motorcycle patrol officers, all sworn officers participate in the department's subsidized vehicle program. The 1994 report stated that "the philosophy of the program is one vehicle per officer." The report said that approved subsidized vehicles within the department ranged from "four-wheel drive multi-purpose vehicles (MPVH) such as Ford Broncos and Chevrolet Blazers to sporty two-door models such as Fort Mustangs and Chevrolet Camaros." The subsidy rates in 1994, set by contract negotiations between SHOPO and the four counties, were $463/month for Group [officers (patrol officers and sergeants) and $425/month for Group II officers (all other officers). The HCPD report stated that "officers of HCPD are at the point that they realize that the cost of purchasing and maintaining a vehicle for the subsidized vehicle program does not equate to the monthly allowance they receive." County costs for liability insurance for subsidized police vehicles totaled $320,021 in 1994, or about $974 per car per year. Official mileage recorded by HCPD officers in 1993 was 4,954,652 miles. The Kona patrol district had the highest total official mileage (839,645), followed by South Hilo (510,585), Puna (527,145) and South Kohala (313,481). The 1994 report stated that "most of the subsidized vehicles have gas mileage ratios above the 10:1 allowed by the department, thus many officers consume the excess amount of fuel for off-duty purposes." The relative advantages/disadvantages of the subsidy program cited in the 1994 report were as follows: Advantages: • Enables activation (disasters, etc.) of many personnel at one time • Ensures the availability of a large number of vehicles at any given time • No down time between shifts • Facilitates off-duty law enforcement • Less chance of employee conflicts over vehicles • Private ownership discourages vehicle abuse • Burden and cost of repairs/maintenance is placed on the officers • Department does not need a maintenance facility • In most cases, the department does not beaz the cost of replacement vehicles • The problem of fleet and employee parking is avoided • Vehicle storage is not a problem (officers take their cars home) Disadvantages: • Lack of uniformity in vehicles • Vehicles do not meet the specifications of the Michigan State Police (MSP) and International Association of Police Chiefs (IACP) for police work • Unmarked cars may be difficult for the public to identify in times of need • Officers more likely to "baby" personal vehicles, unlike fleet cazs • Department incurs insurance liability for off-duty officers (and their significant others) 25 • Gas reimbursements are set by union bargaining agreements and do not reflect the improved gas mileage ratios of modern cars; the report states, "officers with vehicles which have better gas mileage ratios are being overcompensated" • Record-keeping for car allowance disbursements, official mileage recorded, drawing of gas and oil, aswell astax-reporting for officers, requires afull-time clerk • Installation of vehicle equipment (lights, sirens, radios) is performed by HPD personnel • Allowances are paid to officers taking vacation, sick leave orwork-related injury leave for up to six months • the department also pays for insurance for vehicles not in use To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of Hawaii County's subsidized vehicle program with Maui County's fleet program, the 1994 HCPD study utilized a "cost-per-mile ratio" formula as follows: Total Annual Expenses /19931 Total Official Mileage (19931 Auto Allowance $1,774,404 4,954,652 Insurance $ 320,021 Oil $ 4,573 Cost-Per-Mile Gasoline 538 038 TOTAL $2,637,036 $2,637,036 ~ 4,954,652 = $.53 (Annual axpensea) (ORicial Milea~ro) (CoshPer-Mile) The computation did not include the costs HCPD incurred for vehicle repairs associated with officers on- duty or the cost of installed equipment. It did show, however, that HCPD's cost-per-mile ratio ($.53) was at the high end of Maui's range of cost-per-mile ratio ($.43-.53) for its fleet operations. Accordingly, the 1994 study developed a cost estimate for acounty-owned fleet based upon the number of cars needed to maintain "minimum watch strength," determined to be two vehicles per occupied shift, with several vehicles kept in reserve. It was determined that extra vehicles were needed for on-duty ranking officers (based on Maui's standard), with investigative officers assigned vehicles on a one-to-one basis. Based on this assessment the 1994 report determined that the total number of vehicles needed by the department was 233, as shown below: TOTAL VEHICLES NEEDED Patrol Unmarked Sedans Sedans 4-Wheel Drive Trucks Other Total 103 66 43 13 8 233 The study then utilized 1993 bid prices secured by the Maui Police Department for the following vehicles to comprise a fleet of 212 cars, excluding trucks and "other" vehicles: (1) a Ford Crown Victoria 4-door sedan patrol caz with extended warranty, light bar, security cage, siren and special rear seat ($18,917); (2) a Chevrolet S-10 Blazer MPVH excluding extended warranty and including light bar, security cage and siren ($20,141); and (3) Chevrolet Lumina 4-door sedan with 3-year bumper-to-bumper warranty, automatic trans- mission, A/C and V-6 engine ($11,682), for use as an unmarked car. 26 In developing its cost estimate, the 1994 study authors incorporated several assumptions, as follows: The study reviewed actual mileage recorded by patrol officers and determined that an annual average of 34,343 miles is obtained, thus patrol vehicles would reach a 100,000 mile warranty limit in 2.9 years. For non-patrol vehicles, athree-year/50,000 warranty was deemed sufficient. The most reasonable option for handling repair and maintenance was seen to be repair shops in Hilo and Kona, respectively. Routine servicing of fleet vehicles -oil changes, oil filter changes, undercarriage lubrication, checks of various fluids, etc. -were recommended to be performed every 3,000 miles. A fleet coordinator position at an SR-16 salary rating was required; salary and fringe benefits for this position were estimated to range as high as $50,215 per year. Based on the vehicle bids and assumptions above, the 1994 study then developed an annual estimate of fleet costs as shown below: FLEET PROJECTION COSTS (1994 NPD STUDY) PATROL 4WD UNMARKED TOTAL Cost Per Vehicle $18,917 $20,141 $11,682 Proration 3 years 3 years 3 years Period/Mileage 100,000 100,000 50,000 Resale Value Per Vehicle $291 $4,000 $3,000 Vehicles Needed 103 43 66 212 Total Cost of Vehicles $1,948,451 $866,063 $771,012 $3,585,526 Annual Prorated Cost of Vehicles $649,483 $288,687 $257,004 $1,195,174 Less Prorated Resale Value $9,991 $57,333 $66,000 $ 133,324 Adjusted Annual Costs $639,492 $231,354 $191,004 $1,061,850 Plus Maintenance & Servicing $ 252,379 Plus CollisionNehicle Damage $ 138,376 Plus Miscellaneous Auto Parts/Supplies $ 70,560 Plus Fleet Coordinator's Salary & Fringe $ 50,215 Projected Annual Fleet Costs $1,573,380 The 1994 report then compared its estimated annual fleet cost, excluding gas, oil and repairs ($1,573,380), to its annual subsidized vehicle expenditures (also excluding gas, oil and repairs) of $2,094,425 and projected that a fleet program would yield an annual savings to the County of $521,045. 27 The report further indicated that its cost estimate reflected $138,376 in collision vehicle damages, based upon actual collisions and property damage costs averaged over the past three years. However, it noted that "with aself-insured fleet program HCPD would save approximately $320,022 a year in insurance premiums." The report also projected savings in gasoline expenses due to the exclusive use of gas in fleet vehicles, thereby eliminating "the use of excess fuel by subsidized vehicles with better than allowed for gas mileage." The report cautioned that its calculations were "not meant to be conclusive" but did proceed to propose a "small-scale pilot program" to test "the effectiveness and feasibility of a fleet program for HCPD." It suggested that a pilot program should be based out of the South Hilo Patrol District to enable a large percentage of departmental personnel to be exposed to the program. Hilo was also proposed due to its range of car dealers, repair garages and detailing shops to service the program. Finally, Hilo was seen to offer "a good base in determining the public's reaction to the use of fleet vehicles." 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 rookie officers be assigned to the project after graduation from the Field Training 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 allowance. Moreover, a mix of new and veteran officers offered "a better perspective into the advantages and disadvantages of a fleet vehicle program." The pilot program was proposed for one year, although the study suggested that "a longer period may be more desirable." Data to be gathered from the pilot program would be used to "determine the feasibility and efficiency of a partial or entire fleet program by extrapolating the expenses and responses attained in the pilot program to a desired fleet size." Despite the considerable cost analysis and incremental recommendations offered in HCPD's 1994 fleet vehicle study, the proposed South Hilo pilot program was never inaugurated. In March, 2003 several new reports from the Maui County Police Department, West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, [ne., and the Hawaii County Police Department again took up the issue of subsidized vs. fleet police. F. Maui Police Department "Subsidized Automobile Study," 2002 The first, titled "Subsidized Automobile Study" and completed in July 2002, was transmitted by Maui Police Chief Thomas Phillips to Kenneth Taira, Deputy Director of Personnel, Maui County, on March ] 9, 2003. Its preface stated that "previous studies and reports submitted by the SHOPO Union have stated that a subsidized fleet is a cheaper and more efficient police force than using county-owned fleet vehicles." While noting that "it is our opinion that a standing fleet is probably cheaper to operate than a subsidized fleet," the Maui report asserted that "the benefits of a subsidized fleet, both to the community and to the officers, far outweigh the additional cost per year that may be expended." It concluded: "The `bottom line' is that a subsidized vehicle fleet will improve the quality of life in Maui County, therefore it is cost effective and should be considered." The Maui report indicated that a "captive" insurance company was expected to "be created by July 2003." The report suggested that according to Honolulu City & County Risk Manager Beverly Braun, a captive insurance company would offer coverage for county subsidized police vehicles and reimburse excess 28 monies (the difference between losses paid out and premiums paid in) to participating counties. As of the date of this report, no such captive insurance company has been formed. The Maui report suggested that transition from a fleet to subsidy system could be accomplished in "no more than seven years." It presented the advantages of a subsidized fleet vs. a standing fleet as follows: • With conversion to a subsidized fleet, the Maui report anticipated "a reduction in on-duty vehicle collisions" due to greater familiarity of officers with their cars and the prospect that they would "be less likely to take unnecessary risks with their vehicles." • This, in turn, would lessen litigation involving collisions, thereby increasing "available County wide funds" and reducing "negative media attention on the Department" due to "officer involved motor vehicle collisions." • Officers beginning their shifts would no longer have a carry a "briefcase, raincoat and a plethora of equipment to and from the vehicle on a daily basis." • A subsidized fleet would provide for "200 police vehicles on the roadways of Maui County at any given time." • Off-duty officers would be able to assist in emergency situations and respond to mass mobilizations, civil disturbances, or critical incidents. • Citizens would "see an increased police presence within the County" and such presence would "act as a deterrent to criminal behavior and improve the community bonds." • Vehicle subsidies would serve as recruitment and retention incentives; "the enticement of an additional $488 per month may sway the applicant towards the department with a subsidized vehicle program." • Officers would take pride in ownership and care for their own vehicles. This, in turn, would "greatly improve the morale of the officers." The Maui report adds that "it has been clearly demonstrated in numerous studies that officers with high morale are less likely to violate departmental directives or an individual's civil right." • Preclude the cost of parking stalls, estimated to be $5,000 per stall It was noted that the parking lot of the Hale Maka`i building is "overflowing" and the "expense of a land purchase to increase the parking lot size for Maui is a huge cost consideration." G. "The Price of Visibility", West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc., 2003 On March l9, 2003 Alan J. Pratt, president of West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc., released a report titled "The Price of Visibility. " The report recommended that the Hawaii County Police Department "immediately commence the necessary investigation and studies to determine actual costs, and other details required to implement a possible fleet of marked police cars for the County of Hawai`i." Based upon budget information from several mainland police departments - e.g., Gillette, Wyoming; Sacramento, California -the West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. study concluded that conversion to a county-owned police fleet would generate savings of over $225,000 annually to Hawaii County. "We consider it essential," the report stated, "the County of Hawaii realize that times have changed and it is now time to move into [he 2ls' century." 29 WHCS later prepared a "final revision" to its Price of Visibility study based upon a quotation provided by Ford Motor Company Municipal Financing for the lease/purchase of 382 police cars. For marked patrol cars, the WHCS study selected the Ford Crown Victoria (284 total); for unmazked cars, a Ford Taurus model (98 total). Over afive-year period, the WHCS report calculated the cost of its proposed fleet conversion to total $1,868,850.28 per year, a sum less than the County's annual cost ($2,192,304) for 382 equivalent subsidized cars. The report proposed that officers be allowed to take home county-owned vehicles and summarized the benefits of a fleet program in a statement titled "Why Change From Present Subsidized Vehicles," quoted as follows: • There would be police visibility and public would feel safer. • Since we are proposing a "Take home fleet" officers would not only be on call but would have superior equipment. • The fleet would be uniform as opposed to the many different types and colors of automobiles presently in use. • Visitors and residents can easily identify. • Marked police vehicles with the police package installed are safer, faster, and provide more safety to the officer. • Suitable for transportation of prisoners. • Modern fleets have a warranty of 100,000 miles. • Police officers who drive marked cars have more pride in their job according to the chiefs we have contacted. • Maintenance apart from Tubes and simple jobs can be contracted out. Further a planned program ensures the automobiles are kept well maintained. • Liability insurance should be lower if marked cars are used with the police package installed. • Equipment such as laptop computers, printers, fax machines and up-to-date radio equipment can be installed. [n its introduction, the Price of Visibility study alleged that "unfortunately we still see the police administration finding excuses and making statements to the effect that a fleet of marked cars is too expensive without studying the figures, already supplied and asking the necessary questions to move forward." H. Hawaii Police Department Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report, 2003 Pursuant to the release of the West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Ina (WHCS) Price of Visibility report, the Hawaii County Police Department prepared its own updated study titled Hawai `i Police Department Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report. The new HCPD report was essentially a cost analysis rebuttal to the earlier WHCS report. In compiling the report, HCPD staff utilized the same amount, make, model and base cost of the vehicles cited in the WHCS study. 30 The HCPD study concurred with the WHCS finding that the Ford quotation for lease/purchase of 382 cars at 4.73% APR would cost less ($9,784,484.03) over five yeazs than the equivalent five-year cost of 382 subsidized vehicles ($10,961,520.00). HCPD obtained its own bid quote dated April 8, 2003 from the Ford Motor Credit Company for 298 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors (2003 model) at $25,995 each and 98 Ford Taurus Sedans (2003 model) at $20,000 each. The cost of the cazs totaled $9,706,5 l0. At 4.73% APR, Ford proposed a schedule of five payments at $2,124,755 each. The bid stated that the Ford Municipal lease-purchase finance plan required no security deposit and had no prepayment or mileage penalty. HCPD then calculated the cost of extended 5-year warranty based upon a quote from Orchid Isle Auto Center, a Ford dealership, and determined this would add an additional $1,910,000 to the five-year cost of a purchased fleet. HCPD also reported that an Orchid Isle representative recommended the purchase of 127 additional "back-up" vehicles based upon a ratio of one spare vehicle for every three fleet vehicles. Additionally, HCPD disputed WHCS's estimated $5,000 per car resale value after 5 years. HPD contacted Honolulu's police fleet manager who indicated that the average auction price of vehicles 3-6 years old ranged from $200-$500 per unit. HPD also indicated that high shipping costs precluded much interest by mainland police car refurbishing companies in used police cars from Hawaii. HCPD stated that certain "unrealized costs (for l91 fleet cars] were not factored in by the WHCS study," as follows: Yearly Cost to County Maintenance $ 19,100.00 Cleaning $ 91,680.00 Comp/Collision Insurance $252,120.00 Storage ($10/day x 365 days x 191 units) $697,150.00 Overtime $417,304.44 The Department stated that "in accordance with Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions, employees taking home County owned vehicles may be compensated for [overtime] maintenance/cleaning." In a subsequent report, the Department's proposed cost of $10/day for home stomge was deemed a "probable compensatory item." The $l0/day rate was attributed to "the standazd storage fee for towing companies." The report also suggested that "additional overtime costs not considered for `take-home' vehicles may involve officers having to be compensated for travel time to and from duty station." It stated that officers are not required to reside within the district where they are stationed and noted that some officers commute variously from Hilo to Ka`u, Hilo to Honokaa, Hilo to Kona, Waimea to Kona, etc. The report suggested that in the event the department transitioned to a "non-take home" fleet, the costs for new parking stalls for 191 vehicles (land purchase and construction) would conservatively approximate $5,000 per stall or $955,000.00 for 19 ] vehicles. The report anticipated that at least two East and West Hawaii maintenance facilities would be needed and, based upon the cost of "a recently constructed private automobile maintenance facility in Hilo," determined the estimated cost of each facility to be $595,000, excluding costs for obtaining permits, license, contractor, EPA study, environmental impact, etc. 31 Finally, the report cited the salary scale for motor pool facility staff obtained from the 2002 Maui Police Department fleet study, as follows: Position Title Salary Motor Pool coordinator $ 29,712.00 Utility Worker $ 24,282.00 Attendant(F!T) $ 22,290.00 (2) Attendant(P/T) $ 21,792.00 Car Washers $ 16,796.00 Premium Pay $ 1,900.00 Total $116,772.00 The HCPD report asserted that "subsidized vehicles are readily identifiable to the residents and visitors alike the blue strobe light affixed to the top of the vehicle is highly visible during the day or night." It made no comment on the lack of "Police" identification markings on subsidized vehicles. The report did propose, however, that a "flyer photo program with the airport, HVB, airlines could satisfy the infrequent visitor' to become familiarized with county police cars and suggested that this might be a "project for WHCS." Finally, the study summarized the advantages and disadvantages of a fleet vehicle program as follows: Advantages of Fleet Vehicle Proeram Disadvantaees of Fleet Vehicle Proeram • Standardized Vehicles Longevity 2.5 - 3 years • Prisoner more confined Susceptible to vehicle abuse • No cost to officer High start-up cost • Standard 36 month 36K mile wan'anty unless extended warranty purchased • Need 3 maintenance facilities to accommodate logistical concerns • Need to hire new staff to man facilities (possible 24 hours) • Bidding process I. Hawaii Police Department Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report I1, 2003 On December 2, 2003 Police Chief Lawrence K. Mahuna transmitted an updated report titled Hawaii Police Department Fleet vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report l7 to Mayor Harry Kim. Chief Mahuna's cover letter to the mayor stated that the report was transmitted "in accordance with your directives to provide recommendations on improving the visibility of our department " The December, 2003 report provided five options for departmental vehicles, as well as recommendations for enhancing the visibility -upgraded lighting systems, directional signage, etc. - of county police stations. The repoR was prepared after consulting neighbor island county police departments. All other county police departments recommended purchasing fleet vehicles with no extended warranty. They advised against leasing due to the excessive warranty costs for leased police vehicles. Instead, the other counties recommended purchasing vehicles outright, declining extended warranties, and placing a high priority on preventive maintenance. The Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was reportedly preferred by neighbor island police depart- ments. In developing a cost estimate for this latest report, HCPD quoted the actual purchase price for a 32 Crown Victoria by the Honolulu Police Department ($25,000) and added $14,000 for emergency equipment for a total vehicle cost of $39,000. The proposed "emergency equipment" was not otherwise identified, nor were itemized equipment costs presented in the report. The proposed number of cars (309 primary patrol cars plus 97 support vehicles) equaled the number of sworn personnel (406). In its cost summary, the report elected a ratio of 1:5 back-up vehicles (81) for the total number of fleet vehicles (406). All fleet vehicle costs were based on a three-year payment program. Cost summaries for fleet programs showed anticipated annual operating costs, and did not reflect the one-time capital improvement costs of additional parking stalls, maintenance facilities, and interest payments. The five optional fleet plans presented in the study included: 1. 100% Take Home Fleet- Costs fora "tum-key" fleet of 487 cars (406 plus 81 back-up cazs) are projected over three years. To this amount, the costs of liability insurance ($1,956.72 per unit annually, storage fees ($10/day x 365 x 406 cars), and compensation to officers for time spent cleaning vehicles (4 hours per month) were added. 2. 100% Non-Take Home Fleet -Under this scenario, 406 fleet vehicles would be purchased for each sworn officer, along with 81 back-up cars. Officers would not be permitted to take vehicles home, but would report to their respective district station in private cars and perform patrol duties in an assigned fleet vehicle. Additional parking stalls would be needed. 3. Partial Fleet/Non-Take Home -Under this scenario, some 309 primary patrol officers would be provided with marked fleet vehicles. Support officers (97 plainclothes) would continue to receive subsidized allowances for the use of the private cars for official duty. 4. Partial Take-Home Fleet -This option would provide 309 patrol officers with marked cars which they would be allowed to take home. Associated costs for overnight storage and com- pensation for cleaning would apply. Plainclothes officers would receive subsidy allowances. 5. Hybrid Subsidized County Fleet Program -This option proposes the purchase of 57 non- take home fleet vehicles and 9 vehicles assigned to designated "high visibility/crime areas." Marked police cars assigned to each designated area would be used on all three tour of duty shifts. Sixteen high visibility and/or crime area police beats were identified as candidates for the prolnam: four in Hilo, four in Kona, four in Puna, two in South Kohala, one in Honokaa and one in Hawi. Anticipated cost summaries for the five optional fleet programs are shown below: OPTION #1 100°/, TAKE HOME FLEET 406 Take Home Fleet Vehicles 81 Backup Fleet Vehicles Monthly Vehicle Cost $ 1,083.33 $ 1,083.33 Monthly Expenses O~cer Time $ 69.36 Insurance-Damage $ 110.00 $ 110.00 Insurance-Liability $ 163.06 $ 163.06 Home Storage $ 304.17 Total Monthly Cost $ 1,729.92 $ 1,356.39 Annual Cost $ 20,759.00 $ 16,276.68 $8 428 154 00 $1 318.411.08 Total Program Cost 59,746,565.08 33 OPTION #2 100% NON-TAKE HOME FLEET 406 Fleet /81 Badcuo Vehicles Monthly Vehicle Cost $ 1.083.33 Monthly Expenses Officer Time $ Insurance-Damage $ 110.00 Insurance-Liability $ 163.06 Home Storage $ Total Monthly Cosl $ 1,356.39 Annual Cost $ 16.276.72 Total Program Cost $7,926,762.64 OPTION #3 PARTIAL FLEET/NON-TAKE HOME Vehicles Cost Per Vehide Per Month Annual Cost 309 Fleet $ 1,083.33 $4,016,987.64 97 Subsidized $ 488.00 $ 568,032.00 62 Backup Fleet $ 1,083.33 $ 805,997.52 Monthly Expenses Offcer Time $ Insurance-Damage $ 110.00 $ 489,720.00 Insurance-Liability $ 163.06 $ 915,744.96 Home Storage $ Total Monthly Cost $ 1.729.92 $ 1,356.39 Total Program Cost $8,796,482.12 OPTION #4 PARTIAL FLEET/TAKE HOME Vehicles Cost Per Vehide Per Month Annual Cost 309 Fleet $ 1,083.33 $4,016,987.64 97 Subsidized $ 488.00 $ 568,032.00 62 Backup Fleet $ 1,083.33 $ 805,997.52 Monthly Expenses O~cer Time $ 69.36 $ 257,186.88 Insurance-Damage $ 110.00 $ 489,720.00 Insurance-Liability $ 163.06 $ 915,744.96 Home Storage $ 304.17 $1,127,862.36 Total Program Cost E8,181,531.36 OPTION #5 HYBRID SUBSIDIZED/COUNTY FLEET Vehicles Cost Per Vehide Per Month Annual Cost 48 Fleet $ 1,083.33 $ 623,998.08 9 Backup Fleet $ 1,083.33 $ 116,999.64 358 Subsidized $ 488.00 $2,096,448.00 Monthly Expenses Maintenance $ 100.00 $ 68,400.00 Cleaning $ 40.00 $ 27,360.00 Insurance-Damage $ 110.00 $ 75,240.00 Insurance-Liability $ 163.06 $ 794.428.32 Total Program Cost $3,802,674.04 In presenting the cost summaries shown above, the HCPD report stated that the average monthly cost for comprehensive and collision insurance coverage was $110.00 or $1,320.00 annually. According to HCPD, officers reported spending approximately $1,200.00 per year for basic maintenance, including servicing, major/minor repairs, tires and garage fees. Officers also indicated that vehicle cleaning (twice weekly washing and once-per-month professional car waxing) cost them $40.00 monthly. Like its earlier report, HCPD proposed that officers would be entitled to $10/day storage compensation for any take- home fleet vehicle. The report did not present any conclusion or indicate a preference among its five fleet options. It is noteworthy, however, that the optional "Hybrid Subsidized/County Fleet" plan presented in this report, 34 unlike many earlier HCPD studies, offered a strategic law enforcement objective as the basis for the consideration and assignment of police cars. J. Summary In reviewing the many studies summarized above, we noticed two focal, recurring concerns. The first concerns inherent employer/employee tension (and ambivalence) surrounding the personal vehicle allowance system. With the exception of the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company report and audit recommendations of 1972, none of the studies undertaken by the Hawaii County Police Department have critically examined several key premises of the car allowance/subsidy policy. The first premise involves the logic, fairness and accountability - to both police officers and the County - of a uniform negotiated "allowance sum" as opposed to an "actual cost" reimbursement. As long ago as 1972, PMM&Co. auditors alluded to this problem when recommending reassessment of the "reasonableness of the basic costs involved in covering maintenance costs, basic wear and tear, etc." Implicit in the present subsidy system is the assumption that monthly allowances, over a period of time extending up to 8-10 years, cover the cost of purchasing and maintaining a car. However, no document of record actually makes that understanding explicit. As a result, the allowance system invites dispute and inevitable re-negotiation. To illustrate this point, a simple cost analysis expressed in plain language is offered. Let's say that a county police patrol officer buys a new car for $20,000 in 2004. The car meets HCPD requirements. The loan term for the car is 4 years at 4.29% interest [per CapitolOne Auto Finance]. The officer's monthly car payment is $454.18. To this amount, add monthly maintenance ($100), comprehensive/collision insurance ($110), and cleaning costs ($40), based upon the figures supplied in HCPD's December 2003 study. The officer's car now costs $704.18 monthly. As a patrol officer, he or she receives a $488/month allowance. Out of pocket, the officer pays the difference between the allowance and the actual cost. That difference amounts to $216.18 monthly or $2,594.16 per year. Over the course of the four-year car loan, the total disparity totals $10,376.64. Thus far, the county car allowance does not equal the actual cost of the officer's car. In 2008, this cost scenario is reversed. The caz is paid off; the officer no longer makes a $454 monthly caz payment. Accounting for inflation, maintenance, insurance and cleaning bills now total $300 monthly. Meanwhile, the officer continues to receive the $488 monthly allowance. The difference between the officer's actual costs and the allowance now amounts to a $188/month positive cash flow. The officer maintains the car for 4 additional yeazs of police service and personal use, as permitted by departmental regulations. Cumulative cash accrued during years 5-8 of the car's life totals ($188 x 48 months) $9,024.00. By faithfully maintaining the car for police service, the officer has now virtually made up the difference ($10,377) of out- of-pocket expenses incurred during years I-4. With approval from the police department, the officer might even extend approved subsidized use of the car for another two years. Essentially, the allowance operates as a deferred compensation system. Based upon the scenario above, the officer's out-of-pocket costs incurred during the payment schedule of the caz ($10,377) during years 1-4 are recouped by positive cash flow ($9,024) incurred during years 5-8. The difference over 8 years amounts to $1,353; averaged over 8 years, the cos[ of the car to the officer is $169/year. If the car is kept 35 in police service for an additional two years with departmental approval, the total allowance received over 10 years ($488 x 120 months = $58,560) likely reduces the lifetime cost of the car to $0. This scenario creates a disincentive for county police officers to abandon the subsidy system, in particular those officers who purchase more expensive 4-wheel drive vehicles. The department's 1994 study acknowledged this problem by recommending that officers selected for its fleet car pilot project be a mix of rookies (not yet receiving a car allowance) and veteran officers whose cars were approaching or had met the expiration date (8-10 years) for subsidy eligibility. Meanwhile, a taxpayer might ask: why should my taxes pay for an allowance that exceeds actual costs after the officer has finished making payments on the car? In turn, the officer might reply, why shouldn't 1 receive the balance the actual costs I incurred during the first four years of the life of my car? Is the allowance system meant to pay all costs incurred by officers for the life span of their vehicles? Nothing in the SHOPO contract says so. Instead, the allowance 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 silent on the matter. Should an allowance system pay for all costs of car ownership incurred by county police officers? None of the studies cited above attempted to answer that question. In its 1972 assessment of the car allowance system, PMM&Co. suggested a 70% "official use" formula based on official mileage, and excluding off- duty mileage, to reflect actual costs. No subsequent proposal emerged to implement a distinction between on-duty and off-duty costs. While officers and their family members enjoy personal (albeit limited) use of subsidized cars, no formula has set a value for the personal use of subsidized automobiles. Likewise, despite notations in HCPD studies that the Exhilait 8 Fuel ewnomy department's 1 gallon:l0 official miles ratio for EAA Mits Per cdbn issuance of gasoline allowed "the use of excess fuel MerxrieetursNModol Gty VLyhwry ComMned by subsidized vehicles with better than allowed for ~ ~ gas mileage," no initiative has been undertaken to Gihevrolet Tahoe {2wheel drive! IS 20 1sS allot gas in accordance with actual fuel performance. s x !3n cia! sPn In fact the most recent Michi an State Police fuel economy tests of police package vehicles [see Dei mlarChryeler Dodge Irarepid 19 27 22 Exhibit 8, MSP Tests, 2004] indicates that even the n asttzt4~iaisaci ' ttt4kt~. ~ hefty V-8 Ford Interceptor delivers combined ~a ~~c. ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ city/highway EPA 18 miles per gallon. The county's ~ qL f330cid) SMpiheeldrivel to n is I gallon:l0 official miles ratio may have made sense 4 ~ ~ 1"" ; ix>w~] Y~ t k 30 years ago when cars were less fuel efficient. But " why should this standard prevail in 2004? 2004 Michigan State Police Tesl Fuel Economy Summary There is inherent conflict and tension in any reimbursement system that diverges from actual costs. The present allowance system has the potential for distortion and vague entitlement. The lack of a clear, written reimbursement policy for itemized expenses exacerbates this problem. If the subsidy system is continued, we recommend that reimbursements should be based upon actual, itemized, documented costs. Moreover, we recommend that the ratio of gasoline issued at 1 gallon per 10 official duty miles be revised to correspond to actual miles per gallon logged by county police cars. 36 Inevitably, transition to an "actual cost" accounting system will entail more clerical input and auditing oversight than the present flat rate allowance system. It might also be the only means to inject rational cost accounting and accountability into the present reimbursement system. The second observation is that all the studies from 1972 to the present fail to answer the question: what is the best police car (or combination of police vehicles) to provide law enforcement services in Hawaii County'? Instead, the foregoing studies present budgetary conjectures and options repeatedly with no conclusion. Many of the cost projections supplied by the Hawaii County Police Department through the yeazs anticipate no more than a 3-year "life" for police package cars, up to three maintenance facilities staffed by police mechanics, a new fleet coordinator position, and costly new parking in the event that patrol cars are deployed in multiple daily shifts with officers commuting to work in private cars requiring additional county parking facilities. Accepting such scenarios and projections, we concur that total transition to county-purchased police package cazs might cost more than the present subsidy system. But when the department suggests that $10/day storage for take-home cars is a probable compensatory cost item amounting to $1,127,000 annually, we echo the published reaction of County Finance Director Bill Takaba ("That's crazy") and would not be surprised if taxpayers also find this proposal galling. We also find disturbing the Maui Police Department's 2002 inference that subsidized vehicles are necessary to assure that officers are "less likely to violate departmental directives or an individual's civil right." The option of a "take home" fleet vehicle is not factored into many of the HCPD studies. Granted, personal subsidized cars facilitate 24/7 police work and on-call activation. The same would be true of assigned "take home" marked police package cars. The department's 1972 study acknowledged that assigned vehicle plans "were gaining popularity among police agencies" and offered the prospect of "high exposure of the public to marked police vehicles." However, none of the cited studies address the question: If take-home subsidized cars are maintained for suitable police service for up to 8-10 years, can assigned/take-home police package vehicles achieve the same extended lifetime of service? The 1994 Pilot Police Fleet study conducted in Puna proposed a concerted follow-up pilot fleet project in South Hilo. That proposed project was never inaugurated. The department's most recent December, 2003 presentation of five fleet options offers an intriguing proposal for a hybrid fleet to provide high visibility patrol services in high-crime areas. The report makes no recommendation that this proposal be implemented. New or additional departmental costs are subject to the budgetary restraints of the County, coupled with the disposition of the administrntion and the County Council to propose and approve appropriations. The prospect of new costs alone should not inhibit departments from making frank determinations about preferred equipment to perform essential public services. 37 SECTION 4 POLICE VISIBILITY AND MARKED POLICE PATROL FLEETS - A REVIEW This section presents: A. An examination of the effectiveness of traditional police patrol B. Snapshot: Crime Statistics in Hawaii C. The merits of take-home cars and "assigned vehicle programs" D. The importance of transparency in police work E. Police visibility and traffic enforcement F. Proposed guidelines for police patrol vehicle markings G. State statutes relating to inscription of government motor vehicles H. Summary A. An Examination of the Effectiveness of Traditional Police Patrol The traditional function of police patrol was perhaps best described by noted police scientist Egon Bittner as "something ought not to be happening and something ought to be done about it now." However, the premise that prominently marked patrol cars enhance police visibility and, therefore, deter crime is disputed by many police science evaluators. As such, the issue of marked police package vehicles and their associated costs merits close examination in Hawaii County. While the ratio of Hawaii County police officers to Hawaii County county population is reasonably consonant with many yoa,„"aw" Potrol Districts other jurisdictions across the nation, the territory covered """""0" by the county's police force is greater than many cities or Deno counties of equal population. The map to the right shows c"-.,-. the County's eight police patrol districts. ~••~~-.w~~ ~ soum aaww Among the county's large and remote rural subdivisions are Hawaiian Ocean View Estates in Ka`u with over ,u,a n~~.~ 10,500 one-acre lots and Hawaiian Paradise Park in Puna extending 4 miles long and 3 miles wide, with over 8,800 aon" building lots and 137 miles of roadways. The sheer size, sprawl, challenging topography, and ~ " ; ° substandard road conditions of many of the island's .o., , communities add an extra dimension to the task of police patrol. The Island of Hawaii encompasses some 4,028, square miles or 2,578,048 acres. Already, the number of building lots to accommodate population growth totals 128,226 lots island-wide, according to the Hawaii County Planning Department. If police officers throughout the county's rural districts are acknowledged to be "spread thin," would the infrequent presence of marked police fleet cars effectively lessen the incidence of crime? The studies cited below suggest that this proposition is questionable at best. 38 1. National Institute of Justice Findings In 1997, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a huge congressionally-mandated study titled Preventing Crime.• What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, A Report To The United States Congress. Among its conclusions was this summary on the effectiveness of policing practices: There is reasonable scientific certainty that the following police practices prevent crime: extra police.focused on high crime "hot spots," police units focused on serious repeat gffenders, proactive enforcement of drunk driving laws, and arrests of employed suspects for misdemeanor domestic violence. There is also reasonable certainty that the following practices are ineffective: increased random patrols of entire heats, more rapid response time to 911 calls, neighborhood watch, arrests of some juveni/es.lor minor offenses, arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault, arrest crackdowns at drug markets, and community po/icing programs will: no clearfocus on crime risk factors. The NIJ study came to some surprising conclusions, including the "likely failure to achieve crime prevention merely by adding more police or shortening response time across the board." Its survey of evaluative literature on crime prevention based on at least two consistent findings from level 3 scientific methods score (well-measured, before-after studies with a comparison group) and a preponderance of the other evidence in support of the same conclusion, showed several practices to be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, and several with strong evidence of ineffectiveness, as follows: What works: • increased directed patrols in street-comer hot spots of crime • proactive arrests of serious repeat offenders • proactive drunk driving arrests • arrests of employed suspects for domestic assault What doesn't work: • neighborhood block watch • arrests of some juveniles for minor offenses • arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault • drug market arests • community policing with no clear crime-risk factor focus What's promising: • police traffic enforcement patrols against illegally carried handguns • community policing with community participation in priority setting • community policing focused on improving police legitimacy • zero tolerance of disorder, if legitimacy issues can be addressed • problem-oriented policing generally • adding extra police to cities, regardless of assignments warrants for arrest of suspect absent when police respond to domestic violence 39 The congressional evaluators bemoaned the lack of substantive findings on a wide array of crime issues. They could not identity a single impact evaluation of police practices on gang prevention. They stated that police curfews and truancy programs lack rigorous tests. Police recreation activities with juveniles, such as Police Athletic Leagues, also remain unevaluated. They noted that automated identification systems, in-car computer terminals, and a host of other new technologies costing billions of dollars remain unevaluated for their impact on crime prevention. While the NIJ study challenged the merits of "perceived omnipresence" provided by random police patrol work, it did provide evidence that a "precise patrol presence" concentrated at "hot spots" and "hot times" lessens the incidence of crime in those places and times. 2. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment The findings of the National Institute of Justice in 1997 mirrored a now famous 1973 police science evaluation known as the "Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment." In 1972, with funding and technical assistance from the Police Foundation, the Kansas City Police Department launched a comprehensive, scientifically rigorous experiment to test the effects of police patrol on crime. The Kansas City experiment sought to test the assumption, long held valid, that the presence or potential presence of officers patrolling the streets in marked police cars deters people from committing crime. The implications of the study, now widely cited in criminology texts, are significant. Billions of dollars are spent annually to maintain and field uniformed and often superbly equipped police officers who perform patrol work, widely acknowledged as the backbone of police work. This landmark experiment found that traditional routine patrol in marked police cars does not appear to aJject the level of creme. Nor does it affect the public's feeling of security. The experiment began in October 1972 and continued through 1973. Patrols were varied within 15 police beats. Routine preventive patrol was eliminated in five beats, labeled "reactive" beats (meaning officers entered these areas only in response to calls from residents). Normal, routine patrol was maintained in five "control" beats. In five "proactive" beats, patrol was intensified by two to three times the norm. The experiment asked the following questions: • Would citizens notice changes in the level of police patrol? • Would different levels of visible police patrol affect recorded crime or the outcome of victim surveys? • Would citizen fear of crime and attendant behavior change as a result of differing patrol levels? • Would their degree of satisfaction with police change? Information was gathered from victimization surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored police-citizen interaction. Major Findings Interestingly, citizens did not notice the difference when the level of patrol was changed. What is more, increasing or decreasing the level of police patrol had no significant effect on resident and 40 commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism- crimes traditionally considered to be prevented by random, highly visible police patrol. The rate at which crimes were reported to the police did not differ in any important or consistent way across the experimental beats. Citizen fear of crime was not affected by different levels of patrol. Nor was citizen satisfaction with police. "Ride-alongs" by observers during the experiment also revealed that 60 percent of the time spent by a Kansas City patrol ofI-icer typically was noncommitted. In other words, officers spent a considerable amount of time waiting to respond to calls for service. And they spent about as much time on non-police related activities as they did on police-related mobile patrol. Implications The findings do not prove per se that a highly visible police presence has no impact on crime in selected circumstances. What they do suggest, however, is that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe. The overall implication is that resources ordinarily allocated to preventive patrol could safely be devoted to other, perhaps more productive, crime control strategies. More specifically, the results indicate that police deployment strategies could be based on targeted crime prevention and service goals rather than on routine preventive patrol. It is important to note that this experiment was conceived and executed by a local police department with technical help from outside reseazchers. The Kansas City experiment showed that routine patrol had no significant effect on crime rates, citizen fear of crime, or citizen satisfaction with police services. Kansas City Police Chief Joseph McNamara concluded, "The results repudiated a tradition prevailing in police work for almost l50 years." Commenting on the Kansas City experiment, University of Delaware police scientist Carl Klockazs echoed that point: "It makes about as much sense to have police patrol routinely in cazs to fight crime as it does to have firemen patrol routinely in fire trucks to fight fire." Writing in the New York Post (June 23, 2003), Peter Moskos, an ex-Baltimore policeman and Harvard Ph.D. candidate, offered this incisive analysis of the effectiveness of urban police patrol: "!n the 1950s and 1960s, some thought that technology and social progress could elim- inate crime Police were moved from the street to patrol cars to handle the demand ,From the newly established 911 system. Police efficiency was judged by response time and numbers of arrests (rather than the rising crime rate). Car patrol now consumes most police manpower- but it doesn'tprevent crime. Rapid response works fine for fires and hear) attacks, but leads to an a»•est in less than 3% of serious crimes... When I walked the beat, often at 4:00 a. m. in Baltimore's worst neighborhood, I learner! more ahout the area in one hour than I did in seven hours to a car. Drug dealers were shocked when their lookouts called me out, 'five-oh, on foot.' And tt was nice to hear the joy in one woman's voice as she left her house before dawn to go to work 'God bless you two, like ungels in blue. ' In cars, you see mostly scowls. " 41 Such critical analysis of the effectiveness of routine motorized patrol contributed, in part, to a shift in the 1990s toward "community policing" strategies aimed at collaborative, proactive interaction with citizens and community groups to deter and solve crimes. In August, 1997 the Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. and the Center for the Community Interest released a report titled Citizen Action for Neighborhood Safety, Community Strategies for Improving the Quality of life. It was prepared for and funded by a grant awarded by the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, U.S. Department of Justice. It stated: "Historically, most police departments have given higher priority to law enforcement tactics like preventive patrol, rapid response, and investigations than to order maintenance and service delivery. But research and experience have shown that these tactics have failed to significantly reduce crime because they are limited to reacting to crimes that have alreadv taken place or to situations that have alreadv reached critical levels. Preventive Patrol. Random patrol does not necessarily reduce or deter crime, disorder, or the fear of crime. Isolating officers in patrol cars and enslaving them to the radio has resulted in less diadog~ee between the police and the community. Rapid Response. Rapid response seldom increases the probability of making an arrest or identifying a wimesr. Rapid response it not as critical as previously believed because there is typically a delay before citizens call the police. Retrospective Investigation. Criminal investigations are not extremely effective. Some studies show that only about one in five reported crimes results in arrest. In many cammunities, only about one--fi~urth to one-third of all crimes, depending on the crime type, m•e even reported to the police. " In 1999, the National Institute of Justice issued two research reports on community policing efforts in St. Petersburg, Florida and Indianapolis, Indiana. Contrary to widely held beliefs, the studies showed that patrol officers typically were not engaged in "reactive" response duties. The researchers found that St. Petersburg officers spent, on average, one-fourth or one-third of their time not on specific tasks, but rather on general patrol or personal business. 911-response officers were typically free of dispatcher or supervisor assignments for 5-6 hours of their 8-hour shift. The Indianapolis study reported that on a typical shift, 71 % of an officer's time was free of assignments from dispatchers, supervisors or other officers. On average, 44% of officer time for self-directed tasks was available in blocks of at least 60 minutes, suggesting that officers had available blocks of time to engage in specific community policing projects. B. Snapshot: Crime Statistics in Hawaii A brief examination of reported crime statistics in Hawaii suggests that neither the incidence of crime nor effective crime-fighting stmtegies have much, if anything, to do with the make and model of police patrol cars. In October, 2003 the State Attorney General's semi-annual Uniform Crime Report showed that overall crimes statewide fell 2.1 percent compared with the same period last year. However, that was largely attributable to a 6.4 percent drop in Oahu's property crime, which accounts for most of the state's crime statistics. 42 For the third consecutive year, Hawaii led the nation in larceny-theft cases, according to FBI statistics for 2002. The Uniform Crime Report showed that Hawaii had 3,964 larceny-theft cases per 100,000 residents. That number is followed by Washington, U.C., which had 3,802 cases, and Arizona, which had 3.694. Hawaii's overall property crime rate also remained among the top three states, dropping from second highest in the nation in 2001 to third highest in 2002 with 5,782 cases per every 100,000 residents reported. Hawai'i's auto theft ranking also rose nationally, to fourth highest in the nation. FBI crime statistics reported 796 auto thefts in Hawaii for every 100,000 residents in 2002. On Oahu alone, police reported a nearly 52 percent increase in auto thefts. On the Neighbor Islands -Maui, Kauai and Hawaii - property and violent crimes increased. Hawaii crime increases in 2002 Tn1ai nunNCl of aimc5 rePnaF[t fat 20D1 antl LW?' CRih1 F. lU0] 2002 Ill MaLll Connty, whlCh mClUdes MOIOkaI and tall al, Murcler/nonangligent manalaagMe~ 91 14 violenterimeswentu 15.1 ercentwhile ro ert 4Oi P P P P Y Rahbe - - ry i ]AI 1.110 P P s~ Crlmes wellt U 13.6 erCellt. TO AL VIOLENT CRIME 3.137 3,28 2 Burglary 11.]62 12.]22 . Hawal'I County's violent came rate rose 22.5 percent Larceny/thah ~ I gas 46.344 ihlCle theh Whl1e Its property crime rate C1lmhed 6.3 percent. TCTAI PROPERTY CRIME 80830.-.~ ~~SSO 8]6 TOTAL CRIME 65,94] T6,236 Kauai County's violent crimejumped 35.4 percent o P r H~,o~u a ~M,~i:,.~' while property crime rose 1.9 percent. Maui County and Kauai County utilize marked police fleet vehicles. Hawaii County does no[. And yet, the Hawaii County Police Department has registered some of the highest clearance rates statewide in recent years. The 2001-02 Hawaii County Police Department annual report states: "The Department continued to lead the state in clearance rates for all categories of index crimes." Based on these recent crime statistics, how can one conclude that use of marked police vehicles has any salutary effect whatsoever on crime prevention or reduction? What, then, does account for the recent rise in larceny and property crime in Hawaii? Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle attributes the rise in property crime to crystal methamphetamine, or ice. A graphic (shown on the next page) based on statistics compiled by the state attorney general confirms the correspondent rise in property crimes and the "ice epidemic" since 1999. Ice turned up in 40% of men arrested by Honolulu police from January-September 2001, the highest percentage among 30 U.S. cities, according to a national drug monitoring program overseen by the U. S. Justice Department. Carlisle champions longer prison terms for property crime offenders. He also laments lenient sentencing. "If you incapacitate criminals you stop crime. We've stopped thinking like that," he said. "Anything that has allowed property offenders to be given multiple chances so that their criminality escalates contributes to the current problem." On September 14.2003, Honolulu Sear-Bulletin reporter Nelson Daranciang wrote: "Honolulu police say methamphetamine is the driving force behind the state's high property crime rate -addicts stealing to support their ice habit.' 43 The Star-Bul/elfin reported that Hawaii County vice officers spend Property crimes nearly 90 percent of their time on cases involving hard drugs such A breakdown of tiawati prnpeTty as cocaine, heroin and ice, according to Captain Sam Thomas, crimes in the first six monthsnf Hawaii County Police Department Criminal Investigation zW`l' Division commander. larrrw then Motnr ~j' vehtrlr Captain Thomas added that a corresponding rise in ice cases, ihetr arrests and seizures on Oahu and the Big Island was attributable to 15x' "greater community involvement." Burglary "The public is calling in more and helping us more," he said. trz, Ne{xrrted pra erry crimes in the In April, 2003 Hawaii County police established a 24-hour tirst six moms of 2993 to 2003 Vice/Tip Hotline. Callers are given a tracking number so they can sn,o~ut call back to find out the status of the case or offer additional ati.otu'r information. sa.rxm 20.(xNl The hot line numbers are 329-0-ICE (329-0423) for West Hawaii lo,oan and 934-VICE (934-8423) for East Hawaii. u D3 fed 'F, !x; 9; 5N 54 d ~ i71 p2 03 Additionally, HCPD has established distinct squads in East and ~P~~»~-~~~~»~~~r~n~~~~ ,Ithr Ain~mey frnPnd SURBULLF.TIN West Hawaii focused solely on ice interdiction and enforcement. The incidence of various property crimes represents the single greatest victimization of citizens in Hawaii County. In 2000, "FedStats" reported Hawaii County crime statistics as shown below: Among all reported crimes in the 2000 FedsStats Survey, FEDSTATS - HAWAII COUNTY, 2000 burglary (1,449), larceny-theft (4,355) and motor vehicle theft (384) accounted for 96% of all serious crimes. These are the Crime I Number crimes most citizens commonly esperiencc. They also account Total ~ 6,470 for the greatest number of unsolved cases. Murder ~ 4 Rape ~ 53 Robbery ~ 54 Similarly, surveyed "Offenses Known to Police and Clearances, Aggravated Assault ~ 126 By Type Of Offense, Hawaii County: 2002" [tlawai`i County Burglary ~ 1,449 Data Book, 2002] show the lowest clearance rates for burglary Larceny -theft ~ 4,355 Motor vehicle thefts I 384 (15.7%), larceny (22.4%) and auto theft (24.2%). Combined, population ~ 148,677 these three reported or known offenses accounted for 6,918 of all Coverage indicator ~ too°io serious (Part I) offenses (7,141) committed in 2002. In short, those crimes that are, by their nature, stealthy and typically unobserved may prompt the greatest public anxiety and dissatisfaction over the state of public safety in Hawaii County. The table shown on the next page (Hawai`i County Data Book, 2002) shows that the number of sworn Hawaii County police officers has increased by only 19 from 1997 to 2002. However, resident population has grown from 141,500 in 1997 to 154,800 in 2002, thereby increasing the number of residents per police officer from 396 in 1997 to 412 in 2002. 44 Table 4.2 - RATIO OF RESIDENT POPULATION TO POLICE OFFICERS, HAWAII COUNTY: 1997 TO 2002 (As of December 31) Subject 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Police Department 1/ 491 482 496 512 527 510 Swom 357 345 364 380 391 376 Civilian 2/ 134 137 132 132 136 134 Resident population 11,0001 141.5 143.1 142.4 14R.7 152.1 154.8 No. o(peisons per police officer 396 415 391 391 389 412 I /Actual strength. 2/ Does not include temporary, part-time, orshort-[enn employees. Source: Hawaii County Police Department, records. One of the most revealing findings contained in the 2002 Data Book [Table 4.4, shown below] is a 23- year survey of the incidence of crime in Hawaii County. k shows that for critical crime index offenses - murder/negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and auto theft -trends point to an overall lessening of crime in Hawaii County, as measured by offenses committed per 100,000 resident population. Table 4.a-CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 15 th1S WelCOme development attrtbutable t0 AND NUMBER OF OFFENSES COMMITTED the 1nCreaSing effeCYlVeneSS Of the H8Wa1`] FE HAWAI'OICO NI7VN 980 T02000N, County Police Department, county rosecutors, the courts, or to a enerall Offenses committed P g y Actual crime Residem per 100,000 resitlenr nlOCe law-abiding citizenry? Or all of the near index offenses population population abOVe? 1980 5 207 92 053 5 657 1981 5 623 97 000 5,797 1982 5 516 98 000 5 629 Survey data of motor vehicle traffic 1983 a ass 101 000 4 s21 accidents b districts from 1991-2002 lsaa a ss7 1os aoo 4 aa1 y 1985 5 111 109 700 4,659 shows that while accidents have increased lses 5339 111600 4n5 In recent ears, total Te Orted accidents In 1987 4934 115 zoo 4,283 y P 1988 5 909 117 500 5 029 2002 (6,090) were still fewer than the lsss s e31 12z aoo s yes number osted in 1991 6,455 ,when there lsso 7aso 120 317 s,zoo P ~ ~ 1991 7 226 121 300 5 957 were fewer cars on the road. 1s9z 6 895 130 500 5 284 1993 6 880 133 200 5 165 1994 7 116 135 500 5 252 For Hawaii County, crime survey data lsss 7o7a 137soo 5.1zs Olnts t0 a VBXIn Ott Oln UEStIOn 1? 1996 6855 139700 4896 p g, g q 1997 7 317 141 500 5 153 contemporary policing: is a community best 19se s 757 143100 a,7zz 1999 5 815 142 400 4,095 served by motorized patrolling police zooo 64zs 1ae7oo a,3z1 officers, or by officers performing assign zool s say 15z 100 4 592 2002 6 936 154 800 4,481 mentS fOCllsed On community-based 1/ Csime index offenses include: munier/negligent manslaughmy npq problem-solving and ongoing investiga robbery, aggnwled assaul46mglary,lareerry, and aum theft Source: HCPD, Mnual Reports, 1980/811987/88, and records. lions? This study does not answer that question. We lack the law enforcement experience or expertise to venture an overall strategy for reducing property crime. What does seem clear, however, is that the effectiveness of patrol and the role of police cars warrants further, careful and strategic consideration. The studies cited above strongly suggest that motorized police patrol, while enabling rapid response to reported crime scenes or public disturbances, may yield far less benefit to the task of overall public safety and crime deterrence than is widely believed (or expected) by the public. 45 This commentary in no way is intended to impugn the diligence or dedication of police beat officers. Rather, it is offered as evidence that the traditional policing practice of random motorized patrol - whether in marked or unmarked cazs -may be of less consequence in the overall scheme of crime prevention and public safety than is widely believed. One of the most telling observations about police practices and crime prevention contained in the 1997 NIJ study concerns the wide gap between academic and political opinion. While the public typically supports a noticeable police patrol presence, many criminologists generalize that "variations in police practice or numbers make little difference in crime" (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Felson, 1994). The NIJ evaluators observed that broad brush initiatives such as the 1994 Crime Act that provided federal funding for 100,000 new police officers nationwide effectively put "police where the people are, not where the crime is." Moreover, the NIJ authors noted that concentrating funding in neighborhoods that most need the police "would fly in the face of distributional politics." In summation, while marked police patrol vehicles undoubtedly add to police "visibility," the assumption that vehicle-based patrol policing deters crime and markedly improves public safety is questionable. This observation is not offered to refute advocates of standard police fleet cars or enhanced police visibility. It is offered as cautionary commentary: on occasion, empirical data confounds what is purported to be plain common sense. C. The Merits of Take-Home Cars and "Assigned Vehicle Programs" What is more certain is the benefit of allowing police officers to drive assigned vehicles to and from work. A number of studies have looked at the effectiveness of "take-home" fleet patrol cars. A 1997 study published in the International Journal o/Police Strategies and Management compared two police fleet programs in San Diego County. The study combined qualitative and quantitative data collection methods to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apersonally-assigned vehicle program vs. a conventional pool caz program. The authors (Zhang; Benson) concluded that personally-assigned vehicles were the most cost- effective to maintain. Moreover, officers assigned personal vehicles reported less job stress and higher morale. Zhang and Benson evaluated the Personal Police Vehicle Program (PPV) in Escondido, California and concluded that "pool cars cost far more than the personally-assigned vehicles to maintain in both parts and mechanic labor." They also found that assigning vehicles to officers increased officer morale, had a positive impact on police response time, and enhanced police visibility in the community. Officer morale is widely cited as a benefit of a take-home car policy. Commenting on a newly implemented take-home car program by the Winter Haven (FL) Police Department, Chief Darcell Kirkland stated: "A police vehicle take-home program is an important tool in the recruitment and retention of qualified candidates and experienced police officer it's a good morale booster for our members." A vehicle take-home plan in Albuquerque, NM echoed these findings, citing significant reductions in the crime rate (for robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, and theft under $50) of St. Paul, Arlington, and Prince Georges County after the introduction of a take-home vehicle program. Improved police community relations was also cited as an advantage of such a policy. 46 In 1997, the city council of Tacoma, Washington (pop., 186,000) commissioned a study by three economists from the University of Puget Sound to explore whether the assignment of vehicles to all patrol officers, as opposed to a pooled fleet, would improve departmental performance and be cost-effective. The study was prompted by an initiative by the Tacoma police chief to equip all rank-in-file patrol officers with assigned cazs. In the chiefs view, assigned patrol cars would enhance community policing and, when equipped with mobile data terminals (MDTs) aided by computer dispatch, would serve as "mobile work stations" enabling officers to step into vehicles from their homes, turn on the MDT, be briefed, and immediately begin their shift in the field. This initiative elicited much initial criticism, including newspaper editorials chazacterizing the proposal as a "union perk", "political payback" and a "Trojan horse." Therefore, before committing to a take-home assigned vehicle program proposed by the Tacoma police chief, the Tacoma city council elected to fund a one-year trial project measuring the impact of such program on productivity, costs, community perceptions of neighborhood safety and the incidence of crime itself. To collect and assess data for the project, operating costs (gas, oil, tires, accidents, repairs and maintenance) were monitored for some 30 assigned vehicles and a comparable control group fleet sample. Activity logs kept by patrol officers with assigned cars reported actions during commutes and off-duty periods. Pre- and post-program surveys examined the perceptions of neighborhood residents regarding crime, safety and police visibility. Project consultants (Mann, Goodman, Baarsma) reviewed the experiences of other communities where public safety departments had implemented assigned vehicle programs, including a statistical analysis of over 90 metropolitan areas to assess the impact of vehicle assignment configurations on crime statistics and properly values. Principal findings of the Tacoma study included the following: (I) assigning vehicles would reduce costs depending on the size of the fleet; (2) the productivity of patrol officers would improve; (3) the use of assigned vehicles would likely reduce crime; (4) the use of assigned vehicles would not improve citizen perceptions of policing; (5) the use of assigned vehicles would improve officer morale; and (6) the benefits of an assigned vehicle program outweigh the cost. Based on mileage recorded and repairs and maintenance incurred, the study surmised that while the average pool patrol vehicle was removed from service after four yeazs (89,000 miles), the average assigned vehicle would remain in service for 7.25 years. For accounting and analysis, the study adopted a eight-year progam life cycle. The study concluded that operating cost for a pool vehicle for eight years was $81,739, whereas the operating cost for an assigned vehicle was $28,133. The largest percentage of savings was realized from reduced accident costs. During the study period, reported major accident incidence was 84% below that of pool vehicles. During the study period, officers in assigned cars reported responding to some 734 police-related events while off duty. The majority of off-duty responses "resulted from officers in an assigned vehicle seeing a problem and responding from their own initiative." Over the span of eight years, the study estimated that a "fully assigned fleet will add more than $3.4 million worth of patrol services," a net total benefit of $2 million despite [he initial steep capital outlay. With respect to crime deterrence, the report stated that "the presence of vehicles in neighborhoods during off-duty hours can reduce crime due both to detection and deterrence." Based on its survey of 92 cities - 17 with assigned vehicles (AVs) and 75 without -the study asserted that "AVs significantly (in both the 47 statistical and absolute sense) reduce crime." The authors concluded that "this result is consistent with the argument that AVs serve as a productivity enhancing capital complement to the production of police services and thereby assists as a significant crime deterrent: ' The table shown below from the Tacoma study presents information for the entire sample of 92 cities and two subsets, one containing only those cities with personally-assigned vehicles (PAVs), the other consisting of those cities without PAVs. On average, crime was less in those cities having PAVs, with the number of police officers nearly identical in both subsets of data. TACOMA STUDY: TABLE Z COMPARISON OF SAMPLE AVERAGES FOR KEY VARIABLES ACCOUNTING FOR PAVs Sample Characteristics No. Cities Crime POLPOP POL POP Total Sample 92 8,926 19.4 356.6 181,900 Sample with only PAVs 17 7,981 18.7 357.5 190,400 Sample without PAVc 75 9,140 19.5 356.3 17),890 KEY' POP (POpulationl; POLa (Average number of police otf icers per cityl; POLPO P: INUm ber of police per 1,000 people) However, Tacoma's one-yeaz pilot project did not demonstrate any change in the perception of citizens regarding police visibility or the perceived incidence of crime. The study stated that "the proportion of residents who reported having seen patrol cars in their neighborhoods in the post-project survey remained about the same as in pre-project survey." An expected "billboard effect" - i.e., the expectation that the presence of more marked vehicles on the streets would make people feel safer- did not materialize. While residents reported seeing vehicles, they did not report "any significant increased feeling or perception of improved safety." The report stated that "the touted visibility benefits from having cazs in neighborhoods might not exist at the perceptional level." Interestingly, the study reported that some of the expectations of police officers also did not materialize. It concluded: "The anticipated costs of having a vehicle, being bothered while off duty, vandalism, personal care for the vehicle, while initially imagined, did not materialize." D. The Importance of Transparency in Police Work What is more certain -though difficult to quantify - is the likelihood that marked police patrol cars serve to enhance public assurance that officers aze "on the job" in vehicles that convey an image of pufilic service and transparent law enforcement. One of the concluding findings of the NIJ study was that "a growing body of research suggests that police legitimacy prevents crime. Tyler (1990) found a strong correlation across a lazge sample of Chicago citizens between the perceived legitimacy of police and willingness to obey the law. Would deployment of Detroit model police cars with prominent markings and light bars enhance police legitimacy in Hawaii County? Until the proposition is tested, any answer is speculative. For some island citizens -including many first-generation residents accustomed to U.S. Mainland police department practices -marked police cazs aze seen as standard police infrastructure. Moreover, Mainland-style police cars of uniform makes and models, color, emblem markings, light bars and sirens represent an image of law enforcement "heft" and professionalism. 48 For some citizens accustomed to that standard, Hawaii County's non-standard assortment of 2- and 4- door cars in a multitude of colors without emblems or departmental identification might connote a lesser standard of public service symbolism and legitimacy. This viewpoint has been asserted in numerous news articles and letters-to-the-editor during the past year. Still other citizens were critical of darkly tinted windows on some county police cars. Tinted windows almost certainly add to the itinerate image of many county police cazs. As a literal barrier to eye contact, darkly tinted windows disconnect citizens from public safety officers. On June 28, 2003 Teddy Hunter posted an entry on the West Hawaii Crime Stoppers website, saying. "I, too have witnessed several police cars with what looks like dark tint. Who can I complain about that to?" He added, "Having moved here from Kentucky, even the smaller departments had marked police vehicles." Another entry recommended elimination of "darkly tinted windows as they make it very dangerous for pedestrians." On the other hand, many island citizens are long accustomed to Hawaii County Police Department policy concerning personal police cars and seem to have no issue with its continuance. It is entirely possible that some citizens regard county police cars as "laid back" and non-threatening. Such a cultural disposition may afford calm to police presence, "island-style." How important are these matters of police visibility and legitimacy? The challenge, stated the NIJ study, "is to develop programs that make policing simultaneously more focused in what they do to prevent crime and more polite in how they do it." Police legitimacy and visibility matter to the law-abiding public. It is precisely law-abiding citizens who look to the police for aid, protection and helpful crime-solving. These are the citizens who most readily call in tips, support Police Athletic Leagues, sport SHOPO bumper stickers, and maintain Crime Stoppers chapters. They welcome conspicuous police presence in their communities. It is not always certain that police officials fully appreciate this distinction between the law-abiding public and those who commit crimes. On September 24, 2003 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported on Mayor Kim's request to the Hawaii County Police Department to look into "ways to increase police visibility in the community." The article quoted Brandon Stone, a Honolulu Police Department spokesman, who cited the advantages of a subsidy system and contested the premise that marked police cars increase police visibility better than subsidized vehicles. "Anyone who lives here knows what a police vehicle looks like, they really don't need some fancy markings." Stone said. "Bad guys know what cop cars look like." This comment, while likely true of "bad guys," seems to miss the point with regard to the law-abiding public that takes comfort in the visibility of police cars. 49 The foregoing discussion suggests that purchase and deployment of county-owned Detroit model "police package" vehicles is not the only means to achieve or enhance police "visibility." Many police departments utilize standard makes and models that lack some of the capabilities of Ford Crown Victoria interceptors. So-called "police service" vehicles -usually 4-wheel drive vehicles -also lack many of the enhanced features of police package cars. What is commonplace, however, is standardization of color, detailing, light bars and emblem identification. These are the customary means by which police departments define and saturate an image of visibility and service to the public. One proposal advanced by William Shelor (West Hawaii Crime Stoppers website) calls for privately funded and donated emblems and lettering for cars currently used by Hawaii County police officers. Shelor asserts: "This would take care of the visibility issue, and would be much easier to get the police chief and union to agree to these changes. The public in general would embrace this solution, as it would not require any radical changes to the existing police force, and would require less taxpayer funds than getting into the business of buying and operating a fleet of cars." What, then, would prohibit the Hawaii County Police Department from painting its current roster of subsidized cars a standard white (normally the cheapest color to maintain) with standardized departmental detailing and emblems? If the department's general orders can specify wheel base and other specifications, is there any reason that a paint job and detailing (at county expense) could not be required? The County Council or the Mayor might pose this question to the Police Chief, Corporation Counsel and SHOPO. An informal Corporation Counsel opinion on the matter of "inscription" of county police cars is presented later in the section and sheds some light on the matter. The issue of negotiating a standard color scheme for police in a police union contract is not without precedent. In 1993, the City Auditor of San Jose, California recommended that the city "negotiate with the Police Officers Association to allow the Vehicle Maintenance Division of the Department of General Services to change the bid specifications for police patrol vehicles to reflect a basic white paint scheme." Presently, the SHOPO contract (Article l8, Section C-"Vehicle Specifications") states: "The Employer shall determine the specifications of such vehicles." E. Police Visibility and Traffic Enforcement The issue of police car visibility has further implications in Hawaii where, in lieu of any state highway patrol, county police departments perform all traditional traffic enforcement functions. In reviewing the literature surrounding standardized police car markings and their effect on traffic safety, the example set by Great Britain is noteworthy. Drive And Stay Alive, Inc., an organization dedicated to reducing road deaths in the U.S., states that "in the United Kingdom, where the rate of road crashes, fatalities and serious injuries is the lowest (i.e., the best) in the world, virtually all police cars are designed for maximum conspicuity and often park in very prominent locations so that all drivers can see them clearly." Drive And Stay Alive states that "the move to maximize the conspicuity of patrol cars by British police forces, has taken place over the last 10-IS years." [n its 2002 analysis of traffic deaths in the 50 states and nations worldwide, Drive And Stay Alive ranked the U.K. in first place with 6.1 deaths per 100,000 population, whereas Hawai`i's 119 traffic fatalities in 2002 placed its deaths per population (1.26 million) rate at 9.4. At 18.1, Hawaii County's 2002 ratio of 50 traffic fatalities (28) per population (154,794) was nearly double the state ratio. In 2003, with 35 recorded traffic fatalities in Hawaii County, this ratio was still higher. Other prior year ratios of Hawaii County traffic fatalities per 100,000 population are shown below: Year No. Traffic Fatalities Population Ratio 2001 31 152,083 20.4 2000 38 149,199 25.5 1999 31 146,970 21.1 Drive and Stay Alive observes that color schemes of police patrol cars vary widely " both internationally and within the U.S., but "in all cases they are meant to be readily identifiable to assist with officer safety at traffic stops and accident scenes and to increase deterrence among drivers who might otherwise be breaking -~"fi. traffic laws if they failed to see a police ~~r vehicle." [Right: British "Skoda" patrol car in checkered paint design. As in other European nations, UK forces often write the word 'police' backwards across the hood so that it may be easily read through a rear view mirror.l The subject of "conspicuity" in police cars and its import for traffic safety did not factor prominently in any of the studies performed by HCPD to date. The brief Puna patrol experiment with leased marked cars reported no improvement in the incidence of traffic violations. Meanwhile, a number of studies (American Automobile Association, Washington State Police, et aIJ have shown that unmarked police cars have proven effective in apprehending speeding drivers and "high occupancy vehicle" lane violators. What distinguishes these differing law enforcement philosophies is an emphasis on prevention via conspicuity versus violator citation via stealth tactics. This report makes no conclusion as to which school of traffic enforcement is most effective. In all likelihood, a mix of both varieties of police presences on the roads is advantageous. What we suggest merits consideration, however, a more uniform and conspicuous standard for county police vehicles, precisely because Hawaii (uniquely) has no state highway patrol. F. Proposed Guidelines for Police Patrol Car Markings One recent publication makes a strong case for standardized markings and specifications for police cars. The November, 2003 issue of LAW and ORDER published an article titled "Guidelines for Police Patrol Vehicle Markings." The proposed guidelines were drafted by Ed Sanow, Editorial Director of LAW and ORDER Magazine and Police Fleet Manager Magazine. Sanow, whose LAW and ORDER publication has sponsored a Vehicle Graphics Design Contest for over twenty years, suggested that guidelines for patrol vehicle markings were "the next logical step forward in emergency vehicle identity and professionalism." 51 Sanow suggested that the establishment of standard guidelines would make police vehicle markings "more consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction." Such guidelines, he said, would "add some objectivity to an otherwise fairly s~ subjective method for marking and identifying a pOhce Vehicle." Ford Crown Victoria patrol car, Honolulu Police Department He further observed that several key organizations responsible for police accreditation and recommended policing practices -the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), National Institute of JusticelNational Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NIJ/NLECTC) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police ([ACP) -had nol adopted a "standard or guidelines." "Nor," he added. "do their representatives know of any such standard." Sanow did note that "in many states and jurisdictions, the police vehicle graphics are specified by either statute or the statewide police or sheriff s association." In developing draft guidelines for police car markings (shown below), Sanow invited his readers to offer feedback and suggestions. In the future, he indicated, judges for the annual LAW and ORDER Vehicle Graphics Design Contest would use these guidelines to objectively evaluate the entries for the contest. He added: "these guidelines will now be a reflection of the message that an emergency vehicle is here has been received." He also stated that final guidelines would be published in a future issue of LAW and ORDER magazine and its sister publication, Police Fleet Manager. LAW and ORDER `s proposed "Guidelines for Police Patrol Vehicle Markings" are as follows: GUIDELINES FOR POLICE PATROL VEHICLE MARKINGS Should the vehicle have a symbol of the department (i.e., star, shield, shoulder patch, state seall? Or the name of the department (i.e., POLICE, SHERIFFI? Or both the name and a symbol? STANDARD: In the distant past, the symbol of authority was the most common marking. In the recent past, the name of the authority either replaced the symbol or was added to the symbol. The police patrol vehicle should have both the symbol of authority and the wording of the authority spelled out, i.e., both a shield and the word POLICE, or a star and the word SHERIFF, or a state seal and the words H[GHWAY PATROL or STATE POLICE. Where should these markings be (i.e., hood, front fenders, rear fenders, trunk, rooFt? STANDARD: The police patrol vehicle should have both the symbol and the lettering on the side doors, and the lettering on the trunk lid or rear fascia. The police patrol vehicle may also have either the lettering or the symbol of authority or both on the hood, trunk lid and fenders. How recognizable should the lettering of the department name be? (i.e., block, italics, script, multi-color, shadow-boxed, overlaid with scenic view or skyline.) STANDARD: The lettering should be clear, bold and non-italicized and contrasting to its background color. The lettering should not be so colorful, or of a font style, or so graphic- latent that it cannot be easily and instantly read. 52 How contrasting should the name and/ or symbol be in comparison to the color of the vehicle? STANDARD: All markings on the vehicle should be a marked contrast with the background, i.e., a gold star on a tan door and a silver shield on a white door may not be contrasting enough. How recognizable should the agency jurisdiction be in comparison to the agency authority (i.e., "Illinois" compared to "State Police" and "Cook County" compared to "Sheriff")? STANDARD: The agency authority, i.e., "Police° should be the largest and the clearest of the lettering. The jurisdiction, i.e., `Deerfield," while not necessarily as prominent, must be clear and legible. Should emergency numbers (i.e., 911) and non-emergency info (i.e., Web site) be on the vehicle? And if so, where? STANDARD: This information (i. e., 911, 311, www) may be marked on the front or rear fenders or rear fascia, however should be less prominent from the authority lettering and must not be visually distracting. Should the police patrol vehicle be one of the factory two-tone color schemes? STANDARD: The police patrol vehicle should be immediately and clearly distinguished as an emergency vehicle unique from a retail sedan, and unique from a taxi. As such, one of the two-tone paint schemes should be used instead of a solid black, or solid white, or other solid color. Optionally, the solid color police patrol vehicles may achieve the same visual effect by the use of a long, broad stripe, or striping, of a contrasting color(s). Is one of the two-tone schemes better than another? STANDARD: All of the half dozen two-tone paint schemes offered by Chevrolet, Dodge and Ford have the same net effect, and any of the two-tone schemes, in any combination of hood, roof, trunk, fenders and doors, meets the standard. How contrasting should the two-tone be? (i.e., black and white, or state colors of blue and gray, or brown and tan, for example.) STANDARD: Any combination of colors that shows a visual contrast to the casual observer meets the standard. However, the colors of the authority symbol and the department lettering must also be a contrast to the vehicle color. If, for initial cost reasons, neither atwo-tone ie used, nor a solid color with broad striping, should the vehicle be a unique color for rapid recognition? Or a retail color for better residual and resale? STANDARD: No single color currently available immediately identifies a vehicle as a police patrol vehicle, and custom colors carry a cost adder. Since the public safety aspect of the police patrol vehicle marking supersedes the public benefit of slightly greater resale value, a solid color car without significant striping or bold police markings does not meet the standard. Should the back, sides or rear of the police patrol car have luminous or reflective striping? STANDARD: The rear bumper fascia and trunk lid should have some kind of nighttime visibility enhancement, i.e., chevron, cross-hatches, diagonal stripes. If the vehicle uses 53 broad, side-striping, it should be reflective. And that striping should wrap around the back of the vehicle (trunk and rear fascia) in a conspicuous way. If the vehicle is two-tone, reflective striping should be added to the rear trunk lid or rear fascia in a conspicuous way. G. State Statutes Relating to Inscription of Government Motor Vehicles One question related to the issue of "police visibility" that arose in the course of this study concerned whether or not certain state statutes require marked inscription of county police cars. In a memorandum dated January 22, 2004 to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida, Fiscal/Program Review Auditor Rory Flynn asked three questions pertaining to the interpretation of certain sections of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) as they relate to Hawaii County police cars. For additional reference, the full text of the statutes in question - § 105-1, § 105-2(3), § 105-7, §105-8, and §710-1027, HRS -are provided in Appendix C of this report. As this query and the response received from Corporation Counsel has considerable import for the discussion of the current practice of unmarked subsidized police cars in Hawaii County, the full text of Mr. Flynn's query and response from Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida dated January 29, 2004, are shown below: 1. Memorandum dated January 22, 2004 to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida from Fiscal/Program Review Auditor Rory Flynn re: interpretation of HRS statutes as they relate to Hawaii County police cars MEMORANDUM TO: Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel FROM: Rory Flynn, Legislative Auditor's Office RE: HRS Statutes and County Police Cars "For purposes of completing the study underway on Hawai `i County police cars, three questions have arisen for which 1 seek your prompt guidance and interpretation, as follows: (1) Whether the current departmental standard practice allowing unmarked subsidized vehicles in police service must comply with the provisions of Section I05-7 (`Inscription on county motor vehicles') and Section 105-8 (`Character of inscription'), HRS? ,¢105-7 provides a specifac exception to required vehicle inscription jor 'the chief of police and deputy chief of police of the city and county and counties. 'However, the exception does not specifically appear to extend to any other police personnel. Accordingly, we a.rk whether the current practice of unmarked county patrol cars is compliant with the provisions of §I05- 7 and §I05-$ HRS, or whether such non-inscription is authorized by some other section of state law. We note that ,¢105-7 applies to 'every motor vehicle owned or controlled by any county.' While privately owned cars used in police work are clearly not `owned' by the county, the operative question may be whether such cars are `controlled' by the county. (2) Does an unmarked police car with a blue dome light sufficiently establish the 'color of the law enforcement officer's official authority' and identify a county peace officer' (unseen at night or shielded fiy window tint) pursuant to Section 710-1027 (`Resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle'), HRS? 54 This section refers to "a direction of a law enforcement officer, acting under color of the law enforcement officer's official authority, to stop the person's vehicle. " Additionally, a commentary appended to ,¢710-1027 specifies that 'for conviction the actor must have recognized the person giving the order to be a peace nicer. ' As this section specifies that a citdzen "must have recognized the person giving the order [to stop a motor vehicle) to be a peace officer, " I ask if the addition of vehicle inscription as proscribed by §105-7 is necessary or advisable to assure that citizens -particularly tourists and foreigners -can easily identify county police cars when lawfu/ly culled upon to stop on the road. Related to this question is the issue - no matter how unlikely the event - of persons impersonating police o~cers. In 1996, New York Governor George Pataki signed an Executive Order that prevented unmarked state police cars from stopping motorists for routine traffic violations. In signing the executive order, Governor Pataki said, `New Yorkers, especially women, should be free to drive our highways and byways with a sense of security The use of unmarked cars for routine traffic enforcement can create considerable anxiety in the minds of motorists who are uncertain whether individuals seela'ng to stop their vehicles are, in ,fact, police officers.' The executive order did not, however, extend to offenders to 'presented a substantial threat to public safety,' such a.r drivers weaving erratically or suspected of intoxication. (3) Whether the assignment of special number plates to subsidized county police cars specified in HCP General Order No. 802 is properly authorized under the provisions of Section §249-9.2 (`Special number plates; military service'), HRS. Section IU, 'Number and Special Number License Plates' oJ' General Order No. 802 last amended by Police Chief James Correa on November 27, 2001 specifies that all subsidized vehicles used in police service shall have "number license plates" in accordance with Section 249.9, HRS. According to the General Order, such "approved subsidized vehicles are only authorized to have `special number license plates; military service,' pursuant to and described under Section 249.9.2. Hawaii Revised Statutes. " In reviewing Section 249.9.2, HRS, I do not see the explicit or implied authority for issuance of license plates to suhsidized county police vehicles. Instead, this section of HRS appears to apply uniquely and solely to certain veterans of military service. Thanks for your helpful attention to these questions. " 2. Email response dated January 29, 2004 from Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida to Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu and Program/Fiscal Auditor Rory Flynn MEMORANDUM TO: Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor Rory Flynn, Fiscal/Program Review Auditor FROM: Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel RE: HRS Statutes and County Police Cars "As Connie and I discussed telephonically today (1/29), 1 wanted to put my initial thoughts in this email, and solicit your comment before we prepare a, formal written response. 55 HRS Sections 105-7 and 105-8 1 reviewed the legislative history for HRS Chapter 105, and could find no useful material. 1 believe at the time this chapter was enacted, they may have even been talking about horses and buggies! The section may have been primarily concerned with County owned vehicles not being used.for purely personal purposes. Indeed, the requirement that these vehicles be marked `For Official Use Only' seems to be the method to deter such abuse. 1 believe Rory's analysds is right on targe~it comes down to what the definition of 'control' is. Did the drafters of the statute intend 'control' to be the same as 'ownership?' Or is 'control'something other than ownership? This is not clear. Factually, the suhsidized vehicles are privately owned by the police officers. They take official title to these vehicles. No one disputes this. The question thus becomes whether the subsidy given the officers, together with the regulation of vehicles (size, horsepower, no religious decals, etc.) constitute 'control' as deftned by HRS Section 105-7. There are no court cases on point. As our Intermediate Court of Appeals in Lee v. Insurance Company of North America, 7 Haw.App. 338, 762 P.2d 809 (1988) pointed out, the 'subsidized police vehicle' program is something unique to the State of Hawaii. This may seem dike splitting hairs, but ! do believe there is a distinction between `regulation' and 'control.' 1 believe what HPD does through its general orders is regulate the types of vehicles and certain aspects of the vehicle. In my mind, `control' would presuppose the ability to regulate the vehicle on a 24/7 basis. This is not the case with the subsidized vehicles. In fact, even our opinions which have said the police administration has the right to have an officer remove a religious emblem decal from his vehicle would allow the officer to display the emblem during non-on-duty time. Further, it is clearly the intent of the present program to allow the officers to use their vehicles for purely personal activities, during non-on-duty hours. This further distinction leads me to believe the vehicle is not under the `control' of the County. We merely regulate it during work hours. Based on the .Foregoing, I would conclude HRS Section 105-7 and 105-8 do not apply to police subsidized vehicles. HRS Section 710-1027 As 1 explained to Connie, this is a pure penal statute. Whether a criminal defendant violated this section would depend upon thefactual determination of whether he recognized the officer to be acting under the color of his authority, and intentionally made the decision to disobey. This is a question reserved,for the trier of fact, which will be judged from a subjective perspective (i. e., did a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the defendant have reason to know). In sum, we need not get involved in this matter. Clearly, however, the fact you have prominently marked police cars would assist the police and prosecution in rebutting the defense that, 7 didn't know it was a cop who was trying to pull me over. ' Rory's aside reference to Governor Pataki's comments is well taken. 1 am haunted by the Lisa Au case in Oahu, where the victim was abducted by a person posing as a police officer, taken into an unmarked car, raped and murdered near Tantalus Drive. 56 The policy decision, I suppose, would need to be made by the Police Chief, and ultimately the Council %r funding purposes, if a decision is made to convert to a fleet. HRS Section 249-9 I believe there is a typo in the General Orders. It should be 249-9, instead of '249.9' in the initial paragraph. The second paragraph allows police oj~cers who are veterans to have such numbered plates, pursuant to HRS Section 249-9.2 Please let me know your thoughts and comments to any of the above. " H. Summary Public expectations surrounding police patrol "presence" ofren exceed performance as measured by crime statistics. In other words, traditional motorized police patrol may have less consequence for crime prevention and public safety than is widely believed. A review of crime statistics in Hawaii County shows an overall reduction in many critical crime indexes during the past twenty years. Moreover, recent clearance rates achieved by the Hawaii County Police Department compare favorably with other counties in the state. These welcome developments may have little to do with the makes and models of police cars. Accordingly, we caution against attaching undue importance to the issue of subsidized vs. fleet vehicles in the overall picture of public safety. Nonetheless, we find that conspicuous markings on police vehicles serve to project an image of first responder public service, transparency and professionalism. Much recent (and impassioned) discussion surrounding Hawaii County police patrol cars has focused on their lack of conspicuous, customary markings-e.g., standard make and model, standard color and detailing, departmental shield and other "Police" identification, lightbar, etc. The prevailing opinion of the Police Department appears to be that most citizens easily recognize county police cars by their familiar blue dome light and that once a uniformed officer emerges from a car, the identification of county police (and police authority) is firmly established. Some other citizens see police vehicle markings as absolutely essential-"the car is the uniform." In the area of risk management, marked police cars will place in the County in an offensive, rather than defensive, position when "establishing the color" of law enforcement officers' official authority. Police visibility in Hawaii County would be enhanced by standardization of colors, detailing, shield emblems and prominent departmental identification on all patrol vehicles. Such action would also bring the issue of "unmarked police cars" in Hawaii County to a positive resolution. The Corporation Counsel opinion re: § 105-7 and § I05-8, HRS suggests that subsidized privately owned cars may not be "controlled" by the County and thereby subject to state-mandated inscription of county motor vehicles. Accordingly, we urge the Police Chief to explore whether customary law enforcement markings for patrol cars can be instituted by administrative directive. Police visibility, efficiency, and emergency response capability also are enhanced by a take-home vehicle policy. In the event of conversion to a county-owned fleet, a "take-home" policy for marked patrol vehicles maybe attained pursuant to the provisions of § 105-2(3), HRS. 57 One objection raised to a "take-home" policy for marked patrol cars is that the public would never perceive or acknowledge that an officer is "off-duty." The Tacoma study cited earlier indicated that this concern did not truly materialize in a manner that inhibited its officers. Another objection voiced to a "take-home" policy is that an officer would not put his family in a back seat "cage." While that might be the case, there is no obligation on the part of the County or its taxpayers to furnish police officers with a vehicle that offers optimal "off-duty" driving amenities. The purpose of a take-home policy is to acknowledge the legitimate commuting convenience of the officer and to facilitate on-the-job responsiveness. Effectively, atake-home policy enhances on-call police performance, emergency response, and officer morale; in the event of fleet conversion, it should be retained. 58 SECTION 5 POLICE VEHICLES -PRACTICES, SPECIFICATIONS, TRENDS AND PURCHASING GUIDELINES This section presents: A. Finding: No accreditation standard for police cars B. U.S. Department of Justice survey data regarding police vehicles and related "in-field" equipment C. A review of police package car design and technology trends D. Summary results of the "2004 Model Year Police Vehicle Evaluation" performed by the Michigan State Police and the National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center, National Institute of Justice E. Considerations and options for police vehicle purchasing, leasing and fleet management F. Summary A. No Accreditation Standard for Police Cars Used by State or Local Police Departments Contrary to what a program evaluator (or the general public) might expect, there is no absolute or recommended national standard for the selection of makes and models of police fleet vehicles. In part, this is a consequence of the disparate sizes of local, municipal, county and state police forces throughout the United States, their varying patrol needs, the availability of funds, and the volatile nature of municipal budgeting. The Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), the agency that awards accreditation to local police departments, has not established a national compliance standard for the makes and models of police fleet vehicles. This was confirmed in a telephone inquiry by the Legislative Auditor's Office to CALEA program staff based in Fairfax Virginia in November, 2003. CALEA was created in 1979 through the collaborative efforts of four major law enforcement organizations: International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE); National Sheriffs' Association (NSA); and Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). CALEA accreditation recognizes professional excellence in law enforcement services by compliance with national standards. Accreditation status for law enforcement agencies is similar to that of accredited institutions including hospitals, colleges, and universities. CALEA's principal publication of standards is its Standards,for Law Enforcement Agencies, first published in 1983. The fourth and latest edition was published in 1999 and contains some 445 standards organized into 38 chapters. As discussed elsewhere in this report, Maui County employs marked police package fleet vehicles, while the Honolulu Police Department employs a mix of police fleet vehicles and privately owned subsidized cars. Both departments, however, have earned CALEA accreditation. CALEA awarded accredited status to the Maui Police Department in 1996 and to the Honolulu Police Department in 2003. The Kauai County Police Department has not yet sought CALEA accreditation. The Hawaii County Police Department began its application for CALEA accreditation in early 2001; such accreditation is a departmental goal supported by the Hawaii County Police Commission. 59 B. U.S. Department of Justice National Survey Data re: Police Vehicles and Related 'In-Field' Equipment A recent national census report titled Local Police Departments 2000 (published January, 2003; NCJ 196002) compiled by the 1J.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics provides a wealth of comparative data and information about police vehicles in jurisdictions with populations served ranging from under 2,500 to 1,000,000 or more. Police departments were surveyed via a "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Services" (LEMAS) questionnaire mailed to some 3,132 state and local law enforcement agencies. A total of 2,985 agencies responded to the LEMAS questionnaire for a response rate of 97.4%. The 2000 LEMAS report presented survey data of police department personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, community policing initiatives, equipment (including vehicles), computers and information systems, and written policies. All tables shown in this section were extracted from the Local Police Departments ?000 report. Nationwide, local police departments LbM 41. NurM.r or can op.nuw by loutpWdc. operated an estimated 231,363 cars, or aewrtmenlt, by sfa or popWation a•rv.a, ¢oao about 51 cars per 100 sworn police Nam0er Percent °i personnel. By population category, P°P°'~" P°"°° cart mat amen Tdai °meers' wins umnenrad the ratio of cars to officers was lowest 23,,383 5, ,5% in those jurisdictions with one million ,°w ogo cr more zs ola x n% or more residents. The highest ratio of soaooo-ss9.999 z3+as 51 3s zscrooo-+x9,999 ,9.+z, Se +o cars (64) per 100 sworn officers was ioo o°azn9,999 31.+zs +2 found in the o ulation Cate o most 5,oom99s"" z'-"~ sr 39 p p g D' 2s oeo-+9 ss9 z~.3z2 5E ~ closely matching that of Hawaii ~soae2 ~s~ se 7n County, or 100,000-249,000 residents ~~^zeno *s+~ ~ [see Table 4I, LEMAS Report. part-nine °meers are vrcluded vMha we+9n4N 5aasgned By comparison, the Hawaii County Police Department maintains a 100% or I:1 ratio of cars to sworn officers. Nationally, about one-third of the cars operated by police departments were unmarked (35%). The percentage of unmarked cars was highest (47%) in jurisdictions serving 1 million or more residents and lowest (14%) in jurisdictions with fewer than 2,500 residents. For those jurisdictions in the l OQ000- 249,999 population bracket, the percentage of unmarked cars was 42%. By comparison, excepting some administrative and service vehicles, D.A.R.F.. vehicles, and Cushman traffic vehicles, Hawaii County Police Department patrol cars are unmarked. In addition to cars, 44% of police de- raa.u. Numb..o/motorcyew.,na4-www,.Nn,worinaw~a.,ah.rnnn partrnen[s used other vehicles such as un opentsd by local poNe. d.parlrt~rm, by aW a ~,uBnun a.rwe, zaaa sport utility vehicles, trucks or vans swhen m°Ianzed vaM1Uka Table 42, LEMAS re ort . On avera e, w"°""a" `a'a Mxucrcxa p ~ g Peacanz d NwrtAer ocetaled ParceM Nlimtxr °cerMe0 five (5) such vehicles were used per 100 P°q`'°"`" ~°ry'°' P""°° °t agenaaa Per ,oo xarved el Tdaf °mce*a` using Total oRroers sworn personnel One in eight depart- nii a¢ea z+ 13z 13'3M1 9 ao+ z menu Used mOtOICyCIe$ InelU(hng 9 1? ifA0 G00 °r mare ?00% 5B'S 8 93% 20+5 2 ten departments serving a population of 5°o,9w999999 s, 1,9as + an +285 z 250, 000499 999 100 1.89, 5 95 10+5 3 100,000 or more. Nearly half of all /oo,9oaz+9s99 93 23c. 5 es +s°z 3 departments also used bicycles. The 5oo9o-s9999 as 2 nr 5 s9 , 3s. 3 ]5000-09599 8A 2399 5 5'e 1129 2 ratio of bic cles to officers was hi hest loo9o-z+999 ~ 3,32+ s zo &05 , Y g 2 so9-9.9v9 +a 2.a:9 g s +91 , in those jurisdictions with a population Undm2500 z, ,,r5+ ~ + 9s - `Part-line °mcers are ind Wed wR5 a '.usi9hl °f 5 assigned of 2,500-9,000 and lowest in jurisdic- _tesa than o5 bons with 250,000 or more residents. 60 Take-Home/Personal Use of Police Cars Ta(gN 4t. VrhksM usr pollcNs in 6oea1 pollcr drpaMnnb, (ry rigs d popl8rtlon served, 2000 Forty-nine percent of all local police departments allowed officers to take marked vehicles home Table Percerd Uagerxuea anrnving orrxers to take marked vehicles home 44, LEMAS Report]. In the Hawaii County- Pppu~GOn Pers«lad use comparable population bracket (100,000-250,000), 8eh'ed T«al AlkMed nlaallaled 54% of local police departments allowed officers to All sites 4995 1a% 39% take vehicles home, and 22% of those departments t,000,0oo or m«a z7% t39r. t4ek allowed personal use of marked vehicles. ~o;00~0-4~99;9w s5 ~ 40 too,ooo-24s,e~ 54 n 3z Most police departments that permitted marked 5U,0W 99,9% a5 is 29 25,dW-45,999 33 9 24 vehicles to be taken home only allowed the vehicle to to.aoo-z4,999 3z 6 24 be driven to and from work. Nationwide, just 10% of z~~g-$•~ 4z 9 33 all departments allowed officers to operate a police tmaer z,5oe s3 1t 52 car for personal use. Those jurisdictions serving 100,000 or more residents were the most likely to allow a personal use policy. By comparison, 100% of Hawaii County police cars are taken home with off-duty personal use allowed. In-Field Technology The LEMAS report also surveyed the use and deployment of various "in-field" equipment and ~l~-Cll~re technologies. These included video cameras, infrared (thermal) imagers, image intensifers, laser range finders, lrafad?Ctea i'dNfdrRS td: stolen vehicle tracking technology, fire deflation spikes, a a«rmcrt trdisat actlxtly (e.g.,DWt Teefs} digital imaging technology for mug shots and mcreaes tlkdWeod of sropesdul proeecrtlor fingerprinting, computer systems and "in-field" or • lncreree trie aafrq a[tbr omcee mobile data terminals. .decrease Mlrolous csmplalrta • record surpeR behrvlor Forty-five percent of departments reported regular use of ~Oerd srd trek iatlW xlolatlor/reasor for video cameras during the year ending June 30, 2000 ~ [Table 48, LEMAS Report]. The most common use of cameras (37%) was in patrol cars. Fixed-site video surveillance was performed by 13% of departments, followed by mobile surveillance (9%). Seven percent of ~ . ~ ~ departments used video cameras for traffic enforcement. Table 4r. the of vlrleo cameras by focal polls deparmterrts, by aha of populaaan aarvrd, 2000 Percent of agencies ucirg oWeo cameras and ale avroge nuantt<+ urad fa- Pelcem IN Fded3ae Mobie rre1Ek agenuee In patrol wis survrallraKe eurve0unce enlaamerA PapWaticn regularly ueing Percent Average PerrxM Average Peroere Rverage Peroen! Avmage served Weo camerae usir0 nrmrbee' usng numamr' uehfg number' lrsnp numbeY All sltee 45% 37% 5 1398 5 996 2 7% 3 1,OW,000 Cr more 73% 13% G1 5398 162 67% 6 13% e 500,000.899899 89 41 53 38 53 43 6 47 t2 ?50.000-499.999 56 33 32 20 7 43 8 23 A 100.009-248,999 64 37 33 24 12 31 3 27 5 50,000-99.999 % 4A 14 24 8 30 2 18 5 25000-A9999 83 47 9 2t 4 2A 2 14 3 1G 000.24.999 57 46 8 19 4 12 1 8 3 3,500-9999 47 41 3 14 3 B 1 S 2 Umber 2500 34 29 2 7 2 4 1 fi 2 'Exr9udes agencies that dd nol use Weo camerae m particular application. 61 For jurisdictions comparable to Hawaii County, 64% of police departments reported regular use of video cameras and 37% reported use of video cameras in patrol cars. For these jurisdictions, 3 I % reported use of video cameras for mobile surveillance and 27% reported using cameras for traffic enforcement. The use of various "special technologies" is shown on Table 49 of the LEMAS Report below. Notably, the majority of departments serving populations of 100,000-249,999 residents reported use of digital imaging for mug shots (70%), suspect composites (55%) and fingerprints (66%). Table 49, LEMAS Report, shown below, surveys "special technologies used by local police departments, 2000". TabN 14. Spacial Nchttologies tread by local pdice dpurlOrtenta, by abs W populatfota wrnd, 2000 Ptrpetrt pl egenoes ueitw - Nghl V4wMNaclroaWlc Vehicle etopptglkacking Ogeal imaging k9Yarad Image lase Tke 5blen ElMtncall P°pul~°n Ithermail IMe1161- rorga tle8tawn Vehicle engine Mug SuspeG Fnger- eeroed Irtwgera Ban 8nden spikes tracking tllemptim Mcls Wmpssitee priras AN sYtM 11% 896 6% 78'16 5% 29% 1896 11% 1 OOQ,WOw nare 7}96 53% 40% 4T% 73% 20% 87% 50% 80% 500000-999,989 47 38 28 ~ 62 9 83 53 T9 256 W9-099.999 59 33 23 ®D 35 5 63 95 BB 100,OOQ349,999 40 17 19 56 37 2 70 55 68 SO,OW~99,999 2i 17 19 52 25 1 71 Al 52 75,(10449.899 29 14 15 45 22 Q 58 43 29 10,0647A,999 1@ irJ 9 40 18 - SD 27 13 2500.9,999 11 A 5 27 3 0 2B 13 5 Under 2,500 4 3 2 15 1 13 7 6 -Fees man 9.5%. The majority of police departments serving populations comparable to Hawaii County employed digital imaging technology for mug shots (70%), suspect composites (55%) and fingerprints (66%). HCPD's 2003-04 budget narrative indicates that the Department is deploying technologies in step with these trends. Its Windows-based computer system accesses the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000 System, a national database serving all criminal justice agencies. The department's NCIC 2000 system became operational in August 2001. Additionally, HCPD went "live" with the State of Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center's "Green Box/Livescan Pilot Project" in May, 2001. That system allows online booking, as well as computerized capture of fingerprints and mug shots. It eliminates the need for clerical staff to re-key arrest report information; moreover, officers no longer need to type redundant data on tingerprint cards or take mug shots with Polaroid film. HCPD's 2003-04 budget narrative states that the department presently has Green Boxes at 14 booking sites and two more in the Records and Identification Section. Livescan (for fingerprints) and Crime Capture (for mug shots) are deployed in Hilo and Kona only. Other booking sites continue to take Polaroid mug shots and inked and rolled prints, but no longer have to type out fingerprint cards. Electronic transmission of fingerprints to the FBI for records checks is now accomplished within a turn- around response time of 20 minutes. One critical life-saving special technology not surveyed in the LEMAS census was automated external defibrillators or AEDs. AEDs are increasingly employed by police and fire safety officers to assist cardiac artest victims by recording heart rhythms and administering a revitalizing electric shock. The 1999-2000 annual report of the Hawaii County Police Department states that training of "every officer on the Big Island" in the use of defibrillators is a departmental goal. The department began its defibrillator program in 1998 with 27 AED kits purchased with asset forfeiture funds for $72,219. 62 Computers and Information Systems The LEMAS survey revealed that local police departments use computers for an increasing array of records management functions. A majority of departments reported use of computers for Internet access; 89% of departments serving 100,000-249,999 residents had Internet access. A majority of departments also maintain computerized files for incident reports, arrests, traffic citations, calls for services, traffic accidents and stolen property. Less than half of surveyed departments, however, maintained computer- ized files on warrants, alarms, traffic stops, criminal histories, summonses, use of force incidents, linked crime analysis, and fingerprints. 't'able 50 from the LEMAS survey, shown below, provides an overview of the functions of computers used by local police departments by size of population served. Tabh 6e. Funetlmtr aT compWrn M Ioul pother tfrpanrnrnta, by aln of population farv~C, 2000 Per«n d agen[ie6 wino wmputers for - IMer- Recortls Crime Pelu agerwy Pkaf Popslatiar manage Irrternet inveaB- onnN Crime in4ormallon Automated manage- Cnme Resource served meM at°eee gaeone recorde Dleprtch enafyeel ehering booking mom mapping alb®twn All sltea 80% 56% 44% 4044 32% 30% 28% 18% t6% 15% 10% t 096000 ox mom 93% 1009E 93% 93% 106% 88% 53% 47% 87% 67% 500,006-999.999 BS 94 68 B5 85 91 83 5B 85 82 85 259.W0499,999 98 98 88 90 100 98 78 48 60 90 58 100000-249998 89 ~ 80 89 90 92 6i 5t SD BO 41 50,000-99.9H9 89 88 75 67 85 78 51 54 38 53 35 25 WO?9999 86 BO 72 ~ 79 SB 51 80 33 34 22 10,000-24.%9 Bt 72 85 54 B3 48 38 32 30 22 16 7500-9,999 66 5T 50 43 32 29 29 16 17 12 10 Urger 2.500 40 42 25 27 8 13 17 7 5 8 3 One emerging standard among police departments nationwide is the use of an Automated Fingerprint Indentification System (APIs) including files of digitized prints. The 1999-2000 Annual Report of the Hawaii County Police Department reported that its Records Section had installed estate-owned computerized mugshot system, upgraded its AFIS, and accessed the statewide Transitional Offender-Based Tracking System (OBTS). The OBTS system provides information on criminal histories, sex offender registration and temporary restraining and protective orders. It is shared by state and county criminal justice agencies and enables the department to "retrieve current system information" and "produce photo lineups quickly and easily." That year, the department's annual report also noted its installation of a "worldwide computer a-mail system." The newly inaugurated email system was cited as a valuable asset to the department's investigative operations, enabling transmission of photos between police districts on the island and to and from other police jurisdictions. Departmental email is also used to transmit police bulletins, enhance case management, and issue press releases to the media. In 2001, the Hawaii County Police Department implemented an upgraded booking system with the inauguration of its "Green Box", "Criminal Capture", and "Live Scan" pilot project, an automated system whereby a suspect's fingerprints and photo are captured digitally for computer storage using "Green Box" software. The $500,000 project was funded by the Office of the Attorney General's Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center (HCJDC). The "Green Box" software assembles suspect information in formats that can be read by the state Offender-Based Transaction Statistics/Computerized Criminal History (OBTS/00th) and AFIS systems. The system facilitates prompt inquiries to the FBI and saves officers time in booking suspects, according to [he annual report. 63 Computers in the Field From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of local police departments using in-field computers rose from 5% to 40%. Departments using in-field computers employed 75% of all officers in 2000, up from 30% in 1990. A majority of police departments serving 10,000 or more residents used mobile computers or terminals in the Feld during 2000. Portable laptops were the most common type of in-field computer, used by 21 % of all departments. The use of "vehicle-mounted digital/data terminals," most commonly referred to as "mobile data terminals" (MDTs) in law enforcement, was most common in large police jurisdictions (73% in jurisdictions serving populations of one million or more residents), and dwindled successively in those jurisdictions serving smaller populations. Lwnl pelke de OeAmen4 ueine in 4NM wmyulau o+term lnals, te4p and 2°pp The use of in-field computers or terminals rB,n.nm,„,..„ is one of the most dramatic trends in law „omoo,m>m enforcement technology. s°aoo - zee eac From 1990 to 2000, increase of local police use of in-field computers or terminals +a,~ +9~ t0 occurred in jurisdictions of all sizes, as shown in Figure 18 of the LEMAS Report. °nd.r,aooo Among departments serving 50,000 to o. >o. 4ox a°. ,o°, n.r~n+o+.a~n.. 249,000 residents, in-field computer use F,eyre l9 from 31 % in 1990 ro 81 % in 2000. For departments comparable to Hawaii County, 28% reported using vehicle-mounted laptop computers in the field, 35% reported using avehicle-mounted "digital/data terminal" and 28% reported use of a vehicle-mounted "digital/data computer." Table 54 from the LEMAS Report, shown below, surveys the types of in-field computers or terminals used by police departments in 2000. Tada 34. Typaa or in-IIaW camputna or Ynnimk ua4M by local polio dapartn7aMa, b9' aW o1 populatlan aarvatl, 1000 PercaM O<a0enclaa uedg Ittifieltl p°mpulefe a ter°eneb My dMekl Veh+tle•rraumatl Pa+nele itgt vetade-moumedl PaWia[im cortputer or DpAa9tlala IteWFata OgftaeMta Dg4elhie4a serretl tarrtmat AnY IYPe Laptop lerrren~ cornpu7el AnY qOe Laptop lerminal computer All siEee AO% 27% 13% 1276 8% 23% 21% 2% 1% 1000,000 or mare 9t3% 80% 7% 7396 20% 4T% 27% 27% 6% 500.000&99599 47 91 32 65 23 59 53 t3 3 250,000-459,999 &1 88 t3 33 33 48 d8 5 3 100.000-249958 fu 70 2e 35 2B 5A 43 12 5 50,000-899 9? 70 30 32 21 47 42 5 i 25,004-09.499 70 59 ?3 28 19 44 41 4 3 1&,000-24%9 59 45 20 18 15 13 30 2 3 2.500-9499 35 27 14 14 S ?1 19 i 1 Under2 500 24 12 6 4 3 i6 11 1 4 Tables 55 and 56 from the LEMAS Report, shown below, survey the use of in-field computers for reports and communications and the various categories of computerized information accessible to in-field officers of local police departments. 64 TabM 55. usa of srfiaM oompuhra Tabla 08. CarnplAadrzad informatWn accauibla t0 in-fMki drN¢ars fu nporb and cortanunicatlona W IOt:al polka daparbrianh, by alu 0f populatlen sarvad, 2000 M local polity daparVnanL, by aiza of popYlatloa aarvad, 2550 TySee of inhrtnallan acoesalde In the flMd Percera of apervceba Belfd Crane m-M1ak epnpurm (or: PopWatlon CaSSb BnetyBle CNmmal Orivsq VaMda Populallon b-.~ 6°^'~ service files finked] hlHlones records records aervec reoona canons All sizes 18% 696 18% 25'6 27% Alt ctzee 2396 19% t 000,000 ormae 87% 7% 53% B6% 93% t 000000 m more 34% 53% 5c70,Opp_g9g,g99 59 16 31 85 47 506000-999.988 32 52 250,004499,999 SD 8 25 rra '2 25a 000499.999 38 80 9W,000.249,998 54 11 42 67 l4 t00000-249,980 37 63 50,000.99.999 45 10 36 6G 72 SO.Od]-99,988 34 53 2S,OOU49,999 34 t0 27 52 5B 25,000.49,999 38 43 10,000-24,954 28 7 23 35 42 +©000.24999 26 32 25009,999 25 ti 1,500-9,999 18 7 15 23 25 Vntler250C ie d Untler 2,500 9 4 t7 73 14 C. A Review of Police Package Car Design and Technology Trends The foregoing LEMAS survey of in-field computers and vehicle-mounted mobile data terminals has considerable implications for the selection, cost and deployment of police patrol cars. Logan, Utah Police Chief Richard Hendricks told Justice Technology Monitor (July 17, 2002): "Mobile is the newest and greatest thing going. The object is to be able to let every officer do whatever he needs to do in the field, as if he was at his desk in headquarters. It makes the officers more efficient. It gives the officer more access to information immediately, allows him to make better decisions, confiscate more property, serve more warrants, and just increases the value of each officer a major project for us has been to supplement and update our mobile applications. This includes laptops in the smart cars, and being able to download information [via 802.11-type broadband technology] and send and retrieve information from our records management system out in the field." In 2002, the Sturbridge (MA) Police Department credited "increased officer productivity and efficiency" and a "significant increase in criminal prosecutions" to its implementation of a wireless mobile network in police cars. According to the Sturbridge police officials, "It also increased officer safety by allowing officers to have immediate access to data bases that allow them prior knowledge on traffic stops on wanted persons, criminal records, license and registration status of motorist." The Problem of Equipment-Crowded Vehicles The astonishing array of computer equipment and electronics in patrol cars presents a new problem - high-tech police cars are crowded work vehicles. John L. Bellah, a frequent contributor to Police magazine on automotive and law enforcement issues, writes: "Today, it seems that the electronic ~i equipment in our cars is reproducing at will Mobile data terminals, laptop computers, cellular fax machines, printers, dash-mounted radar, global positioning systems, cellular phones, rechargeable 1 flashlights, video cameras and additional weaponry are just some of the things we haul around all shift." "lf you feel cramped, you're not alone," he adds. "The equipment definitely is taking occupant space patrol officer with vehicle-mounted mobile data terminal (MDT) away from our cruisers." 65 John Bellah notes that police patrol work traditionally has dictated a large vehicle. The ergonomic comfort of police officers enduring an 8-hour (or longer) shift in the field is one paramount consideration. Plus, he notes, a lot of trunk room is needed for equipment and supplies. However, the lazge sedans once favored by police departments -full-sized Ford Custom or Dodge Polara of the mid-`60s and early `70s - aze a thing of the past. Bellah states that the current model Ford Crown Victoria is the largest sedan available in a dedicated police configuration. Competitive Chevrolet Impala and Dodge Intrepid police cars offer about 4% less interior space. He notes that while the Crown Victoria police interceptor is large by today's standazd, it is comparable to intermediate sedans of the late `60s. "This wouldn't be so bad," he says, "if police equipment and personnel had shrunk accordingly, but they haven't." In an article titled "What's In The Trunk" in Police Fleet Manager, Art Sharp reported the results of an informal poll conducted in 2002 among 33 law enforcement agencies to "fmd out just what was in the trunks of police cars." In general, 75% of the respondents reported that line cars carry more equipment than administrators' and shift supervisors' cars. Included in the vast array of reported equipment were trunk boxes, jacks, fire irons, spare tires, flares, stop sticks, toolboxes, blankets, rope, traffic vests, traffic cones, major traffic investigation measuring devices, folding shovels, yellow police tape, small folding tables and canopies, fire extinguishers, video equipment, thermal imaging cameras, night vision goggles, communications equipment, computer modems, first-aid trauma kits, 02 kits, defibrillators, GPS, biohazazd throwaway suits, oxygen units with an assortment of masks, blood-borne pathogen kits complete with masks, gowns, saline water and clean- up agents, less-lethal (beanbag) shotguns, 12 gauge shotguns, 9mm police carbines, entry team body armor, large capsicum pepper sprays, a gun vault capable of holding multiple rifles and ammunition for unique deployment, bags of assorted stuffed animals and more. While the inventory cited above is by no means standard, it does illuminate a growing challenge for automakers. To accommodate variations of all this geaz, Detroit model police cars provide spacious trunks. The Chevrolet Impala has a 17.6 cubic-foot trunk. The Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor's trunk is larger, at 20.6 cubic feet, and has been modified to carry an additional 125 pounds. Art Sharp reports that some fleet managers want to see that increased to 300 or even 400 pounds. The problem of equipment-cramped patrol cars was compounded in 1994 when passenger-side air bags were mandated for all passenger cars. This is no minor problem, John Bellah asserts. "Believe me, a laptop computer or radar gun striking you at 200 mph will hurt." In response to the passenger-side air bag mandate, Detroit manufacturers made bucket seats standard on police package vehicles, with equipment mounted in a console between the bucket seats or mounted in an overhead console. Manufacturers additionally published guidelines specifying the placement of police equipment so it didn't turn into a projectile during an airbag deployment. Moreover, DeVoit auto makers developed "turnkey" police package vehicles arranged for subcontractors to pre-install and/or pre-wire a good portion of law enforcement equipment such as spotlights, detainee cages, light bars and sirens, leaving police departments to install graphics, radios, computers, weapons and other equipment unique to each department. Such manufacturer "prepped" vehicles are customarily covered under a regular factory warranty. 66 Advances in Vehicle-Mounted Mobile Data Terminals State-of--the-art integration of electronics provides another solution to the matter of equipment crowding. Bellah notes that "a new popular solution to this problem is to integrate the equipment into one central computer/video display." In such a system, computer-aided dispatch (CAD), video camera display, global positioning, and displays for various databases, email and reports aze displayed on one mounted mobile data terminal (MDT), rather than having separate electronic components or an extra laptop computer in the car. Already, a prototype "smart" car developed by a team of University of New Hampshire engineers may point the way to a new era of wireless convenience for police officers. Called "Project 54" (after the 1960s TV police comedy, "Car 54, Where Are You?"), the Project 54 smart cruiser employs a voice recognition system to enable an officer to press a button on a steering wheel and tune a police radio to any community or district station simply by calling out its name. The system is already used by New Hampshire State Police; after two years of testing, some 75 smart cruisers are on patrol. The system was pioneered after a tragedy in 1997, when a gunman killed two troopers, a judge and a newspaper editor in Colebrook, New Hampshire. As local, state, county and federal officers tracked the killer, many could not talk to each other by radio. [n response, agencies converted to digital systems to transmit voice and data. Adding computers was a logical next step, but with so much equipment already in police cars, they had to consolidate. Project 54 further enhances wireless interface with FBI and other law enforcement databases by allowing officers to interact by voice rather than typing queries into a computer. State Police Sergeant Mark Liebl, who has driven a Project 54 smart cruiser for two years, says getting driver or criminal records is now a cinch. Previously, he says, he radioed dispatch, waited his turn behind other calls, gave a driver's license number, name or birth date, waited for the dispatcher to run a check, then either tried to remember the information as the dispatcher read it back or jotted it down. Now he hits the talk button, announces he wants a license check and calls the license number into a microphone mounted near the overhead visor. Within eight seconds, the information is retrieved from the cruiser computer, which verbally relays it and displays it on a screen mounted below the dashboard. Vincent Stile, president of the Association of Police Communication Officials, gave the Project 54 system high marks at a convention this year. It's not a novelty, said Stile, head of radio operations for the Suffolk County (NY) Police Department. "It should be put into play." A similar system called TACNET, built by Visteon Corporation in Deazborn, Michigan is being tested by North Carolina and Maryland State Police. The TACNET system was displayed at the I l0'h Annual International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Conference in Philadelphia in October 2003. TACNET reduces the number of devices installed inside a police caz by integrating lights, sirens, multiple radios, radar, patrol video, AM/FM radio functions and mobile data computers. It offers a choice of command and control options by integrating switches and electronic controls into three interfaces: voice control, in-dash touch screen, and an ergonomically designed control "pod." TACNET can also serve as across band repeater linking up to five different radios. 67 The Future of Car Batteries One consequence of the wide array of electrical equipment commonplace in police cars is an ever increasing demand on batteries. In an article in Police magazine, John Bellah writes: "This was true with early police vehicles when lighting, electro-mechanical `growler' sirens, and two-way radios severely taxed automotive electrical systems, and it's true today when high-tech lightbars, mobile data terminals, video cameras, and other power-hungry gadgets have become standazd equipment." Advances in lighting equipment, including halogen and strobe lighting, allow for brighter lights while consuming less current. Still newer state-of--the-art Light-Emitting Diode (LED) lightbars consume about 8 amps as compared to 40-50 amps for a conventional halogen lightbaz. Generating an adequate amount of current is a paramount concern with police vehicles. For example, the 2003 Dodge Intrepid has the highest capacity stock alternator at 160 amps, the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor has a 135-amp unit, and the Chevrolet Impala develops 125 amps. Additionally, some after-market suppliers supply replacement alternators with up to 200-amp capacity. Bellah points out that some devices on the market sense a battery's voltage and disconnect it before voltage drops below the point where the engine cannot be started. Another popular solution to the power crunch is the dual battery system. In this system, the lightbaz, spotlights, and computer equipment are tapped off a second battery mounted in a marine battery box in the trunk. An isolator allows the vehicle's alternator to chazge both batteries. With the engine off, the vehicle's primary battery is not drained by the police equipment and is available to start the engine. Bellah says there aze several advantages to this system. Battery life is extended and unnecessary idling is eliminated, thereby saving fuel costs, vehicle components-engines, transmissions, and related accessories. Looking ahead, he says, automakers are looking for new ways to boost power. One innovation, soon to reach the mazketplace, is higher capacity liquid-cooled alternators. Further down the road, police cars may be equipped with 42-volt batteries. Writing in Police Fleet Manager, Carlsbad (CA) Police Captain Dale Stockton reports that the Society of Automotive Engineers, a worldwide organization of engineers and designers, formed a 42-volt advisory committee in 2000 to establish new standards for the industry. Stockton reports that "the development of 42-volt systems is well underway." "The modem police vehicle," he says, "is equipped with a lot of power hungry devices like radios, sirens, emergency lighting, computers, radar units, video cameras, as well as the typical automotive creature comforts. The current 12-volt systems are being stretched to their power limits. The coming 42-volt systems promise increased power reliability and vehicle eft-iciency for tomorrow's officers." Meeting the Challenge of "In-Fleld" Technology The matter of accessory equipment -particularly mobile data terminals - in police package patrol cars presents at least three additional considerations: (l) equipment costs; (2) officer training, including fleet management training; and (3) digital microwave infrastmcture. (1) Funding Equipment Costs. During the late 1990s, many police departments financed technology upgrades for squad cars with help from Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) grants provided by the U.S. Depaztment of Justice. Since 1995, COPS MORE grants have assisted over 4,500 law enforcement agencies to acquire and implement technology to support community policing operations. MORE program grants cover up to 75% of the total cost of certain technologies over aone-year period. In turn, agencies that receive MORE grants are required to furnish a minimal funding match of 25%. 68 According to an U.S. Department of Justice fact sheet on MORE grants, the program "significantly increases the ability of officers to solve community problems. For example, in-car computers procured by some grantees enable officers to analyze and research local crime and disorder problems while on patrol, improving their ability to quickly and effectively address community issues:' MORE grants fund the following technologies: • Mobile Computing • Personal Computers • Computer-Aided Dispatch • Records Management Systems • Crime Analysis Hardware/Software • Automated Booking • Automated Fingerprint ID Systems • VideoArraignmeni Since 1994, county law enforcement agencies REPRESENTATIVE COPSIMORE GRANTS, 1998 statewide have been awarded a total of $I 1,099,712 The Aurora (IL) Ponce Department was awacded a $226,000 Ill COPS grants fOf Crlme-flghting teCllnOlOgleS. MORE gent used for the purchase and iustallarion of 30 squad car laptop computers. In FY 2003, the U.S. Department Of Justice The San Marcos ('TX) Police Department received a reported two COPS grant awards to county police $140,340 MORE grant to pay for 40 laptop computers for its departments in Hawaii. The Honolulu Police patrol cars. Department received a $2,370,182 COPS grant for Police in Lancaster (PA) received a $358,000 MORE grant "OVertlme"; the Hawaii County Police Depart- for the purchase of laptop computers for squad cars, wireless modems and other software allowing units to ment received a $3,974,000 COPS grant for perform license plate checks without the aid of dispatchers. "methamphetamine homeland security." A consortium of Iowa police departments received a MORE grant exceeding $1 million for the purchase of In September 2001, the Hawaii County Police laptop computers. Department received a COPS Technology grant in A consortium of six Cormecticut towns received a $700,000 the amount of $818,306 in support of a Records MORE research and development grant ro develop a Management System (RMS) upgrade, supple- shared pnhee communications system, coat of the total system was estimated at $3.1 million. mellted by forfeiture funds. According to the department's 2001-2002 annual report, the system "will cut down on the redundancy of inputting data by police and clerks, make retrieval of reports immediate, improve case management and accountability, increase the ability to analyze law enforcement data, and integrate all divisions and districts into one computerized system." The system was expected to be fully functional by February, 2004. (2) Officer Training. While there are hefty federal subsidies for equipment purchases through various U.S. Department of Justice grant programs, the costs of training local police officers in the areas of fleet management or communications technologies are shouldered largely by local government. However, the U.S. Department of Cnnnn°II}ntl°nfN Pniking Justice provides many published r:n.x-P4k•^rP^wa~°' / ~ guides through its COPS program, f/ f available at http'//www coos usdoi.aov h~Y1~It1Nkr• or throw h the De artment of Justice rn4vn^~~ '"t°'n"1en1d` g P r.°,~n~ r9e ip3wlely <'rnn,n^no, Response Center at 800-421-6770. In a°nn,..r "^^°'°a 2002, COPS published a major guide ~y ~ f titled Law Enforcement Technology: Kow to Plan. Purchase and Manage eohiacn°°' Technodo~ry (Successfully). 69 The publication focuses on how successful technology implementation enhances community policing and builds relationships with the community. Also in 2002, COPS held training conferences across the nation for COPS MORE grantees on: • best practices in planning, procurement, contract negotiations, and implementation of new information systems; • computer-aided dispatch, records management, mobile data and automated field reporting, and crime analysis systems; • troubleshooting problems in existing systems and implementation processes; • grant compliance and redeployment issues; • RFP (request for proposal) checklists and vendor evaluation tips; • networking with other agencies implementing similar technologies and facing similar challenges Police Corps. Another noteworthy federal training resource aimed at helping local communities is the Police Corps, a program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Police Corps helps state and local law enforcement agencies increase the number of otJicers with advanced education and training who are assigned to community patrol. Similar to the Peace Corps, the Police Corps is intended to motivate qualified young people to serve as police officers and sheriffs' deputies in municipalities, counties and states that need them most. It does this by offering Federal scholarships on a competitive basis to college students who agree to serve where needed on community patrol for at least four years. The Police Corps also reduces local costs of hiring and training new officers. Police departments hiring Police Corps graduates receive $10,000/year per graduate for each of the four years of LppD Tralning Academy: "Several thousand the graduate's obligation. During that time, the Police Corps police otTCea had to learn how to use the MDTs" officer must be paid and accrue benefits and seniority as with any other officer. The federal government pays for rigorous law enforcement training for each Police Corps participant. Participants who seek baccalaureate degrees begin working as officers shortly after graduation from college. Those who pursue graduate study complete their service in advance. Students accepted into the Police Corps receive up to $7,500 a year to cover the expenses of study toward a baccalaureate or graduate degree. A student may receive up to $30,000 under the program. To be eligible for the Police Corps, a student must attend (or soon attend) an accredited public or non-profit four-year college or university. Undergraduate participants must attend full time. Participants may choose to study criminal justice and law enforcement or may pursue degrees in other fields. The program operates within states that have submitted an approved state plan. Presently, some 27 states across the nation participate in the Police Corps program. To date, Hawaii is not a participating state. States join the Police Corps after the governor designates a state lead agency which consults and coordinates with local law enforcement officials, rank and file officers, representatives of police and sheriff labor and management groups, and appropriate state and local agencies to develop a state plan according to guidelines provided by the Office of the Police Corps. 70 Fleet Management Training. In the area of police fleet management, the primary training resource is the National Association of Fleet Administrators, Ina (NAPA). NAPA is a nonprofit individual membership professional society serving the needs of members who manage fleets of automobiles, SUVs, trucks and vans, and a wide range of specialized mobile equipment for organizations in the United States and Canada. Annually, NAPA sponsors a "Law Enforcement Group" (LEG) Conference designed for individuals responsible for the purchase of police vehicles and equipment, specifications for law enforcement vehicles, supervision of police vehicle maintenance and other aspects of police fleet management. In 2003, the 35`x' annual LEG conference titled T3: Tips, Tools, Techniques was held in San Antonio, Texas. Participants included approximately 250 federal, provincial, state, county and local law enforce- ment agencies in the United States and Canada. The 2003 LEG Conference included manufacturer presentatiais by Daimler Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Speaker presentations covered such topics as L,ifecycle Cost Analysis for Police Fleets; Fundamentals for Acquiring Specialty Vehicles; Airbags and Equipment Installation; The Fac[s on Laptops and Airbags; Lighting Technology: Advantages of Today and Beyond; How to Re-Market Your Law Enforcement Vehicles; Emergency Management; 'fwo-Wheeled Patrol: Motorcycles in Law Enforcement; and several Legislative Updates. In April, 2003 Council members and the Legislative Auditor's Office encouraged the Hawaii County Police Department to attend the San Antonio LEG conference, but the department did not do so. In 2004, a roster of conference opportunities for teet managers includes two seminars sponsored by NAPA. Program topics include Policies and Procedures, Fleet Department Structure, Acquisition and Disposal, Maintenance and Technology, and Accident and Safety Management. The tirst will be held in San Diego on February 22-24, 2004, the second in Grapevine, Texas on October 17-19, 2004. Other upcoming law enforcement conferences with a police Fleet training component include: June 26-30, 2004 -National Sheriffs Show Location: Seattle, Washington Information: (703) 863-7828 or wwwsheriffs.ore August 14-18, 2004 -NAPA Law Enforcement Group Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Information: (732) 494-8100 or pmurtaugh(cTnafa.org September 14-17, 2004 Police Fleet Expo Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan More Information: (816) 587-5073 or www policefleetexpo.com Additionally, a number of monthly law enforcement magazines frequently publish articles and updates about police cars and police fleet management. Many of these publications offer online editions, including Police Fleet Manager, Law and Order, Police Online, and PoliceDriving.com. In reviewing the literature and lore surrounding police cars, it is impossible not to notice that many police departments are blessed with personnel who are genuinely enthralled with police cars, their ever-changing specifications, and the dynamics of police fleet management Some approach their job with the enthusiasm of NASCAR devotees, others are keenly attuned to each new development that enhances police performance and public safety. Some departments maintain detailed, affectionate websites about police cars through the years (San Antonio) or police communications apparatus (Los Angeles). 71 There is a lesson inherent in this ongoing love affair of officers and their cars: the unique enthusiasm and expertise of a trained, motivated police fleet manager can be a powerful asset to a police department. That intangible factor warrants consideration in Hawaii County's discussion of police vehicles. (3) Microwave Infrastructure. Any sophisticated digital "in-field" interface with the Hawaii County Police Department's computerized system hinges on further development, construction and funding of the county's microwave radio system. Presently, a new $10.5 system will replace an existing 2GHz analog system which is 26 years old. Funding for the $10.5 system upgrade, called the Hawaii County Police Department Microwave Relocation and System Renovation Project, includes $2.5 million from two commercial telecommu- nications companies, AT&T and T-Mobile. The remaining $8 million is funded by County bonds. The first phase of the county's microwave upgrade will replace the existing system with a 6GHz digital microwave system that will support an 800 MHz franking system. According to the Hawaii County Police Department 2001-02 annual report, the second phase of installing the franked system was estimated to cost $21 million and was scheduled for completion in 2006. Last year, HPD's 2003-04 budget narrative stated: `°I'he new microwave system will be the first phase in providing an efficient `carrier wave' for an 800M}iz franked radio system, which would provide increased channel privacy, increased channel usage and a decrease in outside radio interference. When the County procures an 800 MHz system it will provide the wireless infrastructure for support such applications as mobile data terminals and inherent secured voice communications." More recently, Mayor Kim's list of priority capital improvement projects (letter to Council Chair James Y. Arakaki and Council members dated January 4, 2004) for consideration by the 2004 session of the Hawaii State Legislature proposes a state appropriation of "$24 million of so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for the HPD for planning, equipment, facilities improvement, consultant and project management" For the Upgrade Telecommunications System, HPD. A project/program justification summary in a County of Hawaii project data financial impact statement dated November 17, 2003 states: "Replacement of the microwave ,.r system is absolutely necessary for the County's long-ter t " objectives of providing reliable public safety services. The 7 ~j Hilo Federal Government has mandated migration to an 800 MHz 1 - franked system for public safety." ' KaAuo-Kono Improvements to the County of Hawaii Digital Upgrade r~ Microwave Project at 19 island-wide locations are considered vital for police and fire operations and to meet other county 1 / communications functions required by the FCC. The system is responsible for conununications for the Police MICROWAVE GRID-The map of the Big Island Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, Civil above snows me grid or Hawaii counrys Defense, Department of Parks & Recreation, and the Mayor's microwave telecommunications system. The dots represent microwave towers; the straight Office. lines, microwave transmissions between towers. Source: Hawaii County Police Department 72 The system will also serve the State of Hawaii Departments of Transportation, Land & Natural Resources, and Department of Health Emergency Medical Services. Federal agencies using the system include the FBI, Department of the Army Mobile Emergency Radio System, National Weather Service, and Hawaii Volcanoes Observatory. HELCO and the Hawaii Public Broadcasting System (PBS) will also use the system. As stated in the Draft Environment Assessment for the project (June 2003): "These government agencies rely on telecommunications to communicate and transmit information and data between offices and facilities as well as to communicate with personnel in the field. The conversion to a digital system is necessary to handle the expanding voice and data communications requirements of the public safety community." An earlier 1995 feasibility study for Hawaii County's microwave upgrade project (Schema Systems, Inc., July, 1995) concluded that a proper infrastructure was a fundamental prerequisite to support additional technology such as mobile data terminals and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Project 2000. On October 10-12, 2000 the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program sponsored a symposium co-hosted by the State of Hawaii and the Honolulu Police Department. At the Honolulu symposium, 198 public safety officials from around the country assembled to discuss various topics relating to public safety wireless communications interoperability. Chief Lee Donohue of the Honolulu Police Department and Lieutenant Governor Mazie K. Hirono provided introductory and keynote remarks. The conferees noted that the islands pose unique political, governmental, and geographic challenges that affect public safety communications and interoperability within the state. In turn, the four counties, in various stages of implementing new radio systems, provided updates about their systems. The Honolulu Police Department reported implementation of an Ericsson 800 MHz, trunked radio system. The County of Kauai reported on its Motorola 800 MHz, trunked radio system. The County of Maui has implemented an 800 MHz E.F. Johnson radio system. Finally, the County of Hawaii was said to be "in the embryonic stages of developing a countywide system." Its current conventional VHF radio system is considered obsolete. The County reported securing funding for a new system and was said to be addressing the effects of "refarming a 2 gigahertz (GHz) microwave spectrum." Hawaii County's late entry into the 800 MHz wireless sweepstakes, coupled with some recent experi- ences of the Honolulu Police Department, may be highly instructive for analysis of the County's development of a wireless telecommunications system and, relatedly, its future direction for police cars. On January, 4, 1999 Honolulu Police Chief Lee Donahue told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that "we're fast approaching the state where we're becoming paperless on our report systems. Everything is going to be done electronically right from the cars, and this is all going to happen in the next 18 months." Chief Donahue's prediction was linked to the imminent completion of athree-phase, ten-year telecommu- nications upgrade project. Phase 2 of the Honolulu project involved implementation of an 800 Megahertz radio system, operating in both analog and digital modes. Donahue said that "coverage needed to be improved before regular beat officers can switch to the digital mode." 73 In the following Phase 3, Donahue said that computers would be installed in patrol cars, acomputer-aided dispatch system would be replaced, and officers would use an online writing system for reports. He added that HPD was installing adocument-imaging system for scanned documents to be accessed directly by officers from their computers. Pacifac Business News (January 4, 1999) heralded the new system as "just the first step toward seemingly endless possibilities in strengthening and streamlining law enforcement capabilities." Major Robert Prasser, commander of HPD's Research and Development Division, said the department had secured a $9 million COPS MORE grant, supplemented by $3.5 million in city matching funds, to purchase laptop computers for patrol cars to "put more inforniation and control directly at officers' fingertips." Prasser said that anecdotal information he received from other municipalities showed that "when officers got laptops in their cars, the workload for dispatchers was reduced by 50-70%." He added, "officers' productivity skyrocketed with their ability to conduct their own information queries." "Empirically," said Prasser, "auto theft recoveries and warrant arrests go up." He added that HPD hoped to integrate "officers' report writing into the mobile data communication system through the onboard laptops." Four years later, the Honolulu Advertiser reported (October 13, 2003) that the "cost of a [City & County of Honolulu] troubled police mobile computer system couldjump by $10 million because a radio network it was meant to rely on can't handle the intended data load." Meanwhile, the Honolulu City Council approved a resolution in September, 2003 calling for an audit of the $40 million police radio network, including new portable radios, an upgraded computer-aided dispatch system, and a computerized records management system. The Advertiser stated that "auditors have already harshly criticized the city's Department of Design and Construction for alleged poor management of the $12.5 million mobile data computer system." Honolulu Councilman Rod Tam, who sponsored the audit resolution with five other council members, stated: "There have been too many glitches and a lack of communication. We find out the hard way that something is wrong." Soon after the system's implementation, police found there was insufficient bandwidth on the radio network for computer data and voice transmission from other officers at the same time. "The assumption was made early on that we would be able to throw all this on a franked radio system and it would work well," said Assistant Police Chief Karl Godsey. "That proved to be wrong." Godsey stated that a solution required a dedicated channel for computer data, leaving the rest of the network open for voice communications. Potential vendors, he said, have estimated that would cost $10 million or more. The improvement would use the existing network as a backbone, but require the installation of another radio and antennae for each police vehicle. "We are going to pursue that route in order to be successful," Godsey said. "We want high speed data transmission that's secure." 74 Compounding Honolulu's wireless miseries is a pending lawsuit surrounding alleged software problems. The Advertiser reported that when computers were first installed in some 1,200 HPD vehicles, "officers could not use them to write reports because software supplied with the system did not work as intended," according to police. The City and County has since withheld money from Verizon Hawaii, the system's supplier, and has reportedly hired private attorneys to prepare for a lawsuit. In letters to the U.S. Justice Department obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Police Chief Lee Donahue called the original software "absolutely unacceptable." In the meantime, the Advertiser reported that Honolulu police have ceased using the computers to transmit reports via radio. Instead, the city is setting up a network of 36 data ports in the field at police stations and other public buildings to connect with police headquarters. What are the implications of Honolulu's police wireless network snafu for Hawaii County? On May 5, 2003 an Associated Press article titled "Radio Towers to Help Big Island Police" stated that "Hawaii County is spending more than $10 million to replace many of the 19 relay towers providing radio service to the Big Island Police Department and other agencies." The AP story added, "while the tower network will be converted from analog to digital technology, the radio equipment will remain analog." Police officials, according to the article, "would like to upgrade to a digital radio system, which would allow the use of computers in patrol cars to access records and other information." But, said Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna, "the county has been unable to come up with the $25 million it would cost." On May 14, 2002, the County Council's Subcommittee on Technology and Communications, aspecial subcommittee convened by the Finance Committee, reviewed the progress of the "First Phase Upgrade on the Public Safety `Microwave Network System'." A briefing was provided by Assistant Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna, Police Major Morton Carter, Police Radio Technician II Leslie Matsumoto and Purchasing Agent Bill Gray. During the meeting, Council Member Leithead-Todd inquired about the status of future funding to fully complete the microwave upgrade, as reported in the transcript excerpt as follows: MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: sometime back, we had an estimate of $24 million." ASSISTANT CHIEF MAHUNA: "That's for the 800 [megahertz]." MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: "That's for the 800 [megahertz]? Okay, so it's 8 million to 6 [gig], and then at what point are we going up to the 8 [gig]? Or maybe not?" ASSISTANT CHIEF MAHUNA: "It may not be-you know, I've heard many recommendations. 800 [megahertz] is a kind of standard that is used now to push data. But it pushes data at such a slow speed. By the time we are thinking about moving to a trunked radio system, there may be some new state-of--the-art system out there. There's also trunked VHF systems, which may be, because of the size of the island." 75 MS. LEITHEAD TODD: "So for the moment, bottom line is, we appropriated $8 million, you're not anticipating coming back and asking us for more in the near future?" ASSISTANT CHIEF MAHUNA: "1 don't anticipate it, no." In so many words, Hawaii County yet has not committed to fund the necessary and costly infrastructure to enable its police officers to operate in the new era of wireless communications in the field. Currently, Mayor Kim has requested a $24 million CIP appropriation from the 2004 State Legislature for the County's wireless upgrade project; the likelihood of state funding is uncertain. How important is this wireless infrastructure upgrade for public safety in Hawaii County? The Police Department and other public safety agencies say it is vitally important. And the foregoing review of police technology trends does point to a resounding national shift toward digital communications capabilities for officers in the field. This efficiency also complements the emerging practice and ethic of "community policing," as well as the newest imperative of law enforcement-enhanced homeland security. For Hawaii County officials and taxpayers, the prospect of a $24+ million bond float to assure afirst-rate standard of reliability and bandwidth for an island public safety telecommunications system presents a daunting challenge: do we want to pay the bill and, if so, when? For the Hawaii County Police Department, the challenge in coming years may involve continuing assessment of its wireless communications capabilities and astute coordination of hardware and software procurement to avoid the costly snafus recently experienced in Honolulu. One conclusion that might be drawn from the information above is that the Hawaii County Police Department is simply not ready to convert to the emerging standard of police package vehicles equipped with state-of--the-art MDT communications apparatus. At present, the County has neither the 800 MHz "backbone" infrastructure nor the requisite "in-field" hardware/software in play to reap all the advantages of Detroit model police cars. Does this mean the Police Department should not move forward to adopt this standard? Not at all. It does mean, however, that the Police Department, the county administration and the County Council should carefully assess how best to proceed, what learning curve must be attained, and what budget resources are needed. One recent development may warrant further exploration regarding the multi-million cost of Hawaii County's microwave upgrade project. On September 25, 2003 the Department of Homeland Security announced the award of $79.6 million to some 17 counties. The program is administered by FEMA and COPS. It provides funding through a competitive grant process to selected jurisdictions for demonstration projects that explore uses of equipment and technologies to increase interoperability among fire departments, law enforcement agencies, and emergency medical service communities. The maximum federal grant awarded under the program is $6 million. These projects are intended to illustrate and encourage the acceptance of new technologies and operating methods to assist communities in achieving interoperability. No Hawaii jurisdiction was selected in the 2003 grant round, however, and it is not clear whether Hawaii County's telecommunications upgrade would be eligible for funding. 76 D. Summary results of the "2004 Model Year Police Vehicle Evaluation" performed by the Michigan State Police and the National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center, National Institute of Justice Since 1981, the National Institute of Justice, through its National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), has partnered with the Michigan State Police (MSP) to conduct speedway time trial and other performance tests of current model Detroit "police package" patrol vehicles and selected police "special service" vehicles. Over the years, the annual "Michigan State Police Test" of police cars has become an important tool for the evaluation of police cars by state and local law enforcement agencies. The six MSP model year 2004 tests and respective weighted scoring values were: TEST DESCRIPTION POINTS Vehicle Dynamics Testing to determine high-speed pursuit handling characteristics, 30 measuring each vehcle's blending of suspension components, acceleration capabilities, and braking characteristics Acceleration to determine the time required for each test vehicle to ZU accelerate from a standing start to 60 mph, 80 mph, and 100 mph TOp-Speed Testing To determine each vehicle's speed at a distance of 1 mile IS and 2 miles and the actual top speed attainable within a distance of 14 miles from a standing start. Braking Testing to determine the deceleration rate attained by each test 20 vehicle on twelve 60-to-0 impendutg skid (threshold) stops Ergonomics & CommuNeations to rate the vehicle's ability to provide a suitable 10 environment for patrol officers to perform their joh, to accommodate the required communi-cations and emergency warning equipment, and to assess the relative difficulty- of installing the equipment Fuel ECOnomy to determine fuel economy potential, which may not 5 accurately predict the car's actual fuel economy 100 For the 2004 model year, the four "police package" patrol vehicles tested were the Chevrolet Impala, DaimlerChrysler Dodge Intrepid, Ford Police Interceptor (3.27 axle ratio) and Ford Police Interceptor (3.55 axle ratio). For purposes of the MSP evaluation, police package vehicles are those designed and manufactured for use in the full spectrum of law enforcement patrol work, including pursuits. The four "special service" police vehicles tested were the Chevrolet Tahoe (2-wheel drive), Chevrolet Tahoe (4-wheel drive), Ford Expedition (2-wheel drive), Ford Expedition (2-wheel drive), and Ford Explorer (2-wheel drive). MSP define a special service vehicle as one used by law enforcement for specialized use (e.g., off-road, inclement weather, K-9 or commercial vehicle enforcement), but not for high speed or pursuit driving. While the annual MSP police car tests do not represent product approval or endorsement by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, the NLECTC Bulletin states that many state and local police departments have found that "evaluated [MSP] vehicles provide reliable and safe performance under the increased demands of police service." 77 The 2004 NLECTC Bulletin adds: "Selecting a vehicle that balances both budgetary and performance requirements has become an increasingly challenging task for police fleet administrators. Many agencies are painfully aware of the consequences that result from being penny wise and pound foolish, 'where vehicles with inadequate performance, such as regular production passenger vehicles not specifrcally designed for police service, are selected because they cost less than police-package vehicles. Although some agencies have had limited success with nontraditional police vehicles, most agencies ftnd tha[ the increased maintenance costs resulting from such vehicles breaking down under the stress of police service quickly offset any initial savings. " Detailed results of the "Michigan State Police Tests 2004 Patrol Vehicles" published in an 8-page NLECTC Bulletin dated January 2004, are appended to this report section. In addition to published test results, NLECTC provides an evaluative/bid price software package called "AutoBid." AutoBid is a Windows application designed to help police fleet administrators select the patrol vehicle that is best suited to the needs of their department. The latest version of AutoBid with 2004 model year vehicle evaluation data may be downloaded at www.nlectc.org/autobid/overview.html. AutoBid offers two alternative methods for selecting the best patrol vehicle: (I) Ranking by Scores and (2) Ranking by Bid and Scores. The first method considers only the performance test scores (ignoring bids). It ranks all the vehicles by their scores and identifies which vehicle has the best overall performance independent of cost. The second method considers both vehicle cost and performance scores. It ranks the vehicles by the bid price adjusted for performance to identify which vehicle is the "Best Buy" in terms of the lowest cost for equivalent test performance. Either or both of these methods may be used for a given fleet acquisition decision. Ranking by Scores helps evaluate vehicles before a request for bids has been prepared and there is little or no information on the cost of the candidate vehicles. The results of this initial performance analysis can be used to determine which model vehicles warrant a request for bids. Ranking by Bid and Scores is advised once the actual bids have been received and a determination of the winning bid must be made. Finally, the January, 2004 NLECTC MSP Tests Bulletin provided an update and reference links on the accident history, lawsuits and evaluations associated with the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. During the past six years, gas tank fires due to rear-end collisions involving Crown Victoria Police Interceptors have killed more than a dozen police officers. Eighty-five percent of all patrol cars in the United States are Ford's police interceptor cruisers. While lawsuits concerning Crown Victoria accidents remain pending in Arizona and Texas, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed aone- year investigation into the Ford Police Interceptor in October, 2002. It is not the purpose of this report to either endorse or disparage any particular model of police car. However, the accident history, associated litigation, and the ensuing design and fire suppression enhancements undertaken by the Ford Motor Company for its Crown Victoria Police Interceptors warrant continuing and prudent examination. In addition to the annual MSP tests, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) conducts its own well-respected "LASD Law Enforcement Vehicle Test and Evaluation Program." In addition to measuring vehicle performance, LASD utilizes test procedures to predict long-range vehicle reliability factors. These include long-range engine and component tests measuring the temperature of engine oil, coolant, transmission fluid and power steering fluid recorded under conditions that simulate patrol car duty on a hot summer day. 78 LASD mechanics also evaluate the ease and cost of maintenance and repair, including transmission and water pump replacement, oil and filter changes, and tune-ups. They further study the difficulty of installing emergency equipment -prisoner cages, shotgun racks, radios, sirens and warning lights. Their tests also assess the ergonomics of car interiors and the placement of devices that could contribute to accidents or injuries. The designs, test performance results, and patrol duty reputations of Detroit-built police cruisers are subject to frequent change and merit close attention. In recent years, the dominate Crown Victoria has been challenged by the Chevrolet Impala, widely used by the New York City Police Department, and the Dodge Intrepid. Both the Impala and Intrepid are front-drive midsize cars with V-6 engines, in contrast to the larger V-8 Ford, with its rear-wheel drive, body-on-frame construction, live-rear axle, and large back seat and trunk. However, the Impala and Intrepid models have demonstrated competitive results as pursuit vehicles, a popular measurement of police cars. How important is it that the Ford Police Interceptor (3.55 axle ratio) model is 4/100'h' of a second faster than the DaimlerChrysler Dodge Intrepid in attaining 0-60mph speed for police pursuit? This report ventures no conclusion. Key sections dealing with "procedures" and "pursuit tactics" contained in the Hawaii County Police Department's General Order (No. 602) relating to "Motor Vehicle Pursuit" are lawfully confidential based upon a 1995 opinion by the Office of Information Practices. Of greater importance may be the overall evaluative criteria and performance data for current model police cars provided by the MSP and LASD tests, respectively. These instruments for assessing vehicle performance, longevity and cost bear close examination, although none of the studies conducted by HCPD from 1972-2003 reference these nationally-acknowledged tests as a basis for assessing the relative merits or costs of various police-package vehicles. An excerpted summary of the 2004 Michigan State tests of 2004 model patrol cars is shown below: F . , 1 3 ' ' t ' i I E S " ti. ; Michigan State Police Tests 2004 Patrol Vehicles Patrol vehicles aze among the most critical purchases that a law enforcement agency makes. For both large and small agencies, patrol vehicle purchases frequently represent the second largest expenditure, after personnel, in their annual operating budgets. Selecting a vehicle that balances both budgetary and performance requirements has become an increasingly challenging task for police fleet administrators. Many agencies aze painfully aware of the consequences that result from being "penny wise and pound foolish," where vehicles with inadequate performance, such as regulaz production passenger vehicles not specifically designed for police service, aze selected because they cost less than police-package vehicles. Although some agencies have had limited success with nontraditional police vehicles, most agencies fmd that the increased maintenance costs resulting from such vehicles breaking down under the stress of police service quickly offset any initial savings. 79 For more than 25 years, the Michigan State Police (MSP) has conducted extensive evaluations of the performance capabilities of each new model year's police vehicles as part of its annual vehicle procurement process. Since 1981, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), through its National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system, has sponsored these tests through a partnership with MSP. By disseminating these results to State and local law enforcement agencies, NIJ helps these agencies select vehicles that maximize their budgets and ensures that evaluated vehicles provide reliable and safe performance under the increased demands of police service. The 2004 model year patrol vehicles were evaluated from September 20 through 22, 2003. For the purposes of the MSP evaluation, police-package vehicles are those that are designed and manufactured for use in the full spectrum of law enforcement patrol service, including pursuits. A special-service vehicle is a vehicle that may be used by law enforcement agencies for specialized use (e.g., off-road, inclement weather, K-9, or commercial vehicle enforcement), but is not designed or manufactured to be used in high- speed or pursuit situations. By creating this distinction, it is hoped that it will be easier for agencies to realistically assess the capabilities of each vehicle. Each vehicle is subjected to six major tests and evaluations. The results are weighted to reflect the relative importance of each attribute as related to MSP operational requirements. Exhibit 1 lists the tests and point scores. MSP scores each vehicle's overall performance, reviews the manufacturer's bid price, and calculates a final score for each vehicle using a sophisticated formula that combines both factors. Four police-package vehicles and four special-service vehicles were submitted for evaluation. Exhibit 2 provides a list and description of each vehicle. This NLECTC bulletin contains a synopsis of the test results; a detailed report also is available. Page 8 of this bulletin contains information on how to obtain the report. The MSP vehicle specifications, test categories, and scoring reflect MSP needs. If your department employs this or a similar method, consider your own needs carefully and alter the weighting factors accordingly. What's New for 2004 Exhibit 2 Vehicles teaLeA Category Wehwle Engine Ii ~ . ~ a~ , ~ . ' sa~r;ia Special Service ~ ~ Chevrolet Teh oe {2-wheel dnvel ~ ~ 8,3L (327 cidt SPFI Y ~-.w kiT,. m . v. ~ . qPo~;l~"ic~e,, ~ ~ JD~aiim~lerChryys~laa~r Or'id~gye Intyrr~epid 3.SL {214f md} SPFI PWxI~ ; .:::is- . ~ 33 ?~lan~.fi'alf>~~ r~ ,.:p~. c~' I~:~ti'~.,.- Pahce Ford Police lrrterceptorS3.58 axle ra[ioi J.6L (281 cidS SPFI ~ ir::; as ~'`I 4s - m Special Service Ford Explorer I2 wheel dnvel d.6L {287 cid! SPFI nA-cubcindrbgAxumnnt SPFI-saquonEtl pot hallo pnan MVR-mulupan lud nipcuan SMFl-rgmnual muluporr bd inpcmn L-Lmr Chevrolet: For the 2004 model year, the Impala is once again available in both the 9C1 police package and the 9C3 unmarked police package. Emission controls that comply with the New England States and California emissions requirements are now available on both the 9C1 and 9C3 Impalas, but must be specified at the time the vehicle is ordered. SO Also, for the 2004 model year, the turnkey equipment installation program available through Kerr Industries has been expanded to include such items as - • Fold-down equipment tray and trunk organizers. • Low-profile deck lamps. • Power distribution center for accessory equipment. • Full-size wheel covers. The Tahoe is once again available in either a 2-wheel-drive (2WD) or 4-wheel-drive (4WD) special-service package, in what is essentially a carryover from the 2003 model. In addition to the standard 4.8L (292 cid) engine, the 5.3L (327 cid) engine, rated at 285 horsepower, is an available option on both models. DaimlerChrysler: The Dodge Intrepid police-package sedan returns for a third consecutive model year. The 2004 Intrepid remains basically unchanged from last year, with the exception of new rear brake pads, which representatives of DaimlerChrysler's police vehicle engineering team say will assist in preventing premature front brake wear. DaimlerChrysler representatives also indicate that this will be the last year of production for the Intrepid police-package sedan, as DaimlerChrysler indicates it will introduce a completely new, yet- to-be-announced police-package vehicle in the 2005 model year. Ford: For 2004, the Police Interceptor features several powertrain improvements. A new air induction system increases the maximum rated horsepower (hp) of the Police Interceptor to 250, an increase of 11 hp from last year. Also available is an optional 3.55 reaz-axle ratio, which Ford representatives state will enhance vehicle acceleration times, although it will reduce the maximum top speed of the vehicle to 119 mph. A new high-output generator, rated at 200 amp maximum, is now standard, as is atrunk-mounted power distribution box, which provides electrical power for accessories and equipment installed in the trunk. New interior safety features for 2004 include stand-alone side air bags, which can be ordered as a sepazate option (previously only available in conjunction with the optional power seat package), and optional laminated security side glass. Also new for 2004 is Ford's Trunk Pack [trademazk], a drop-in high-density polyethylene plastic shell with DuPont [trademark] KEVLAR [registered trademark] lining on the forwazd side, which Ford representatives state will reduce the risk of police equipment mounted in the trunk from penetrating into the back seat or fuel tank in high-speed rear impacts. A compressed natural gas (CNG) version of the Police Interceptor will be available in January 2004. However, Ford indicates that this will be the fmal year of production for the CNG version. The Explorer, Expedition, and Excursion sport utility vehicles (SWs) aze again available as special-service packages in a wide an-ay of trim and equipment levels. Available options include 4WD or all-wheel-drive systems, a variety of gasoline and diesel engines, and several new exterior color options on each vehicle. The 2004 model year will be the final yeaz of production for the Excursion SW. Vehicle Dynamics Testing Objective: To determine high-speed pursuit handling chazacteristics. The 2-mile road racing course contains hills, curves, and corners; except for the absence of traffic, it simulates actual pursuit conditions. The evaluation measures each vehicle's blending of suspension components, acceleration capabilities, and braking characteristics. Methodology: All vehicles are driven over the course a total of 32 timed laps by four separate drivers, each driving an 8-lap series. The final score for the vehicle is the combined average of the 5 fastest laps of each of the four drivers. Exhibit 3 shows the average results of the vehicle dynamics test. 81 E a hi bi 1 2 Vah isles tested Category Vehicle Engnae Pcl a s, , . lfdi' . e3:i9f3t a~ I Spec~ia}l {Se rnce~ Chevrolet Tah oe (2-wheal dnvey 5 3L j1~3i2~7 cold)( SPFI RR ?0.arruu.".~: :~x. ~~~j~ ~ a~{aaMM1~ 1S Police DaimlerChrysler Dodge Intrepid 3.SL (214 cid1SPFl Pdide Fui~~tM~!u~74!, . ik~ 44dtI R>~!Pl @@Pa~~hic~a~~,~. ~~~~F4or~.d.yy Police lnterceptorf,3.55 axle retiai d.6yL(281 c__,~id~a}``y}Say~y~P~~F,,;I;aa~~ . wrlvwHV SIIflpOe r `J9rq~~ ~4. :E ~1R!. ~FgeTl-- Spacial Service Ford Explorer t2-wheel drive] 0.6L {287 cid) SPFI od- cubn mdi daplanmenl SPFI- aaquonhd poa hcl mpunn nPH. mabpon FUd inprnnn SMR-avluanual mubporl lud mucban L -hear Acceleration and Top-Speed Testing Acceleration Objective: To determine the time required for each test vehicle to accelerate from a standing start to 60 mph, 80 mph, and 100 mph. Methodology: Using a Datron Non-Contact Optical Sensor in conjunction with a personal computer, each vehicle is driven through four acceleration sequences--two northbound and two southbound--to allow for wind direction. The average of the four is the score on the competitive test. Exhibit 4 ResuRs d acceleratial and top-speed testing Daimler Ford Ford Chevrolet Chevrolet pxyslea Palica Police Ford ford Speed Chevrelet Tahoe Tahoe Dodge (rtterceptor Interceptor Expedition Expbrea {mph! Impala [21VD} t0VdD1 intrepid (3.27 axleratroM (3.65ax1eratty) {2WD) I2WD? t . _ OtSa $i.:: tr.32 L,„>j ~ .c ~..I .''1~_ i,77 1n}39 3.20 ~3yy.1ya}3~ ~ ~33..y3y3R ..3~.~~q1~3~y . 3.i1B ~~~-2y.J0~9 3,d9 2.9y3y fl+a{t ; _ '+t!Ila, i.' 4T~Y. ,:tl, atiGV~,`, ..t ~T.:l+iAa ~ k ~ u :::~t '-~4 „ . a 0.50 651 d.36 6.76 6.37 6.~ 6.15 rZdd ~ 6.30 0-70 11.76 ~ 10.47 11.81 11.21 10.69 10.69 13.24 11.79 T6;23 l±t.°~."~. ;~i a'''-~ 'J 'ti r1~1i~+4 0.00 ?0.31 10.Co0 2~1A6F~~ 18.00 18.15 17.90 23.67 ,,2~~aa1aa..1g0~ Top apead~~ 123 99 99 135 128 178 T00 1117 Nero: Fguna mprenm Iha awnyaaf Imr rune. NI Wrmbr am {upped with tlatmnm apaad limilen. N:A.iMicb dd not xaiaw ar eamrJ IqD nph Top 3peed Objective: To determine each vehicle's speed at a distance of 1 mile and 2 miles and the actual top speed attainable within a distance of 14 miles from a standing start. Methodology: Following the fourth acceleration run, the vehicle continues to accelerate to the top speed attainable within 14 miles from the start of the run. The highest speed attained within the 14 miles is the vehicle's score on the competitive test. Exhibit 4 summarizes the acceleration and top-speed test results. 82 Braking Testing Objective: To determine the deceleration rate attained by each test vehicle on 12, 60-to-0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops, with ABS in operation if the vehicle is so equipped. Each vehicle will be scored on the average deceleration rate it attains. Methodology: Each vehicle makes two decelerations at specific, predetermined points on the test road from 90 to 0 mph at 22 ft/sec[squared], with the driver using a decelerometer to maintain the deceleration rate. Immediately after these heat-up stops are completed, the vehicle is turned around and makes six measured 60-to-0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops with ABS in operation, if the vehicle is so equipped, at specific, predetermined points. Following a 4-minute heat soak, the entire sequence is repeated. The exact initial velocity at the beginning of each of the 60-to-0 mph decelerations and the exact distance required to make each stop are recorded by means of a Datron Non-Contact Optical Sensor in conjunction with a personal computer. The data resulting from the 12 stops will be used to calculate the average deceleration rate, which is the vehicle's score for this test. Exhibit 5 shows the results of the braking test. Exhibit 5 Results of btaking test Daimlam Fmd Ford Chewoln Chewolet Chrysler Police Police Fard Ford Ghewo6et Talwe Tahoe Dedge Interceptor kntercaptor Expedition Ezpbrer .}P.h~a se I knpela Ctt~NWY~ttD/y) (4ri0~q} Intrepid (3.27 axk ratio) 13.55 ode ratio) C2W1)1 l2WDi ~~~'~~~{~~~.,i. ~4~ `~TY"4T .i ~i g~{`I a i 1 ~ 5~~ t ~ a. eF.evua~llX+'1R t a-Pv." [ rc~ma. ~ 3 C 5 ~ 19` ~ t x.I i ~ . {}'y.. „a, a5" w ' Avg. stopping 133.02 142.25 146.46 138.25 '150.96 $ 151.35 143.37 143.13 diet. (Rl' a/~,~,,,.~ ~y c ` Phase ll 6 Aapl.ini6p11: 54A # 6i~ 04.1 80.1 m~ n 4ps1~=p ~ ~ t Ayg. stopping 133.83 139.47 144.53 134.53 146.12 ~ 150.92 141.88 142,38 list. {Ry° Ate, ~ ffi.BI. »Zt't+ . -37!x- . Avg. Deceleration 28.65 27:19 26.61 28.18 25.89 26.74 27.09 27,3 Raft (fthedl"' 7f+oI1~PPetP f 1'R~8 tE>:F4 RrN1.11 '1Yh4 r ~ 1-fZ:f - tlLf 1FlO/gA~ 2T~ik ~ y 3 7 t a ~ : s~ $ ~ ~ ~ u~ i ~ ~ ~ ..~!Li. ~ r~#q it - tlvrv. All whicbaha+u ar2lrzhng bnk ng ryatanv ' Figure aprumr the eronap of nn mneaurad amp " Cakubtad Imm tln m~nre7n 4ombrabon rain dts«§ 0111 rnmvu nl atcpa Ergonomics and Communications Objectives: To rate the vehicle's ability to provide a suitable environment for patrol officers to perform their job, to accommodate the required communications and emergency warning equipment, and to assess the relative difficulty of installing the equipment. Methodology: A minimum of four officers independently and individually score each vehicle on comfort and instrumentation. 83 Personnel from MSP's Communications Division who are responsible for new car preparation conduct the communications portion of the evaluation, based on the relative difficulty of the necessary installations. Each factor is graded on a 1-to-10 scale, with 1 representing totally unacceptable and 10 representing superior. The scores are averaged to minimize personal prejudice. Exhibit 6 shows a comparison of the exterior and interior dimensions of the vehicles evaluated. ExhiYrii 5 Summary of eztedor and interior dimensions Leatgth NerigM1t Wheelbase Weigh Nead Room Head Room Leg Room Leg Rcom Manrdaeturer/Model ftindws! (inches) Cinches) Ilbsi firontl Crear/ dfrant) Aaar7 4`h4M4dilt ln?PaYir ."k ~...+~e ~,.:'`~'1'~... - ~ dikr'~.,",~ ` Chevrolet,~Tea~h.~o.,eay ~1y9y8.y9 7j6...3~. 11b".0 5,046~G,370 taY jdj~0.7y 39.4 ~dJa1.ry3 38.6 f1alDf~r 1f°®'f. ~]ar+w 't.. k r . ~illaat,v, n ~ Fr rc1 Pa liar Interoe ptar 212.0 G8,5 11 d.y7a. 4.20074,185 {61 39A 3B.DY ~ 62.5 ~.6 ftifri ~apadtiat ~ .:TTpiM" ' . , '~,~:;~90 ''tom: ' r.~~~ Ford Explorer 12WD} 199.5 77.4 116.6 4,421 39.9 38.9 42.4 37? Trunk ShaoWer Sfwulder Hip Hip knerio-t Irrterior, Fmerior, Capacityl Fuei Room Room Roaen Raom Front Rear Combined Max. Cargo' Capacity Manrdacturer,'Model {}rural irearl tfrontl (rear} (cubic fast} Iwbic feed (cubic feet) {cubic feet} {gallons) '@9~.,. ~ { ~ .'.~:r7,s ,1=:; 'i~,..' -iOdk~ tg,6 {a~.' 3Ig' Chevrolet Tahoe 65.2 ~}t£.1 61.6 67.3 94.3 57.3 161.6 573 26.0 i ~ ~~.t sit }i 3 ~ .r> ' a ~ i ''T', nsl4kTn !s~ ~..t4Arf9k`` s 79, ~ ~i~,f~w~: t M1~O. rF~o~rd{yPo.~i ~J+~intaroaptor 6y0~.8~ ~,yBD.3 57.1 59.~0y 5y8}.~2 ~ 51.1 109.3 ~y20~.}6 1~9. (0} m}ry aietf}w.R 3 laAn u Y•; ~tpa' ram#~: r~~', .M1?+r Ford Ezpl Drat Y2WDI 59.1 58.9 65.0 51.2 ,..81.8 44.5 126.3 BBA 22.5 ' Sabm am meamnd br um* ®pmly SIIVa and apmulaemmvahmlea au nnaaoiaf lvmevmum n iga umr aura tddaddovnf ml 2 whorl dneaA-vhnl dnw- ,h~ ].]i min ntnr]rbada rmo, a.i N5M mnlacl spare nn Exhibit 7 shows the results of the ergonomics and communications test. Exhi hit 7 Rewtts of ergonotnica and communicatiorts test M anufacturarJModel Score Ew'lrak+fC~tk'Mpprih ;,'#~e~L--a " Chevrolet Tahoe C24YDy 21740 Dalmle rCllMaler Dodge Irnrepid 196.70 f"rargFPb~i. ~t Ford Eapadrtmn 42WQ1 18767 , Rari1 r ~ Nna: Scum am eho caul pniMS Nn submdeda ramnrad br uah of ehv S amibvra ehn MSP mnaidan inpunanl indmmn mng tln acoq>fabiliry aF Nv whale as a petrel car-1v mnpb. front sear adjmubNNy cbnly al im:humenbNan, a id ham ar i hztvubibry Ihnhglnr Nn number, tln bnur eha adidu axnd 84 Fuel Economy Objective: To determine fuel economy potential. The scoring data are valid and reliable for comparison, but may not necessarily be an accurate prediction of the car's actual fuel economy. Methodology: The vehicles' scores are based on estimates of city fuel economy to the nearest 1/10 of a mile per gallon from data supplied by the vehicle manufacturers. Exhibit 8 shows the estimated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy ratings, rounded to the nearest whole number, for city, highway, and combined driving conditions. Exhibit 6 Fuel ecAnomy EPN Miles Per Gallat Ma nutaaurerfModel City Higfiwry Combined ~BF .Iw1 ~ITt ~ x.41' ~ Chevrolet Ta hoe (2-vw•heel drive) 15 ~2Q tfi.5 5.3L 5327 cidl SPFI i~ t~4rwlrlrl dr~tt+t ~R i9 y,;,~{y~ L1aimlerChrysler Dodge linrepid 19 27 22Y 3. SL f,2ld cid3 SPFI Farwl Fb4:w 1trtt~weaplgc• ?d ~.:7~z , i.~t4~af~5i~`' ice. Fo rd Ea pedrtian 42-wheel drive} 13 17 16 S.aL 1330 dd1 SM PI Ford .dtiwd t~ ~9 a f7;p : , d:~.~~7=de11~W1 If you would like a copy of the full report, write or call the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 8J, Rockville, MD 20850, 800-248-2742, or 301-519-5060; or download it from JUSTNET, www.justnet.org. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center is supported by Cooperative Agreement #96-MU-MU-KO11 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Analyses of test results do not represent product approval or endorsement by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; or Aspen Systems Corporation. E. Considerations and Options for Police Vehicle Purchasing, Leasing, and Fleet Management "Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal " Henry Ford In reviewing the literature surrounding the purchase of police cars in the United States, several findings are noteworthy for the consideration of police car procurement in Hawaii. First, Hawaii is the only state in the nation that does not have a lead state police force or highway patrol. While the state sheriffs office serves the Judiciary and the Department of Public Safety serves the corrections system, neither performs traditional police duties. All police functions -including enforce- ment of traffic laws -are performed by the four counties. 85 This often overlooked fact has implications for the subject of county police cars. In many states, the lead state law enforcement agency acts as a master purchasing agent for various towns, municipalities and counties buying police cars. Alternatively, many smaller jurisdictions buy used state police cars. In Hawai i, however, neither the "piggyback" nor "hand-me-down" procurement option is available to the counties. Nor, to date, have the four county police departments undertaken any collaborative procurement "pooling" initiative to commonly purchase police cars. As a result, three distinct cost-saving options for police caz procurement are not exercised in Hawaii. Pooled purchasing, like "piggybacking," gives Municipal Manager's 2002 Report, Teaneck, NJ smaller agencies the ability to acquire vehicles under the umbrella of a larger single bid. As As a member of the New Jersey State Cooperative Purchasing Program, the Township was able to add noted by Curtis Exley in an article titled Teaneck's requirements to all other municipal police car "Procurement of Law Enforcement Vehicles' needs in the State of New Jersey. The larger quantity of (FBI Bulletin, August, 2002), "this proves Police vehicles was publicly advertised by the New Jersey State Purchasing Bureau. Competition generated advantageous to all who participate as each entity by the public bidding process, and the cumulative can profit from the cost reduction acquired by greater amount of police vehicles requested on behalf of ordering a larger number of vehicles." The the State Purchasing Bureau, resulted in a lower priced drawback, he notes, is that "smaller agencies have Police vehicle for all cooperative members of the System, Teaneck included. In 2002, we were able to to accept the [vehicle] standards that the larger purchase six Ford Crown Victoria police cars, at a agency has endorsed." delivered price of just under $20,500 each. None of the police car studies performed by HCPI) to date have explored the possibility of pooled vehicle procurement by the four counties. Whether this option is feasible, like the option of establishing an insurance pool, is subject to speculation. This report suggests that pooled procurement merits consideration. All four counties share a common fiscal year and are subject to a common state procurement law. While geographical challenges, patrol assignments, maintenance options and logistics certainly may differ among the counties, it is at least intriguing to ponder whether a thoughtful review by county police chiefs, fleet managers (Maui, Kauai and the City & County of Honolulu) and purohasing agents might identify commonality in patrol car specifications warranting development of a pooled bid system by the counties. Such a development might further yield the benefit of standardized statewide recognition of police vehicles by the public and Hawai is 6 million+ annual visitors. FOUR WHEEL DRIVES The Hawaii County Police Department's Patrol Division welcomed the delivery of two new four-wheel-drive sports utility vehicles. The vehicles provide off-road capabilities and are used primarily for transferring arrestees between districts and the Hawaii Community Correctional Center and for responding to calls for ~r ,r, „ ~ „M,-.;. assistance from rural areas. All vehicles added to the Department's fleet display new exterior graphics that increase visibility, particularly at night, and improve appearance and recognition by visitors accustomed to a marked patrol fleet. The total price tag on the new vehicles amounted to $87,390. The department was able to retire several aging patrol units with high maintenance costs as a result of the acquisition. SOURCE: 7998 HCPD Annual Report 86 Throughout the United States, there is great disparity in the size and budgetary resources of the thousands of state, county and local police forces. This, in turn, is reflected in the wide array of vehicles purchased or leased for police work. Some police departments are fiercely committed to Detroit police package vehicles. Others make do with standard consumer models or strictly used cars. The size and population ofjurisdictions served and their respective municipal budgets often determine the specifications and costs of police vehicles. While the U.S. Department of Justice offers a wide array of gran[ program funds to local police departments, it does not fund the purchase of traditional police patrol cars. As a result, the cost of police vehicles is usually borne by municipalities and local taxpayers. One notable exception to this lack of federal subsidies for police vehicles is the Community Services Program of the USDA Rural Development Agency which provides funding for rescue vehicles and fire trucks for small rural communities that lack the resources to purchase vehicles and equipment without federal assistance. Typically, these USDA grants are awarded for the purchase of only one or a few police cars in exceedingly poor rural jurisdictions. As such, Hawaii County's overall revenue base and fiscal health may disqualify the County for such l1SDA grants. According to Curtis Exley (FBI Bulletin; August, 2002), "transportation equipment costs rank second as the greatest expenditure that a law enforcement agency faces, just below personnel salaries and benetits." As a result, he says, "law enforcement agencies must consider improved strategies for developing budget estimates" for police cars. Such estimates, Exley says, "include the bidding process, life-cycle estimates (i.e., vehicle operation and maintenance), purchase and lease options, vehicle rotation or replacement, and fleet liability." Police departments buying police package models develop a list of vehicle specifications in preparing a bid. As mentioned earlier, the annual performance tests performed by the Michigan State Police and Los Angeles Sheriffs Department are one tool for assessing the rated performance and capabilities of Detroit police cars. Another valuable tool for preparing a budget estimate for police car procurement is the "Lifecycle Cost Analysis" (LCA) software developed by the National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA). According to an article in Police Fleet Manager in 2002, NAFA's LCA software package enables a fleet manager to "not only make a scientific decision on vehicle purchase and retention policies, but also defend those decisions to their bosses who have to sign the checks." The LCA analysis tool consists of a series of Microsoft Excel workbooks that accept numbers entered by a police fleet manager and crunch them to provide comparative analysis of options and their merits. The workbooks are accompanied by narrated PowerPoint tutorials and exercises for the use of the Excel spreadsheets. In addition to the purchase price of the vehicle, the LCA tool three categories of fleet costs: fixed expenses, operating expenses and incidental costs. Fixed costs include the cost of managing the vehicle, specialized equipment installation and removal - lights, radios, sirens - as well as license, insurance and depreciation. Operating costs include fuel, maintenance, repairs incurred by wear and collision, oil, tires, etc. Incidental costs include car washing, detailing, parking fees, etc. 87 A NAFA survey found that "job suitability" was the biggest criteria used in selecting a vehicle, followed by its initial purchase price. Other selection factors (shown from most important to least important below) included: • Safety Record • Repair Record • Serviceability • Delivery Time • Depreciation and Resale Cost • Warranty • Fuel Economy • Country of Manufacture • The Image of the Owner as Pertains to the Vehicle • Ease of Administration • Incentive Programs Driver Preference • Insurance Cost • Fringe Benefit Value Additionally, LCA takes into account the number of months the vehicle is expected to be in service before replacement, mileage accumulated before replacement, typical monthly mileage, book depreciation rate, fuel cost, percentage of personal use of the vehicle, the cost of extra mileage above that allotted for lease agreements, daily cost of vehicle rental for one out of service, and optimum replacement interval. What the LCA tool provides is an estimate of the cost of the vehicle over its entire service life, not just a base sticker price. Such life-cycle analysis is central to the methodology of fleet management. In an article titled "How Much Will It Cost?" in Police Fleet Manager (2002), Tim Dees writes: "There are other fleet management decisions that are aided and justified by the use of this tool." He adds: "The total cost of personal use is calculated from the same variables that estimate life-cycle cost. For agencies that issue take-home cars, this cost is immediately apparent, and can be weighed against the benefit that the agency gains in immediate response, higher visibility and improved morale." Delineating multiple shift "pool" cars and take-home cars, Dees notes that "when officers have cars assigned for individual use, they are not driven as often (typically not more than one shift per day), and they are usually not driven as hard, as officers will take better care of vehicles in which they feel 'ownership.' The officers are more likely to see that preventive maintenance is performed at the proper times. All these factors add up to allow the vehicle to stay in service longer, both in terms of months and miles driven Implicit in the design of NAFA's LCA software is the premise that vehicle costs -including "miles driven for personal and business use" -are quantifiable, although, as Dees observes, "factors necessary to resolve the pool-versus-take-home-car issue (increased visibility, improved morale) are difficult to quantify." Such delineation of actual costs attributable to police duty versus personal use is fundamentally absent in Hawaii County's present allowance system. In his analysis of life-cycle vehicle cost, Curtis Exley adds another important criteria: fleet liability. He asks: "What are the legal consequences of keeping a car too long?" and points out that "there are cases on file providing data where agencies have lost lawsuits because of poorly maintained equipment, which was the main cause in automobile crashes." He speculates that "a jury may hesitate to find fault with a case involving a new patrol vehicle, but has less of a problem finding guilt with an agency operating poorly maintained or out-of--date equipment." 88 Such concern for liability, coupled with maintenance costs and performance, factor into the rotation or replacement of fleet vehicles. Exley states that "an informal survey by the Michigan State Police shows that most police agencies take their patrol cars out of service between 60,000 and 100,000 miles." The survey reported a mileage spectrum of as little as 45,000 miles and as much as 150,000 miles. Exley advises, "agencies should base replacement criteria for a fleet vehicle on elements surrounding the age of the vehicle, operating costs, mileage, vehicle fatigue, and current usefulness." Leasing cars provides one solution to accessing new, updated vehicles featuring the latest engineering and improvements. In general, there are four sources for lease programs: 1. Director from the manufacturer/vendor: The lessee municipality can negotiate a national account agreement directly with a manufacturer or service agency. 2. Through an independent service company: According to Exley, some positive features "include the agency obtaining complete coverage, benefiting from single-source central billing, and maximizing all available discounts in light of the service company's huge volume." 3. Through a leasing company: Similar to dealing with an independent service company. 4. In-house programs: Most suitable for larger fleets, operating vehicles in the thousands, whereby an agency develops its own national account program with amanufacturer/vendor for desired services and brand name vehicles when desired. Exley advises that when looking at lease options, "open-ended leases stand as the most practical for law enforcement." A 1995 article in NAFA Fleet Executive titled "Police Fleets Question the Benefits of Buying vs. Leasing" stated: "Fleet administrators should be looking at open-ended leases where it doesn't matter whether holes are drilled into the vehicles or how many miles they've been driven or how old the cars are.'" Open-ended leases offer equity participation; at the end of the use cycle, the vehicle sells for whatever the sale value is at the time. Moreover, large capital cash expenditures are avoided. Another leasing option -tax-exempt, lease-purchase financing - is suited for small municipalities. Payment is spread out over 2-5 years and the agency obtains ownership at the conclusion of the lease term. Municipal leases are contracts that do not create general obligation debt; costs are tinanced at tax- exempt rates and no federal income tax is paid on the interest. F. Summary In presenting the foregoing material, this study makes no hard recommendations as to the merits of leasing vs. purchasing. We do reiterate our recommendation that a motivated representative from HCPD and a Finance Department purchasing agent attend the upcoming NAFA Law Enforcement Group conference in Las Vegas and engage other experienced police fleet managers and financing experts to gather insights and counsel on the merits and options of fleet financing and recommended operations. With respect to county police cars, HCPD has expended considerable effort over thirty years defending the status quo. This study illuminates a more dynamic reality: from the standpoint of design, engineering, safety, communications apparatus, identity, auxiliary equipment, fuel economy and deployment, police cars are both perceived and used in new and ever-changing ways. The mission of public safety must acknowledge these developments. 89 The single most important criteria for vehicle selection cited by NAFA is "job suitability." This seems to us a good place to begin. Currently, the HCPD standard providing an allowance to every "sworn officer" appeazs more a sweeping entitlement than a real assessment of `job suitability." Just how much importance should we attach to police cars as an element of public safety? This is a question that can easily be blown out of proportion if rhetorical passions overwhelm astute analysis. How patrol cars aze assigned and used - i.e., targeted patrol, engagement of the community in police work - may be as important [o the mission of public safety as a police car's make and model. What vehicle is best suited to each officer's duties and assignments? What are the special patrol needs of each of the eight police districts on the island? Obviously, based upon current practice and known road conditions, a quota of four-wheel drive and/or rear wheel drive specialty vehicles is required. As such, it makes no sense to concoct cost estimates based upon a l:l radio of sworn officers to Ford Crown Victorias. Do all detectives and non-patrol personnel require police package vehicles? The extensive LEMAS survey data assembled by the U.S. Department of Justice cited earlier indicates that neazly all police departments have a mix of vehicles based on different needs and assignments. Therefore, some provision for ordinary sedans suited for police work is appropriate. Where do we want to be in 5-10 years with respect to our microwave upgrade and police voice/data communications? What advances in in-car technologies such as mobile data terminals do we wish to adopt? What cazs offer the best electrical and ergonomic accommodations for these technologies? We propose aforward-looking functional assessment of police patrol in Hawaii County as the basis for making any determination about the allowance system vs. a purchased or leased police fleet. Eventually, we believe an assigned take-home fleet system offers the best prospect for life-cycle cost containment and enhanced police presence. For patrol purposes, Detroit police package cars and specialty vehicles offer advantages, certainly; and an assigned take-home policy would mitigate much of the financial loss for patrol officers if a fleet system were adopted. Finally, we encourage a dialogue among county police departments to explore the possibilities of cooperative purchasing and insurance pooling. The counties are overdue for investigating theirjoint clout in the marketplace. 90 APPENDICES A. SHOPO Agreement, Article 18 ("Subsidized Automobiles") B. Hawaii County Police Department General Orders Relating to Subsidized Vehicles 1. General Order No. 802 - "Police Vehicles and F,quipment" 2. General Order No. 803 - "Gasohne, Oil & Mlleage Record" 3. General Order No. 808 - "Transporting Persons in Patrol Cars" 4. General Order No. 809 - "Use of "Temporary Vehicles for Official Police Dun" 5. General Order No. 814 - "Police Subsidized Vehicle Extension Request Procedures" C. HRS Sections Relating to Government Motor Vehicles 1. Section 105-1 Government motor vehicles; certain uses prohibited 2. Section 105-2(3) Exceptions 3. Section 105-7 Inscription on county motor vehicles 4. Section 105-8 Character of inscription 5. Section 291-31.5 Blue lights prohibited for motor vehicles, motorcycles-, motor scooters, bicycles, mopeds. 6. Section 710-1027 Resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle. D. Auditor's Office Inquiry to Corporation Counsel re: SHOPO Contract 1. Memorandum dated July 15, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu co Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida requesting an Opinion re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles' of the SHOPO contract 2. Copy of July, 13, 2003 lT'e~t Hawaii Todap article titled "SHOPO Official: Unlikely police will switch to fleet" 3. Memorandum (~K/RK No. 03-5909) dated August 26, 2003 from Deputy Corporaton Counsel Patricia K. O'Toole to Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu rc Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Contract, and 4. Memorandum dated September 8, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie liiriu to Mavor Haxrc• Kim, Clvef Lawrence Mahuna and Counci] Members transmitting Corporation Counsel Opinion/WRK No. 03-5909 E. Bibliography 91 APPENDIX A SHOPOAGREEMENT,ARTICLE 18("SUBSIDIZED AUTOMOBILES") AGREEMENT Between STATE OF HAWAII CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY OF MAUI COUNTY OF KAUAI and STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS JULY I, 1999 JUNE 30, 2003 ARTICLE 18. SUBSIDIZED AUTOMOBILES A. Providing of Automobile Allowances -Automobile allowances shall be provided to police officers who are required by the Employer to purchase and regularly use their private automobiles for official duty. B. Determination -The Employer shall determine who shall be required to provide an automobile for official duty. C Vehicle Specifications -The Employer shall determine the specifications of such vehicles. D. Replacement Vehicle -The police officer is responsible for providing an acceptable replacement vehicle whenever the employee's automobile is being repaired as the result of off duty damages. In the event damages should be incurred while on duty where no gross negligence is involved on the part of the employees, the employer shall provide a replacement vehicle for official use at no cost to the employee or reassign the employee to non-motorized duty. E. On Duty Damages -Employees whose subsidized automobiles necessitate repairs as a result of on duty damages shall suffer no loss of car allowance for a period not to exceed six (6) months. F. Allowance During Leaves of Absence -Automobile allowance shall be continued during any authorized leaves of absence with pay, including industrial injury leaves, not exceeding a continuous period of six (6) months. G. Required Equipment -Equipment required by the Employer for a subsidized vehicle shall be furnished and installed at the expense of the Employer. H. Insurance -The Employer shall continue the present practice of providing public liability and property damage insurance to include no-fault insurance for each subsidized vehicle. Comprehensive and collision insurance for a subsidized vehicle shall be the responsibility of the employee. Cost of repairs for damages to a subsidized vehicle shall be reimbursed under circumstances which indicate that the damage occurred "on duty" or incurred while performing an official police function, and (1) was the malicious or negligent act of a third party, or (2) was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the officer. Reimbursement shall be made to the extent not compensated for by the deductible provision of the insurance policy, but not in excess of $100 for comprehensive insurance and/or $250 for collision insurance. A final written statement of cost and list of damages shall be presented to the Employer upon request for payment. 92 I. Notification -Whenever an employee is required to purchase, lease or otherwise obtain the use of an approved vehicle as a condition of continued employment or promotion, the employee shall be notified in advance and shall be given a reasonable time to effect the purchase, lease or use of such vehicle. J. Changes to Subsidized and/or Fleet Vehicle Programs -The Employer agrees that changes to the present policies regarding automobiles for police use will not be made without prior consultation with the Union. K. Installation and Removal of Required Equipment -Whenever equipment required by the Employer is to be installed in subsidized vehicles, the following shall apply: 1. The Employer shall install and remove such equipment. 2. The Employer shall be responsible for repair of any damages caused by installation or removal of such equipment. Such responsibility shall be limited to damages caused only by authorized installation or removal. 3. The employee shall be responsible for the proper use and security of all required equipment. The Employer shall not be responsible for replacement or repair of required equipment which is stolen, lost, or damaged as a result of gross negligence on the part of the employee. L. Automobile Allowance Schedule -The monthly allowance paid by the Employer for subsidized vehicles shall be paid in accordance with the following schedules: CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU GROUP I - $488.00 Patrol Division - Centra] Command & Regional Command (MPO, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Patrol Detectives) Special Services Division (SSD) Traffic (all) Warrant Officers GROUP II - $450.00 Criminal Investigation Division Juvenile Crime Prevention Division Police Activities League Criminal Intelligence Unit Research & Development Division Vice Division Records Training Division Personnel Division Community Relations Division COUNTY OF HAWAII GROUP I - $488.00 Patrol (Sergeants, PO) Traffic Task Force Uniformed Lieutenants GROUP II - $450.00 Criminal Investigation Division Criminal Intelligence Unit Community Relations Vice Division Juvenile Aid Bureau Records Traffic Division 93 M. County of Maui /County of Kauai 1. Private Automobiles Used for Official Duty - If any police officer is required by the County of Maui or the County of Kauai to purchase and regularly use the employee's private automobile for official duty, an automobile allowance shall be provided in accordance with the categories that have been agreed upon for the County of Hawaii. 2. Limitations -Whenever an employee who has been required to regularly provide an automobile for official duty as provided in paragraph 1 above should the respective Employer subsequently terminate such policy: a. Any subsidized vehicle in use on the effective date of the termination of the above policy and which is in satisfactory operating condition as determined by the respective Employer, shall be retained as a subsidized vehicle until said vehicle has aged six (6) years from the date the automobile was first sold. b. If the employee, with the approval of Employer, elects to waive the six (6) year period, the Employer shall provide a vehicle to the employee and discontinue the automobile as provided in paragraph 1, herein. N. Condition of Vehicle /Employee Responsibility - If the subsidized automobile is not in satisfactory condition, as determined by the Employer, the employee shall return it to satisfactory condition at the employee's cost within a reasonable time but not to exceed 30 days from the date of notice. If not so returned, the automobile allowance shall be terminated. O. Gasoline Issued /Rate for On-Duty Miles -Gasoline for all units is to be issued at the rate of 10 official duty miles per gallon. Mileage overages may be carried forward but must be cleared within the next calendar month. The present pracfice of distribution of oil shall be continued. P. Time Limit on Use of Subsidized Vehicles -The Employers agree that any employee who is required to provide a subsidized automobile shall be permitted to use such automobile up to eight (8) years from the date the automobile was first sold, provided such automobile meets the approved standards of the applicable Department. Notwithstanding the above, the subsidized automobile which has been used for eight (8) years may be permitted to be used for an additional two (2) year period upon appropriate application, each of both years, with the Police Department, provided such automobile meets the approved standards. Any decision by the Department of each one (1) year extension shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. Q. Window Tint -Subsidized vehicles may have tinted windows provided that the window tint meets all applicable Federal and State standards regarding window tint. In the event of a disagreement as to whether a subsidized automobile's tinted window or windows meet Federal and/or State standards, the Employer's representative and the employee shall have the tint tested at an authorized State safety inspection station. The results of the test shall be binding on the parties. When the tint does not meet Federal and/or State standards, the employee shall pay the cost of the test. When the tint meets the standards, the Employer representative shall pay the State safety inspection station the cost at the time of the test. Any violation or disagreement by employees of this section shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. 94 APPENDIX B Hawaii County Police Department General Orders Relating to Subsidized Vehicles 1. GENERAL ORDER NO. 802 - "POLICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT" I. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE Members authorized to use their own automobiles in police service may be granted a cash automobile allowance as prescribed subject to the following condifions: A. Automobile allowance shall be cancelled: 1. When a member is under suspension. 2. When on sick or injury leave in excess of six (6) months. 3. During all leaves of absence without pay. B. Automobile allowance shall be continued during any authorized leaves of absence with pay, including industrial injury leaves, not exceeding a continuous period of six (6) months. C. Automobile allowance may be cancelled at the discretion of the Police Chief. II. INSURANCE AND EXEMPTION A. Members granted an automobile allowance shall be entitled to public liability and property damage insurance to include no-fault insurance. Comprehensive and collision insurance for a subsidized vehicle shall be the responsibility of the employee. B. Exemption from the vehicle weight tax may be granted members upon application and with the approval of the Police Chief. III. SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLES Excluding replacements or temporary substitute vehicles which are covered by General Order 809, automobiles to be used in police service shall be subject to the approval of the Assistant Chief of the respective bureau, and shall conform to the following specifications. A. Automobiles shall not be more than eight (8) years old from the date the automobile was first sold. An additional two (2) year period may be granted subject to approval of the Assistant Chief of the respective bureau. Approved extensions are good for on]y one year and must b e applied for prior to the expiration of the eighth and ninth year of subsidized use. A Subsidized Vehicle Extension Request form (HPD/AUMIN-038) in accordance with General Order 814 shall also be admitted. B. They must be clean and in good mechanical and serviceable condition. C. They must be registered to the member solely, or jointly with some other member of his family, except for lease vehicles. In such cases, a copy of the lease contract showing the officer as the lessee shall be provided. D. A copy of the vehicle registration must be attached to the completed Authorized Police Vehicle Approval Request form (HPD/ADMIN-002) for newly acquired police subsidized vehicles. E. Acceptable models shall be: four-door, two-door, and station wagons with rigid tops. Folding, canvas and/or other similar soft tops are prohibited. Truck and van type vehicles, and vehicles with diesel engines are also prohibited. F. Police service vehicles shall have the following minimum dimensions: 1. A wheelbase of not less than ] 00 inches. 2. An engine of eight cylinders or the largest six cylinder engine manufactured for that make and model. 3. Seating capacity to accommodate four adult males comfortably. 95 IV. NUMBER AND SPECIAL NUMBER LICENSE PLATES All subsidized vehicles used in police service shall have "number license plates" in accordance with Section 249.9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Approved subsidized vehicles are only authorized to have "special number license plates; military service," pursuant to and described under Section 249.9.2, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Personalized number license plates, as described under Section 249-9.1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, are strictly prohibited on police subsidized vehicles. V. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT All subsidized vehicles used in police service, whether by officer or employee, shall be equipped with at least four sets of safety seat belts. Other vehicles used temporarily in police service shall be equipped with one set of safety seat belts for each occupant of the vehicle. For the purposes of this section, the term occupant shall include driver and passenger. Safety seat belts shall be securely fastened and used by members and occupants whenever they are driving or riding in the vehicle while on duty. VI. SPEEDOMETER CHECKS Speedometers of police service vehicles shall be checked for accuracy by radar or other available scientific equipment at regular intervals under the supervision of the Captain of Patrol or the District commanders of the respective districts. VII. USE OF AUTOMOBILES Members receiving automobile allowances shall have available at all times approved automobiles in good mechanical and serviceable condition, Members shall not use another vehicle in police service except as provided by General Order 809. VIII. PERSONAL EQUIPMENT Any personal property or equipment stored in a subsidized vehicle shall be kept in a neat and presentable condition and not interfere with or damage any government equipment installed therein. Except for "decals" describing the make of the vehicle and dealership from which it was purchased, any other form of commercial advertising, political campaigning, or slogans on subsidized vehicles, whether permanent or temporary, is prohibited. IX. INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT All approved subsidized vehicles shall have their police radio antennas mounted at the discretion of the radio shop personnel to ensure optimum transmission/reception. X. MODIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT Members shall not remove, add, alter, modify, change, exchange, convert, substitute, replace, transform, or supplant any equipment which may adversely affect the safety or reliability of the vehicle or department issued equipment. Lost, stolen, or damaged equipment shall be replaced at the member's expense pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. JAMES S. CORREA Police Chief (Amended: 11-27-2001) 96 2. GENERAL ORDER N0.803 - "GASOLINE, OIL & MILEAGE RECORD" I. WHO MAY DRAW GAS AND OIL A. Members who use their private vehicle on authorized police business. B. Members authorized to use approved departmental vehicles for official business may draw gas and oil for the approved vehicle. C. Gasoline and oil shall not be drawn for a vehicle not approved for service. II. RULES GOVERNING CONSUMPTION OF GAS AND OIL A. Gas 1. Gasoline will be issued at the rate on one gallon for each 10 miles of official travel. 2. Gasoline drawn shall be placed in the drawing officer's vehicle only. 3. Where there is a mileage overage at the end of the month, the following shall apply: a. Mileage balance must be cleared during the next calendar month after it was accrued. b. Mileage overages not cleared during the next calendar month shall be forfeited. c Gasoline shall be deposited only in vehicles authorized to be used by the officer accruing the overage. 4. Members who are short on mileage need not submit a memorandum at the end of that month but must make up the shortage during the following month. Should a member not make up his/her entire shortage during the following month, he/she is required to submit a memorandum explaining the reasons why. Member shall not thereafter draw fuel until the shortage is made up. B. Oil 1. One (1) quart of oil will be allowed for each 500 miles of official travel. 2. Oil drawn under the above condition shall be placed in the vehicle crankcase at the time the oil is drawn. a. Oil will not be allowed to be taken home except when oil is accumulated for oil change as outlined herein. b. Pive-hundred miles of official travel is required for each quart drawn. c For the purpose of this general order, the drawing of four (4) or more quarts of oil atone time shall constitute an oil change. d. The allowed amount of oil that may be accumulated per individual shall depend on the required amount necessary for an oil change in their particular vehicle. e. Upon drawing oil for an oil change, cumulative mileage in excess of the required amount shall be forfeited. i.e. An officer reyaests five (5) quarts of oil and has accumulated 2800 miles official travel at the time of request. Of the 2800 miles traveled, 2500 miles is required for the five (5) quarts of oil. The remaining 300 miles shall be forfeited. Mileage accumulation begins from zero (0). E In any case, no more than the required amount of oil necessary for a single oil change in an authorized vehicle's crankcase may be drawn in a calendar month. III. WHERE GAS AND OIL MAY BE OBTAINED A. Officers in South Hilo, North Hilo, Hamakua, Kona and Puna shall draw gasoline and oi] from their respective headquarters. B. Officers in South Kohala, North Kohala, and Ka'u shall draw gasoline from the County Motor Pool pumps in their respective districts. Oil shall be drawn at District stations. C If leaded or unleaded gasoline is not available in the above (A & B) locations, officers with vehicles requiring such gasoline shall draw from a service station designated by the Business Manager. D. District commanders shall requisition oil for their district from the District Manager. 97 IV. FUEL DISPENSING SYSTEM A. Computerized Fuel Dispensing System 1. Authorized personnel who have been issued a computerized fuel dispensing system key or have access to computerized fuel dispensing system keys for department owned vehicles, shall be guided by the established procedures on the use of the system. 2. In the event a problem occurs with the issued computerized key or system, members are to immediately report the incident to their supervisor, who shall take the required action as set forth in the department's fuel dispensing system procedures. V. DRAWING GAS FROM SERVICE STATIONS A. Officers drawing gasoline from commercial service stations shall sign their names, enter their badge and license plate numbers to the sales charge slip furnished by the commercial service station. Copy of sales slip shall be turned in to commanding officer after each drawing of gas. B. Each District Commander concerned shall at the end of each month collect all sales charge slips from the service stations, and shall verify the gallons of gasoline drawn with that noted in the daily mileage record book of each officer. 1. A monthly district gasoline and mileage report shall be compiled by each District Commander on forms provided. Such monthly report, together with all sales charges and a summary statement from the service station shall be forwarded to the Business Manager within five working days of the new month. VI. DAILY AUTO RECORD A. Officers receiving a cash automobile allowance for the use of their vehicles shall maintain a Daily Auto Record. B. All block information shall be filled out completely. C. The auto record shall be kept in each officer's subsidized vehicle in a clean and neat manner, and with all entries recorded in ink up to and including the current date. D. The Daily Auto Record shall be kept in accordance with the following provisions: 1. F.ach officer will enter the amount of gas and/or oil drawn in the proper column of his/her record at the fime it is drawn. 2. He/she will be responsible for maintaining correct totals to be submitted at the close of the month, and for balancing his/her mileage with the required figure for all gas and oil drawn. 3. Members shall be responsible for accurately entering in their Daily Auto Record, the odometer reading of their authorized vehicle at the beginning and ending of each tour of official duty. Daily computations for the total official miles traveled shall also be entered in the appropriate blocks for the Daily Auto Record. a. Defective odometers shall be immediately reported to the officer's supervisor. 4. Any evidence of false entries or fabricated mileage will be considered a breech of discipline and dealt with accordingly. 5. The Daily Auto Record shall be turned in by each officer to his/her immediate supervisor at the end of the last tour of duty for each month. The monthly report shall then be submitted to the Business Manager by the respective district of division commanders within five working days of the new month. 6. Any officer who overdraws on gasoline allowance may be subject to disciplinary action. 7. A separate Daily Auto Record will lie maintained for each subsidized or loaner vehicle for use by officers during their normal tour of duty. B. Commanders are responsible for the Daily Auto Record of each department owned vehicle under their control. 98 VII. DAILY AUTO RECORD INSPECTION A. To ensure that each member is complying with requirements set forth under Paragraph VII, the Daily Auto Record will be subject to the following inspection guidelines. 1. Each member's Daily Auto Record will be inspected by a superior officer a minimum of once each week. 2. Inspections may be conducted in the field or at police headquarters. 3. 'the superior officer while conducfinghis/her inspection shall: a. Read the vehicle odometer to verify the recorded entry in the Daily Auto Record. b. Inscribe his/her initials in the border alongside the entered odometer reading on said date of inspection. c. Should an inspection reveal "no entry" for a start or finish of a prior work day or days, the inspecting officer shall draw a line through the unrecorded days and initial same. Mileage credit for the unrecorded days will be zero (0). d. Should an inspection reveal "late entry" (inspection conducted during tour of duty and opening mileage for that work day not recorded), mileage credit for the work day will begin at the time of inspection. VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY MILEAGE REPORT Mileage that is incurred by officers outside of their normal tour of duty for police or police related purposes shall be recorded on a Supplementary Report Form (Form F/5). A. For each trip, the date, time, point of origin, destination, nature of business, mileage, gasoline and/or oil drawn is to be entered on the form. If more than one sheet is used, show the total mileage on the last sheet only. B. 'These forms are to be submitted along with regular monthly mileage reports after having been checked and approved. C Gasoline and oil shall be drawn in the manner provided in Paragraph III above for all approved supplementary mileage. JAMES S. CORREA Deputy Police Chief, Acting Police Chief (Amended: l0-27-2000) 99 3. GENERAL ORDER N0.808 - "TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN PATROL CARS" A. Patrol Car For the purpose of this general order a patrol car is one which is used by a member for official purposes and/or for which he receives a cash automobile allowance. B. Transporting Hitchhikers Members shall not transport hitchhikers in patrol cars except under extreme conditions when it would be inhumane to do otherwise. C. Transporting Family Except for some direct police purpose or by permission of their commanding officers, members shall refrain from transporting members of their family in patrol cars during duty hours (not including meal time). D. Transporting Females Except for police purposes, females shall not ride or be transported as passengers in patrol cars. Members transporting females shall report the vehicle's odometer reading to the police dispatcher upon beginning the trip. Upon arrival at the destination, members shall again report the vehicle odometer to the police dispatcher. E. Transporting Public Officials Members should not make a practice of transporting public officials for non-official purposes. F. Passengers in Emergency Vehicles Officers operating emergency vehicles on duty shall not permit passengers to ride, except when necessary in the accomplishment of an essential police objective or when authorized by a superior officer. GUY A. PAUL Chief Of Police 100 4. GENERAL ORDER N0.809 - "USE OF TEMPORARY VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL POLICE DUTY" I. TEMPORARY VEHICLES A. [f the officer's subsidized vehicle is unavailable for official use, an approved temporary vehicle may be used. B. The vehicle shall be properly equipped with a blue light and have the capability to communicate on the police radio network. Plain clothes officers are exempt from the requirement of the blue light. (For the purposes of this section, a modified blue rooftop light furnished by the Radio Communications Division and a portable radio will meet the requirements of this order.) C. A department supplied vehicle may be approved for officia] use as a temporary vehicle providing the following conditions are met: 1. Authorization has to be given by the district or division commander. 2. The use of such a vehicle shall not exceed 30 calendar days for any one incident except with the approval of the Chief of Police. 3. Full car allowance shall be continued if a subsidized vehicle is damaged in the performance of duty involving no fault of the officer and a department supplied vehicle is used temporari]y. 4. In all other situations not specifically covered by the General Orders or contract agreement, a deduction from the officer's monthly car a]lowance shall be made when an officer uses a department supplied vehicle. The amount of deduction from the officer's monthly car allowance will be based on the period that the vehicle is used on a pro-rated basis. D. The officer is responsible for providing an acceptable replacement vehicle whenever his automobile is being repaired as the result of off-duty damages, or when it is unavailable due to normal routine services or repairs. E. In the event damages should be incurred while on duty where no gross negligence or carelessness is involved on the part of the employee, the department will provide a replacement vehicle for official use at no cost to the employee or reassign the employee to non-motorized duty. F. Employees whose subsidized automobiles necessitate repairs as a result of on-duty damages shall suffer no loss of car allowance for a period not to exceed six (6) months. G. Automobile allowance shall be continued during any authorized leaves of absence with pay, including industrial injury leaves, not exceeding a continuous period of six (6) months. H. Whenever a temporary vehicle must be used, the concerned officer shall immediately contact the Fiscal Services Division describing the vehicle to be used for insurance purposes. I. Form titled Use of Temporary Vehicle for Official Duty (G.O. 809) shall be initiated by the concerned officer and submitted to the district or division commander for approval. The approval form is to be forwarded to the Fiscal Services Division within three working days after the vehicle is put into service. II. CLAIMS A. With approval of the Chief of Police, cost of repairs for damages to subsidized vehicles may be reimbursed to the extent not compensated for by the deductible provisions of the insurance policy, but not in excess of $250 provided the following criteria are met: 1. The damage was incurred while "on duty" or incurred while performing an official police function, and 2. The damage was the result of a malicious or negligent act of a third party, or the damage was not the result of negligence or carelessness on the part of the officer. 3. The department receives: a. A final written statement of cost for the repair job and list of damages. b. A written statement from the officer or insurance carrier indicating the amount of the member's deductible clause. 101 c. A statement from a police department official indicating accident did occur during assigned duty hours and was not due to officer's negligence. 4. No claim shall be filed with the County whenever civil action by the officer is pending against another individual for such damages. 5. Any amount paid by the County to the officer must be reimbursed in the event the officer subsequently makes collection either through his insurance carrier or by any other means. B. The officer shall not file a claim for damages to the subsidized vehicle where the third party responsible for the damage has fully reimbursed the officer for such damages. C. The officer shall not file a claim for damages to the subsidized vehicle where the negligent act was by a person acting as an agent or representative of the County. In such case, the appropriate remedy is the filing of a claim against the County pursuant to the provisions of the County Charter. D. Officers operating county-owned vehicles are not to personally settle any claim for damages resulting from an accident. E. Officers shall be responsible for the proper use and security of all required equipment and for the repair or replacement of required equipment which is stolen, lost or damaged as a result of negligence. III. DEADLINE FOR FILING A. Claims for damages shall be filed within 60 days from the date of occurrence. IV.INSURANCE A. Public liability and property damage insurance shall be provided by the department for: All county-owned and/or privately-owned vehicles subsidized for the official performance of duty. 2. Authorized vehicles that may be temporarily required for official duty. (Example: Loaner or other privately-owned vehicle.) B. Collision and comprehensive insurance on private, subsidized vehicles shall be the responsibility of individual members. V. EXPENSES INCURRED A. Members shall not incur any expense or assume any obligations to the department on repairs, services, and rental or leasing charges of subsidized or temporary vehicles without prior approval of the Business Manager. GUY A. PAUL Chief of Police (Amended 04-20-88) 102 5 GENERAL ORDER N0.814 - "POLICE SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE EXTENSION REQUEST PROCEDURES" I. PURPOSE To establish policy and procedures for extending the use of police subsidized vehicles beyond the contractual period of eight years (from the date the automobile was first sold). II. POLICY Sworn personnel, who aze required to provide a subsidized automobile by the current collective bazgaining agreement, shall be pemutted if desired to use such automobile, beyond the eight-yeaz period, provided that the automobile in question meets the approved standards of the Hawaii County Police Department. III. SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE EXTENSION PROCEDURES A. The requesfing officer shall submit a Subsidized Vehicle Extension Request form (HPD/ADMIN- 038) at least sixty (60) days prior to expiration of the eighth and ninth year of subsidized use and shall attach the following: A current certificate of Motor Vehicle Registration 2. Valid Safety Inspection form B. The requesting officer shall have the vehicle visually inspected for overall appeazance by their District/Division Commander or designee. The commander shall ensure that the vehicle complies with all departmental requirements (HPD/ADMIN-038, Section B). 1. If the vehicle passes visual examination, the inspecting officer shag sign and date the form. 2. If the vehicle does not pass the visual inspection, the inspecfing officer shall list reason(s) for the rejection in the "comments" section, sign, and date the form C. After passing the visual inspection, the requesting officer shall then have the vehicle inspected and road tested (at the officer's expense) by a certified automobile mechanic approved by the Police chief or Ms designate. The inspection will ensure continued suitability of the vehicle, which may include, but not be limited to, the examination of the: 1. Structural and frame integrity of the automobile, 2. Engine and other drive train components, 3. Steering and suspension elements, and the 4. Braking system D. The certified automobile mechanic shall note any findings and recommendations, sign, and date the form (Section C). E. The Police Chief or his designate will approve or deny the request for extension based on the recommendations of the inspecting officer and the certified mechanic's report (Section D). F. Approved extensions aze good for only one year and must be applied for prior to the ninth and tenth year of service. After approva] by the Police Chief or his designate, the subsidized motor vehicle extension form shall be sent to the fiscal section with a copy routed to the requesting officer. G. Officers who have not received approval for the extended use of their subsidized vehicles or have not replaced their vehicles by the end of the approved extension period, shall have their automobile allowance terminated. H. If during any approved extension period the vehicle is found to be unsuitable for service, the extension shall be cancelled. WAYNE G. CARVALHO, Police Chief Rev. 05/96 103 APPENDIX C HRS SECTIONS RELATING TO GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES 1. Prohibited Use of Governmeut Motor Vehicles. § 105-1, HRS, specifies certain prohibited uses of state or county motor vehicles, as follows: 5105-1 Government motor vehicles; certain uses prohibited. Except as provided in section 105-2, it shall be unlawful for any person to use, operate, or drive any motor vehicle owned or controlled by the State, or by any county thereof, for personal pleasure or personal use (as distinguished from official or governmental service or use) including, without limitation to the generality of the foregoing, travel by or conveyance of any officer or employee of the State, or of any county thereof, directly or indirectly, from his place of service or from his work to or near his place of abode, or, directly or indirectly, from such place of abode to his place of service or to his work. 2. Section 105-2(3), HR5, provides an exception to this prohibition for county police, as follows: 5105-2 (3) Excep lions. Section 105-1 shall not apply to: (3) Any member of a police department or a fire department or of the staff of a hospital, or any officer or employee of the board of water supply of the city and county of Honolulu, when using a motor vehicle for a personal purpose incidental to the person's service or work (but not for pleasure); 3. Required Inscription on County Motor Vehicles. § 105-7, HRS specify the required "inscription" on county motor vehicles, as follows: 5105-7 Inecrip lion on county motor vehicles. Unless excepted every motor vehicle owned or controlled by any county shall bear on both sides thereof the following inscription: "For Official Use Only". Underneath the inscription shall be the name or title of the county and the name of the department, commission, board, bureau, officer, agency, or instru- mentality thereof controlling or possessing the motor vehicle; except that every motor vehicle owned or controlled by the board of water supply of the city and county of Honolulu shall bear on both sides thereof the following inscription: "Board of water Supply - Conserve Water". This section shall not apply to motor vehicles that are furnished to the mayor of the city and county of Honolulu or to the chairperson and executive officer of the council of any county, or to the chief of police and deputy chief of police of the city and county and counties or manager of the board of water supply of the city and county of Honolulu. 4. Required Character of Inscription: § 105-8, HRS specifies the required "character of inscription" on county motor vehicles, as follows: 5105-8 Character of inacriptioa. The letters of such words as are required by sections 105-6 and 105-7 shall be painted or applied on all such motor vehicles in characters of a plain, bold size. 104 5. Blue Dome Lights for County Police. The unique blue dome lights atop county police cars are specifically reserved for county police and state department of public safety vehicles under the provisions of Chapter 291, HRS "Traffic Violations," Part 11, "Equipment." Section 291-31.5 states: 291-31.5 Blue lights prohibited for motor vehicles, motorcycles, motor scooters, bicycles, mopeds. (a) No person shall knowingly operate, affix or cause to be affixed, display, or possess any lamp, reflector, or illumination device which appears to be the color blue upon any motor vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, bicycle, or moped except for: (1) county law enforcement vehicles authorized and approved by the chief of police of the county in which the vehicle is operated; or (2) department of public safety law enforcement vehicles authorized and approved by the director of public safety. This prohibition shall not apply to factory- inatalled instrument illumination. (b) Any violation of this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. 6. Resisting an Order to Stop a Motor Vehicle. Section 7 ] 0-1027, HRS, relating to resistance to an order to stop a motor vehicle, mQ3' pertain to policy concerning county police cars, as it relates to "color of the law enforcement officer's official authority." §710-1027, HRS, and its accompanying commentary, state: §710-1027 Resisting an order to atop a motor vehicle. (1) A person commits the offense of resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle if the person intentionally fails to obey a direction of a law enforcement officer, acting under color of the law enforcement officer's official authority, to stop the person's vehicle. (2) Resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993; am L 2001, c 91, §4] For additional clarification of this section, HRS includes the following commentary: [HRS] CO[MIENTARY ON §710-1027 This section is designed to deal with the special problems incident to motor vehicle direction and apprehension of suspects in motor vehicles. Note that whereas it is not made an offense to evade arrest by running away, if the attempt to escape involves a motor vehicle, this section comes into operation. One reason for this special treatment is the inherent danger involved in escape and pursuit by motor vehicle. Another reason, incident to traffic direction and control, is the desirability of giving a peace officer criminal sanctions to back up the peace officer's reasonable traffic directions. The section specifies that the actor act intentionally. For conviction the actor moat have recognized the person giving the order to be a peace officer. For the same reasons discussed in the commentary to §710-1026, it is no defense that the order given was unlawful. Previous Nawaii law had no specific provision relating to this situation. 105 APPENDIX D AUDITOR'S OFFICE INQUIRY TO CORPORATION COUNSEL RE: SHOPO CONTRACT 1. Memorandum dated July 15, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida requesting an Opinion re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO contract 2. Copy of July, 13, 2003 West Hawaid Today article titled "SHOPO Official: Unlikely police will switch to fleet" 3. Memorandum (WRK No. 03-5909) dated August 26, 2003 from Deputy Corporation Counsel Patricia K. O'Toole to Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Contract 4. Memorandum dated September 8, 2003 from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu to Mayor Harry Kim, Chief Lawrence Mahuna and Council Members transmitting Corporation Counsel Opinion/WRK No. 03-5909 106 oJ~tr"or M'•Y • 1~Ji~, AL KONISHI ~ CONSTANCE R. KI121U ~xmlr C'ler6 Ltg~slunrr =h~~Glor .IAY MF,NDF, • •r~ di.Ni.M Otp¢il~~ C ounn~ C (erk County ofKawar `i Office of the County Clerk 1.5 .-I upum Street Hilo, Hawaii 967?0 Te[ep6one- 180819h1-8233 bncsim~le: 180819<>I-8911 July 15, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel FROM: Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor SUBJECT: Request for Opinion re: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Conn'acl The County Council has requested the Auditor's Office to prepare a report on our Police Department's policy regarding subsidized personal vehicles used in the performance of official police duty and the advisability of a conversion to a county-owned and operated police fleet. Three sections of the current bargaining agreement (Article 18, attached) between the state, the counties and the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) pertain to the questions posed in this request for an opinion from your office, as follows: L Section J (Changes to Snbsiclized Vehicles undlor Fleet ilehrcle Progrums) of Article l8 states: "The Employer agrees that changes to [he present policies regarding automobiles for police use will not be made without prior consultation with the Union." 2. Section P (Trine Limit on Use of Sr~rbsidized Vehicles) of Article l8 states: "The Employers agree that any employee who is required to provide a subsidized automobile shall be permitted to use such automobile up to eight (8) years from the date the automobile was first sold, provided such automobile meets the approved standards of the applicable Department." 3. Subsection 2 (Limitations) of Section M, titled County of'Muui /County ofKauni, states: "Whenever an employee who has been required to regularly provide an automobile for official duty as provided in paragraph I above should the respective Employer terminate such policy: a. Any subsidized vehicle in use on the effective date of the termination of the above policy and which is in satisfactory operating condition as determined by the respective Employer, shall be retained as a subsidized vehicle until said vehicle has aged six (6) years from the date the automobile was first sold. b. If the employee, with the approval of the Employer, elects to waive the six (6) year period, the Employer shall provide a vehicle to the employee and discontinue the automobile as provided in paragraph 1, herein." 107 On July l3, an article in West Hawaii 7odap (attached) quotes Emory Springer, Big Island SHOPO chairman, as follows: "He [Springer] noted Article 18 of the SHOPO contract states: `As long as there is a contract between the employer and employee, or its union, then the practice of converting from subsidized motor vehicles to fleet vehicles cannot be changed in part or entirety."' The July 13'h WHT article also states that Mr. Springer said, "I believe that the councilmembers were apprised through Corporation Counsel that they had no jurisdiction over the matter." In light of the foregoing, our questions are as follows: 1. Re: Article 18 (J) of the SHOPO contract: May the County of Hawaii change its policies regarding automobiles for police use if it undertakes a process of consultation with the Union as stipulated in Section J? Can such consultation be inaugurated at any time during the life of the current contract or in any subsequent contract if the written provisions of Article 18 remain unchanged? 2. Re: Article 18 (P) of the 5HOP0 contract: Upon requiring that a Hawaii County police officer provide an automobile meeting the standards of police service, is the County thereafter obligated to provide that officer a monthly allowance for up to eight years, or may such allowance be terminated at any time during the eight-year period upon provision of a police fleet vehicle for the officer's performance of official duties? 3. Regardless of the provisions of Article 18 (P), does the County, by virtue of requiring a police officer to purchase a vehicle as a condition of employment for his/her performance of official duties, incur a lawful, contractual obligation to provide an allowance to subsidize the cost of such vehicle, in whole or in part'? 4. Re: Article 18 (M) of the SHOPO contract: The terms and conditions of this section explicitly apply to the Counties of Maui and Kauai, as these counties have previously undertaken a conversion from subsidized to fleet vehicles. As the County of Hawaii has not yet inaugurated such a fleet conversion program, do the terms and conditions of Section M apply to the Hawaii County Police Department? 5. Re: the Wesr Hawair Todav article of July 13, 2003: Can you provide the Auditor's Office with any written opinion or material from the Office of the Corporation Counsel regarding the policy-making jurisdiction of the County Council as it relates to police vehicles'? Your prompt attention to this request is most appreciated. For the purpose of completing the report being prepared by our oftice, we would appreciate your furnishing us with a written opinion no later than July 31, 2003. Thank you. CK/rf cc: Mayor Hany Kim Chief Lawrence Mahuna Council Members 108 Sunday, July 13, 2003 SHOPO official: Unlikely police will switch to fleet By TIFFANY EDWARDS /West Hawaii Today HILO - In a pitch to the mayor to raise police officers' subsidized car allowance in upcoming union negotiations, a union official last month indicated it's unlikely Hawaii County will convert to a marked fleet. Emory Springer, State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officer's Big Island chairman, wrote Mayor Harry Kim June 23 saying the current SHOPO contract "protects the duration of the subsidized automobile allowance." And, with arbitration of the renewed SHOPO contract on the brink of being made public, it's not likely that will change with contract negotiations, at least according to Springer, who informed the mayor any conversion to a tleet vehicle program would require a contract revision. "Being that the police chief and I concur that the present practice of subsidized motor vehicles is better for our police department and its officers, then the issue would not be raised in contract talks in the future," Springer wrote. He noted Article 18 of the SHOPO contract states, "As long as there is a contract between the employer and employee, or its union, then the practice of converting from subsidized motor vehicles to fleet vehicles caimot be changed in part or entirely." However, Deputy Chief Harry Kubojiri, speaking for Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna who was on vacation Friday, said the chief is "neutral" as to whether Hawaii County should convert to a fleet vehicle program. He said Mahuna wants to rely on a feasibility study currently being conducted by Assistant Legislative Auditor Rory Flynn, along with a poll among the rank and file before he takes a stance on what Kubojiri said was a choice between "fleet," "partial fleet" or "subsidized." Kubojiri said the results of the poll were still coming in as of Friday afrernoon and pledged West Hawaii Today would see results of it. Kubojiri stressed neither he nor Mahuna want the issue to be "adversarial" between the Police Department and West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, whose president, Alan Pratt has raised the issue. Pratt claims a recent newspaper poll and postings on the local Crimestoppers Web site indicate the public is "overwhelmingly" in favor of converting to a fleet of patrol cars, rather than reimbursing officers at least $450 a month for driving their own cars. Pratt said it's "nonsense" for Kubojiri to claim Mahuna is neutral on the fleet versus subsidized vehicle issue, after the chief indicated his preference when Hawaii County Councilmembers took up the matter in June. Councilmembers at their June 17 Finance Committee meeting took up the local Crimestoppers reconmrendation that the county convert to a fleet program to save $230,000 annually. They deferred the matter until late August, when Flynn is expected to have the feasibility study prepared. Springer in his June letter to the mayor said Finance Committee Chairman Aaron Chung indicated councilnembers "could not make on decision on this matter." "He did not specify as to why the council could not take decisive action. I believe that the cowtcihnembers were apprised through Corporation Counsel that they had no jurisdiction over the matter," Springer wrote, before deCailing Article 18 of the SIIOPO contract. Kubojiri said Friday the decision does not ultimately lie with the union, it lies with the police chief, and he hasn't made up his mind yet. Pratt said Crlnestoppers' objective is to make the police force more visible on the island, noting "People just don't think the lights are good enough. It's as simple as that." Kim said Piiday he has informed Springer and Civil Service Director Mike Ben, hlawaii County's representative in statewide union negotiations, he wants to "somehow see what we can do." "I'm a firm believer in visibility. Professionalism of police cars is very important," Kim said. "Our mission is to see how we can accomplish that. It doesn't have to be all tleet." 109 JN~Y OF N,w `p . y ~_r ~C~i I. Harry Kim ~ ui `,i Lincoln S.T. Ashida Mrrynr ? • ~ " i~ i Corporation Cnunsr! •.J'rf oi'M~~~, QUG ~ Ply ~Z~ O ~ Assvrnnr Cald Tatir~in Cnunse( l1~u~nf~r ix~ ~rxfirrxii OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4262 • (808) 961-8251 • FqX (808) 961-8622 August 26 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: CONNIE KIRIU Legislative Auditor FROM: PATRICIA K. O'TOOLE Deputy Corporation Counsel RE: Article 18 ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Contract Corporation Counsel WRIC NO. 03-5909 This is in response to your memo of July 15, 2003 in which you ask several questions on the above- referenced topic. Your questions and our replies Collow. 1. Re: Article 1 S(.1) of the SHOPO contract: May the County of Hawaii change its policies regarding automobiles for police use if it undertakes a process of consultation with the Union as stipulated in Section .l? Can such consultation be inaugurated at any time during the life of the current contract or in any subsequent conhact if the written provisions of Article 18 remain unchanged? Yes, the County may change its policy if it consu/ts with the Union and such change mciv be inaugurated at any time during the life of the contract. In the case of~the subsidized vehicle provision o/ the SHOPO contract, Article 18 specifically provides that the employer has agreed that it will not make changes to the present policies regarding automobiles for police use without prior consultation with the union. With respect to issues subject to consultation, HRS y~89-9(c) provides that "all matters affecting employee relations, including those that are, or may be, the sul?ject of a rule adopted by the employer, or any director, shall be subject to consultation with the exclusive representatives of the employees concerned. The employer shall make even reasonable effort to consult with exclusive representatives taxi consider their input, along with input of other affected 110 CONNIE KIR1U August 26, ?003 Page 2 parties, prior to effecting changes on any major policy affecting employee relations. "Neither the statute nor the SHOPO article in question limit the change in policy to a purticular time or state that a change may only be made at the end of the contract. 2. Re: Article 18(P) of the SHOPO contract: Upon requiring that a Hawaii County police officer provide an automobile meeting the standards of police seiviee, is the County thereafter obligated to provide that officer a monthly allowance for up to eight years, or may such allowance be terminaCed at ury time during the eight-year period upon provision of a police fleet vehicle for the officers performance of official duties? article 18(P) is entitled Time limit on Use of Subsidized Vehicles. It provides as follows: The Employers agree that any employee who is required to provide a subsidized automobile shall be permitted to use such automohile up to eight (8) years from the date the automobile was first sold, provided such automobile meets the approved standards of the applicable Department. Notwithstanding the above, the subsidized automobile rovhLch has been used For eight (8) pears may he permitted to be used for un additional two year period upon appropriate applicatiorz, each of both years, with the Police Department, provided such automobile meets the approved standards. Anv decision by the department on each one (l) year extension shall not he subject to the grievance procedure. Contract land age is first interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language of the contract provisions. "this means that the words will be used in their plain, ordinary and accepted sense in common speech, unless it appears fYOna the contract that a different meaning was i~atended. Hawaiian Isles E'nterprises7nc. v. City and County of Honolulu 76 flarvai `i d87 (1994). If there is no cunbia pity in the language, there is no need to go beyond the language itself Ambio ~itv exists if the languuge is reasonab[l~ susceptible of two different meanings. S[ervart v. Brennan 7 Haw. App. 136 (1988). In this case, we do not believe that an ambiguity exists. The lan~tage of Article I8 makes no reference to payment of the car allowance. Its plain meaning is to specify the period of time that the subsidized vehicle map he used. Reading into this article a requirement that a car allowance be paid for eight (8) years even if an officer is no longer required to drive a subsidized vehicle goes ~hr beyond the lane age of the contract. 111 CONNIE KIRIU August 26, 2003 Page 3 3. Regardless of the provisions of Article I8(P) does the County, by virtue of requiring a police officer to purchase a vehicle as a condition of employment for his/her performance oCofficial duties, incur a lawful, contractual obligation to provide an allowance to subsidize the cost of such vehicle, in whole or in part No - we do not belte>>e any such obli~~ation arises. There ore times ~i~hen u contract, although not in writing, mny be foatnd to exist. We do not believe that such a situation exists here. It appears from your question that yoa~ might be thinking of the concept of detrimental reliance. Under this theory, a contract may be formed even if not expressed in writing if someone has relied to his or her detriment upon the words of another. The four elements of promissory estoppel ore: 1) there must be a pronuse; the promisor must, nt the time he or she mode the promise, foresee dzat the promisee wozdd reh' upon the promise (Joreseeability); 3) the promisee does in fact rely upon the promissor's provnise; and 4,) enforcement of the promise is necessary to amid injustice. Gaasalves v. Nissmv Motor Corporation in Haivni'i, IOOHawai`i 149(2002). In this case, I am not aware of a promise made to continue to pay for vehicles ~f the police is changed. If facts should arise that such a promise was made, then the other elements o/promisso~ti~ estoppel would need to be examined as well to see if they apply. 4. Re: Article 1 S (M) oFthe SHOPO contract: The terms yid conditions of this section explicitty apply to the Counties of Maui and Kauai, as these counties have previously undertaken a conversion from subsidized to fleet vehicle. As the County of Hawaii has not yet inaugurated such a fleet conversion program, do the terms and conditions of Section M apply to the Hawaii County Police Deparhnent? No. The terms of the provision are specific to Maui and Kauai counties. flnwever, should the policy on sa~bsidized vehicles change, we expect that SHOPO, the employer, wotdd meet to negotiate items relating to the effects of the change in policy since thc~r would line/~~ fall under the category of °terrns and cwaditrons of employment" which must he negotiated. A stmikir pra>>is£orr might result. 112 CONNIE KIRIU August 26, 2003 Page 4 5. Re: The West Hawaii Today article of July 13, 2003: Can you provide the Auditor's Office with any written opinion or material from the Office of the Corporation Counsel regarding the policy-making jurisdiction of the County Council as it relates to police vehicles? I understand that Mr. Ashida had informed your office that no written opinion had been issued by this office as may have been indicated in the West Hawai `i Today article. He also indicated that /would respond to this issue. If the question refers to the collective bargaining process, Hawaii Revised Statutes sets forth procedures for negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement. According to HRS,¢89-9, the employer and the exclusive representative are required to meet at reasonable times, including meetings in advance of the Employer's budget-making process to negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, etc and other terms and conditions of employment which are subject to negotiations under the law. Under HRS ,¢89-2 the employer is the mayor. Under HRS,~89-10, all cost items in the agreement are subject to appropriations by the Council. To the extent that the subsidy for a police vehicle is a cost item, the Council has the authority under the law to reject it if desired. If the question refers to Borne policy making authoriy of the Council, as set forth in §3-1 of the County Charter then whatever the Council sets forth as policy must be examined to see if it is in fact policy. Ln City Council of the City and County of Honolulu v. Fasi 52 Haw. 3 (1970) a resolution of the council which was said to set forth policy with respect to the rent or lease of city property was found by the court to bean exercise by the council of executive power. This was found to be inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers in which the legislative branch of the city and county and the executive branch are coordinate and neither branch may exercise [he power of the other. According to the Hawai `i Supreme Court in the Fasi case, "policy" is used to refer to decisions of broad and general applicability cmd not an ad hoc command to take specific action. Without knowing what the council may be proposing as a 'policy, " it is not possible to fully answer the question but we am offer the guidelines from the Fasi case. PKOasw S:\deptsUegaud\03-5909 memo ckiriu\08-22-03\PKOIsw 113 ~Mtr~o` M 6i~ u. AL KONISHI CONSCANCE K. KIRIU C'ounn' Clerk ~ Legudmn~e .dudmm JAY MEN DE ir~r Depun~ C'omnr Clerk ~ Cozmty of Hativai `i Ofjice of the Courrry Clerk 3~ _ l upure Straet Hilo, Nmraii 967?0 l'elephoee: l808~ 96/-H353 /-ncsiniile: ($08l 961-89/Z September 8, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Harry Kim Chief Lawrence Mahuna Council Members FROM: Connie Kiri~;1L ~ative Auditor SUBJECT: Corporation Counsel Opinion Re: Article 18, ("Subsidized Vehicles") of the SHOPO Contract Pursuant to aCouncil-requested study on subsidized personal vehicles used in the performance of official duty by officers of the Hawai `i County Police Deparhnent, our office requested an opinion from the Office of the Corporation Counsel regarding the current SHOPO Contract. Attached please find a copy of the requested opinion prepared by Corporation Counsel Patricia K. O'Toole. For additional reference, l have attached a copy of the yuestions posed by our office in a memorandum to Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida dated July 15, 2003. A draft of the police car study being prepared by our office should be completed later this month and circulated to the Police Deparnnent for comment prior to submittal of the final report to the County Council. C K/rf Attachments: Corporation Counsel memorandum dated 8/26/03 (WRK NO. 03-5909) Memorandum from Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu dated 7/ 1503 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY NAME OF STUDY AUTHOR/SOURCE DATE Police Visibility Reports (Confidential) Lawrence K. Mahuna, Police of Chief December 2, 2003 2004 Model Year Police Vehicle Evaluation NLECTGU.S. Department of Justice October 2003 Analysis of Hawaii County Police Department Fleet Versus Subsidized Vehicle Report West Hawaii Crime Stoppers July I I, 2003 County of Hawaii Digital Upgrade Microwave Project (Emergency Radio Facilities) Draft Environmental Police Departnent, County of Hawaii Assessment PBR Hawaii for Sciental America, Inc. June, 2003 Hawaii Police Department Flee[ vs. Subsidized Vehicle Report Hawai `i County Police Department May 2003 Marked police cars versus subsidized vehicles West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. April 27, 2003 The Price of Visibility (Part 2) Wes[ Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. April 22, 2003 The Price of Visibility Study West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. March 19, 2003 Local Police Departments 2000/U.S. DOJ Matthew Hickman & Brian Reaves, Ph.D. January 2003 Subsidized Automobile Study (Maui County) Police Department, County of Maui July 18, 2002 Review of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners Audit Report Office of Slate Auditor Claire McCaskill December 6, 1999 Police Automobile Fleet Study for the Hawai `i Police Department Hawaii County Police Department February 1994 Review of the Hawaii County Police Departnent's Fleet Study Peot, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. May 3, 1979 The Hawaii County Police Department Pilot Police Fleet Study Research & Development, County of Hawaii 1978 A Study of [he Automobile Allowance System of the Hawaii County Police Department Hawaii County Police Department 1972 TITLE OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AUTHOR/PUBL[CATION DATE Police Visibility - For a Price Tiffany Edwards/ West Hawaii Today December 24, 2003 County- Owned vs. Private Jason Armstrong / Hawaii Tribune Herald December 2003 Isles Top Nation In Thefts Rod Antone /Honolulu Star Bulletin October 2R, 2003 Police Radio Fixes Could Cost $10 Million Johnny Brannon /Honolulu Advertiser October 13, 2003 Marked Fleet of Police Cars Considered for Big Island Honolulu Star Bulletin September 24, 2003 Police Eye Visibility, Marked Fleet Tiffany Edwards /West Hawaii Today September 14, 2003 Don't Let Budget Problems Result in Crime Increase Honolulu S[ar Bulletin Editorial August 26, 2003 Breaking News Re: the Police Car Issue West Hawaii Crime Stoppers Web Board June 18, 2003 Patrol Car Issue Stalls Andrew Perala /West Hawaii Today May 18, 2003 Patrol Cars Could Save Money Tiffany Edwards /West Hawaii Today May 16, 2003 Technology is Moving HPD Toward Paperless System Honolulu Star-Bulletin January 9, 1999 Marked Police Car Debate Continues Tiffany Edwards /West Hawaii Today Maui is Best for DUI Convictions in the Slate Richard Borreca /Honolulu Star-Bulletin From Foot Cops to Laptops, HPD Gces Digital Pacific Business News January 4, 1999 OTHER ARTICLES/REFERENCES AUTHOR/PUBLICATION DATE Calendar Trade Shows; Show Listings 2004 Police Fleet Manager January, 2004 How To Purchase Patrol Can Police: Law Enforcement Magazine December, 2003 Guidelines for Marked Police Vehicles Law and Order Magazine December, 2003 Smart Police Cars Help in Pursuit of Crime The Age November 18, 2003 County of Hawaii Project Data/Financial Impact Statement County of Hawei`i November I7, 2003 TACENET Law Enforcerncnt Technology Expands Capability Vis[eon October 22, 2003 Visteon TACNET Makes Room in the Cockpit Tim Dees/Police Flee[ Manager BIBLIOGRAPHY - 2 OTHER ARTICLES/REFERENCES AUTHOR/PUBLICATION DATE Survey Says (Upfitting Police Vehicles) National Conference of State Fleet Administrators Fall, 2003 $6 Million Grant to Buy Radio System Virginia Fire Chiefs Association, Inc September 25, 2003 Letter to Linwln Ashida RE: wrong impassion of West Hawaii Today article West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Ina August 6, 2003 Police Cruising Into Future David Tirrell July 29, 2003 Letter to J. Curtis Tyler from Dixie Keetsu, Managing Director, re: Program [hat claims [o he able to provide public safety vehicles for lease payment Dixie Kaetsu, Managing Director June 29, 2003 SHOPO Agreement (July 1, 1999-June 30, 2003) State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers CV PI Important Safety Message Ford Motor Company May, 2003 Accepted Cops Grants-COPS U.S. Department of Justice April 3Q, 2003 Part I Volume II, Operating Budget Proposal 2003-04 County of Hawaii March, 2003 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services FY 2003 Awards IJ,S. Department of Justice 2003 Police Patrol Vehicles: FundamentalsConspicuity Drive And Stay Alive, Inc. 2003 2003 Michigan State Police Test Results Police Fleet Manager 2003 2003 Police and Special Service Vehicles Police Fleet Manager 2003 Life Cycle Costing for Police Fleets Ruth Alfson, Sc~tninole County of Hawaii 2003 Making Officer Redeployment Effective Using Technology to Keep America's Communities Safe COPS Fact Sheet/U.S. Department of Justice December 26, 2002 High-Tech Cars Aid Police Michael Valkys/Poughkccpsie Journal December 30, 2002 The Police Corps U.S. Department of ]ustice December, 2002 Tips for Ensuring Successful Technology hnplementatiun Cops Fact SheeVU.S. Department oflusticc Updated I I/19/02 Law Enforcement Information Technology: Planning, Purchasing and Managing Your Technology Initiative Cops Fact Sheet/U.S. Department of Justice September 16, 2002 How Much Will It Cost? Tim Decs/Police Fleet Manager 2002 Charter Issue Fleet Management; Vehicle Rotation Criteria Curtis W. Exley/FBI Bulletin August, 2002 Procurement of Law Enfitrcement Vehicles FBI Bulletin August, 2002 DetroiCs High-Speed Pursuit of the Police Car Market Guxge B. BlumbergiPoliceOne.arm July R, 2002 Committce on Finance; Subcommittee on Technology and Communications I" Session Agenda Hawaii County Council May 14, 2002 Finance Committee Subcommittee cn Technology and Communications I~' Session, May 14, 2002 Committee Verbatim Minutes May 14, 2002 Performance Review -Police Cars John L. Bcllah/Police Fleet Manager March H, 2002 Cutting Edge of Technology: International Association Of Chiefs of Police Executive Brief IACP & National Institute of Justice March, 2001 "Livescan' allows inkless fingerprinting "instant" computer identification HCPD Annual Report 2001-2002 Report Progress made on major projects: ecllblocks, microwave and records managanent system HCPD Annual Report 2001-2002 Report Computer e-mail system installed, proves popular as use grows HCPD Annual Report 1999-2W0 Report Department forming response teams to combat clandestine "ice' laboratories HCPD Annual Report 1999-2000 Report Automated Emergency Defibrillators acquired to save lives of cardiac victims HCPD Annual Report 1999-2000 Report Department Taps into Statewide Computerized Information System HCPD Annual Report 1999-2000 Report Computer-Aided Dispatch System Improves Efficiency, Record-Keeping HCPD Annual Report 199A-1999 Report Federal Funding and Property Transfer Tim Dccs/FBI Bulletin May/June 2000 Information and Communications Technology for Tim Dces/IQ Service Report for International Public Safety City/County Management Association January, 2000 BIBLIOGRAPHY - 3 OTHER ARTICLES/REFERENCES AUTHOR/PUBLICATION DATE Policing Neighborhoods: A Report From St. Petersburg NIJ/U.S. Departnent of Justice July 1999 Policing Neighborhoods: A Report From Indianapolis NIJ/U.S. Department of Justice July 1998 History of L.A.P. D. Communications 1970-1980s L.A.P. D. Communications Division LAPD Website What's in the Trunk? Art Shary/Police Fleet Manager 42-Volt Electrical Systems Dale Stockton/Police Fleet Manager COPS Interoperable Communications Technology COPS Fact Sheet/U.S. Department of Justice Patrol: The Backbone of Policing Samuel Walker, University of Nebraska Charles M. Katz, Arizona State University-West No Date Law Enforcement Information Technology: Planning, Purchasing and Managing Your Technology Initiative COPS/U.S. Department of Justice Report on the Committee on Finance RE: Comm. No.41R/Bill IRS, Microwave Relocation & System Renovation Hawaii County Council, December 2, 2003 Govemor Signs Executive Order Barring Unmarked State Police Cars From Stopping Motorists for Routine Violations Governor's Oftice, New York -Press Release April 16, 1996