HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0551.002 2002-2004 5~ HgG1,~.
~ .9
~
~
~
~i ' ~
Q~
F ST~Q
WEST HAWAII CRIME STOPPERS
" THE PRICE OF VISIBILITY"
Part Three
Apri115th, 2004
WEST HAWAII CRIME STOPPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 2811 S$ ~ ~ Z
KAILUA-KONA, HI 96745 Comm. No.
Tel: (808) 322-9969. Fax: (808) 322-2322 Ref. To:
Raf. Dare
E-mail: csipratt(c~aol.com URL: www.whcrimestoppers.com
"THE PRICE OF VISIBILITY" -Part Three
Contents
West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. has received, and studied the
following reports, e-mails, etc. in order to provide the Mayor, County Council,
Legislative Auditor, Police Department and Police Commission with an
unbiased report. The following report provides our comments on the Hawaii
County Police Department (HCPD) and Legislative Auditor's reports and
includes up to date quotations/figures regarding marked police cars.
A. Hawaii County Police Department Report dated December 8, 2003.
Fleet vs Subsidized Vehicle-Report II
B. Legislative Auditors Report on Hawaii County Police Department
vehicles dated February, 2004.
Appendix: 1994 Study by the Hawaii County Police Department
C. Comments on the Fresno County Sheriff's Fleet Management
Proposal to the Fresno County Supervisors, dated July, 2003.
Appendix: Fresno County Sheriff
s Fleet Management Proposal
D. Quotes received through Fresno Sheriff's Department from Philpott
Ford, January-March, 2004.
E. Quote received from Ford Motor Credit Co., dated March 30, 2004.
Suggested plan for transition to marked fleet police vehicles over five
years. This includes related figures for number of vehicles, etc.
F. Personal communications and E-mails to and from West Hawaii
Crime Stoppers, Inc.
G. Listing of the Board of Directors of West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc.
Information regarding West Hawaii Crime Stoppers.
H. Mahalo
2
HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLEET VS SUBSIDIZED VEHICLES-REPORT II
We will not comment on this report extensively since recipients of our
report have enough to study without an exercise in the debating and analysis
of figures. Suffice to say those who have studied the HCPD report are
universal in their opinion the figures are inflated, and a governing authority
should not accept same at face value. The HCPD report set out in close-
minded fashion to prove their hypothesis that the County should not move to a
"Marked Fleet" or "Hybrid Fleet".
Page 2 of subject report quotes a figure of $39,000.00 per unit.
The quotes we obtained from a leading mainland vendor chosen
out of six bidders by the Fresno Sheriff's department show far
less when you realize that they are including top of the line
equipment in their figures.
? The HCPD report is lacking in that it does not provide a list of
"emergency equipment" to allow comparison.
? The many sources we checked were very doubtful a Chevrolet
Tahoe SW could be purchased at a base price of $30,665.00, as
quoted in the report. We presume the figure quoted for required
"emergency equipment" would balance this out.
It is pertinent to point out the present motley assortment of
subsidized vehicles used by officers are not fitted with the
"emergency equipment" at present. In that regard how can HCPD
maintain their claim the use of subsidized vehicles is as safe as a
vehicle fitted with the police package and equipment?
? The claim on Page 4 of the subject report that officers pay an
average of $1,200.00 per year for maintenance is inflated. From
the vehicles WHCS has seen with the small blue light the
majority appear to be in the I to 4 year age range, and would
certainly have current warranties applying.
3
We are surprised and concerned that HCPD would recommend in
a serious report designed to make recommendations on an
important county initiative the following: That if an officer takes
home a marked car, [if this is instituted] they will receive $10.00
a day compensation for storage. This adds a significant annual
budget ($3,650.00 per vehicle), and to our knowledge there is not
a law enforcement agency in the nation with such a policy. To the
average person reading this report this would negate credibility
for the balance of the report, and we are surprised that Chief
Lawrence Mahuna condoned this.
The committee should be given recognition for the study in that it
was without question time consuming, however, we believe the
police department should have also utilized the services of
qualified community members to achieve a more useful report
with community input being taken into consideration. The
department should realize that community minded law-abiding
taxpayers can and do contribute to public safety in many ways
and they should take advantage of the experience many
individuals possess. WHCS Board members have volunteered
their services both verbally to the Chief, and in writing but have
never been contacted by the department. We submit Honolulu
uses volunteers in many capacities including answering the
Crime Stoppers Tips Line. For some inexplicable reason, the
Hawaii County Police Department is not interested.
? We would point out that it is now over one year since our "Price
of Visibility"- Part One was submitted for perusal and comment.
Since that time we have seen two reports from the HCPD and one
from the Legislative Auditor. Given this time frame we are
somewhat concerned that this report will also be relegated to a
very low priority. For your information this "Price of Visibility"
Part Three report was written and compiled in six days.
? We would again point out that as we have noted in previous
report and studies WHCS is referring to a "Take Home" fleet of
marked police cars.
4
LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR'S REPORT
HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMEN VEHICLES
February, 2004
West Hawaii Crime Stoppers congratulates the Legislative Auditor,
and her staff, on their producing a very professional and comprehensive
report. The report provides a tremendous service to the Hawaii County
administration, Police Department, Police Commission, the community and in
our opinion was long overdue.
? Page 4B: We agree with the recommendations.
Page 15: The report received from the Fresno Sheriff's office
provides a far better view of the "Advantages" gained when an
officer "Takes Home" a marked police car.
? Page 31: Resale price of used cars: HCPD contacted the fleet
manager for the Honolulu Police Department who claimed the
average auction price of police vehicles, three to six years old
range from $200.00 to $500.00 per unit. We have solicited
information from other agencies and Fresno Sheriff's office
factor $5,000.00 when sold. Incidentally the Board of WHCS
would be pleased to place an order to Honolulu Police
department for one of their cars at a maximum of $500.00.
Page 49: We agree one hundred percent with the statements on
this page and would point out strongly that it is the perception of
professionalism, safety and visibility that are important and
count.
? Subsidized Vehicles: The report notes only one other jurisdiction
could be found with a subsidized vehicle policy, that, being the
Government of Guam. WHCS has carried out further research
and could find no country including nations perceived as "Third
World Countries" that adopted such a policy. Is it reasonable to
believe that the HCPD is correct in their much touted statement
that a small blue light is sufficient to identify a vehicle as a
"Police Car"? We emphatically do not agree.
5
Page IS-"Advantages" subparagraph 7: In the April 1972, HCPD
Report/Study this states and we quote: "The Hawaii Police
Department is rated among the safest Police fleets in the nation.
This attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the officers
operate their own vehicles and are familiar with its handling
qualities and idiosyncrasies. Then, too, the officers are more
cautious and do not take unnecessary risks because they operate
their own vehicles and would suffer personal loss if the vehicle is
damaged."
? Page 8 C-Insurance costs: Certainly in today's world, the
opposite is true. The Hawaii County Police Department no-fault
insurance policy was cancelled by TIG Crum, due to a 78%
"Loss Ratio" coupled with a high incidence of accidents incurred
by police officers. The remarks of Deputy Chief (wrongly titled
as Assistant Police Chief in the report) Larry Mahuna, to the
Honolulu Star Bulletin dated Jan. 23, 2003, are of significant
interest in this regard. He noted the insurance company was
basically saying the risk was too high.
? APPENDICES- HRS- SECTION 710-1027: West Hawaii Crime
Stoppers were particularly interested and pleased the report
outlined this statute, which relates to resistance to an order to
stop a motor vehicle. The order requires the person running away
from a police vehicle must have recognized the order to stop as
coming from a police officer(s). We submit the present vehicles
used by police officers carry no identification markings other
than the small blue light, and a siren, which is difficult to hear
until it is close. Further the dark tinted windows espoused by our
police officers make it impossible to identify the person in the
car. We have all heard of persons impersonating police officers,
utilizing cars with the small blue lights, to rob, rape and in some
cases murder. A tragic case occurred in Oahu, as we all know.
We are extremely concerned regarding this aspect since tourists
have been made aware of such cases and are warned repeatedly
not to stop, especially at night unless they can identify the
pursuing vehicle as a police vehicle. The HCPD should take this
into account and refrain from statements that the residents and
tourists alike should know the small blue light on a motley
assortment of vehicles is sufficient identification of a police
vehicle. Albeit suggested by the HCPD, it is not the
responsibility of WHCS to prepare brochures, videos, even if we
6
had the resources to do so. We applaud Governor George Pataki
of New York signing into law making it illegal to stop and charge
a person using an unmarked car. We believe that Governor
Lingle should be requested to consider the same in Hawaii and
WHCS plans to commence the necessary steps to achieve this.
? West Hawaii Crime Stoppers is fully aware that the State of
Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) is the
predominant organization that has determined whether HCPD.
adopted a fleet or partial fleet of marked police vehicles. This is
obvious, yet WHCS is placing on record they will take all
necessary steps at all levels of government that may be required
and continue to press for the introduction of a marked fleet of
police vehicles. This will provide the HCPD with .
professionalism, visibility and public and officer's safety, so vital
to the community. A major decision that involves the community
must be made by the administration together with input from
SHOPO and every factor must be taken into account, but SHOPO
only should not be the decision maker.
There have been enough studies, reports made to date and it is
time that Hawaii County decides one way or the other. Obviously
there are no comparison cost studies as to subsidized vehicles
versus a fleet of marked police vehicles. The administration must
decide and with all due respect WHCS maintains very strongly
the facts and figures are available in this report, to make the
decision. Budgets can be amended particularly if savings are
shown.
7
APPENDIX: 1994 STUDY BY THE
HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
(page 27-28 of the Legislative Auditor's Report)
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 yeazs.
• 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 rating was required; salary and fringe
benefits for this position were estimated to range as high as $50,215 per yeaz.
Based on the vehicle bids and assumptions above, the 1994 study then developed an
annual estimate of fleet costs as shown below:
FLEET PROJEC'I'[ON COSTS (1994 STUD1~
PATROL 4WD UNMARKED TOTAL
Cost r Vehicle $18,917 $20,141 $11,682
Proration 3 yeazs 3 yeazs 3 years
Period/Milea e 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
And Servicin ~ $252,379
Plus Collision/Vehicle
Dam a $138,376
Plus Miscellaneous
Auto Parts/Su lies $70,560
Plus Fleet Coordinator's
Sal & Frin e $50,215
Projected Annual Fleet Costs $1,573,380
8
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. 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 yeazs. However, it noted that "with a
self-insured fleet program HCPD would save approximately $320,022 a yeaz 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 calculated 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. (emphasis added)
COMMEI~ITS: This study completed by HCPD in 1994 shows very
clearly the savings that would have been made if the report findings had
been adopted. The administration then in control should have adopted same,
and owe the taxpayers of the County of Hawaii, a full explanation and valid
reasons as to why 10 years ago, they were not prepared to save money, also
achieve a fleet of marked police cars, and provide professionalism and
visibility to HCPD
9
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FLEET MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
West Hawaii Crime Stoppers has been in close contact with the above
department for some months in order to prepare an accurate report covering
the use of marked police cars.
? The Fresno Sherifffs department has 467 sworn personnel, 293
marked police patrol vehicles and 202 unmarked. Their area of
jurisdiction is just over 4, 000 square miles in many types of
terrain and weather.
? WHCS is trying to have the two officers who made the proposal,
who visited many agencies, and vendors, and who are running
the Fresno program, visit Hawaii and provide HCPD, the
administration and ourselves, the benefit of their knowledge and
planning. They have agreed to this if we can assist with the
expenses. WHCS will cover the hotel costs together with help
from a local hotel. We are working on the transportation but
would like it moved that the County consider paying part of
those costs. We would prefer the visit to be made in June to
coincide with the Council meeting on June 16, 2004, in Kona.
This would allow testimony from the officers and provide a
wonderful opportunity to ask questions on all aspects regarding a
fleet of marked police vehicles.
QUESTIONS ASKED BY WHCS AFTER STUDY OF FRESNO
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FLEET MANAGEMENT REPORT
Q. Name of agency?
A. Fresno County Sheriff's Department
Q. Number of sworn personnel?
A. 467 sworn personnel
l0
Q. Type of car used for patrol-4 Wheel Drives (SUV's)?
A. Ford Crown Victoria and Ford Expedition
Q. If extended warranty purchased and cost?
A. None purchased.
Q. Are these "Take Home" vehicles?
A. Yes, these are "Take Home" vehicles.
Q. If so, does officer receive allowance for overnight "Storage"?
A. No allowance for overnight storage
Q. Is maintenance done "In House"?
A. Yes, some maintenance is done in house and the majority is done
through private vendors.
Q. If not what is the annual cost or budget for privatized maintenance?
A. Maintenance budget is $862,000.00.
Q. What is the average yearly mileage for vehicles?
A. Average yearly mileage is 24,000.00.
Q. When the vehicle is "retired" from use, how are they sold?
A. When the vehicle is retired the vehicle is bought back by Philpott
Ford and the money is put back into our department fleet budget.
Q. What is the average price realized for the vehicle?
A. $5,000.00.
I1
Q. Can you please provide any other details that pertain to the use of a
marked fleet of police vehicles?
A. All vehicles are "take home" vehicles. The officers are not required to
garage the vehicle. It is the request of the Sheriff and the County Board of
Supervisors that the Marked Patrol vehicles be parked on the curb in front of
the officer's house or in the driveway for visibility. We have nine full
service car washes on contract throughout the county that the officers are
free to use as needed to keep their assigned vehicles clean. The contract
price runs from $4.50 to $6.50 per week. We have two contracted tow
companies for towing throughout the county and outside the county. We
have a variety of vendors on contract for all related supplies and services. At
the point our department started managing our own fleet, we also took
control over a two bay service center in the basement of our administration
building and the two journeyman mechanics. They service all the
Headquarters based vehicles and others the fleet staff designate. Our county
fleet facility now works for us as a vendor. We have all of our undercover
vehicles (73) and heavy equipment serviced there.
Q. What percentage of cars are purchased for back-up purposes?
A. We have four patrol substations. Each substation has four marked
vehicles assigned to it as spare vehicles for officers to use if needed. There
are six spare administrative vehicles.
Q. How many staff are required to monitor the fleet?
A. We have five people in our Fleet Unit. Their salaries and positions are a
Sheriff's Sergeant at $110,128.00, a Civilian Vehicle Coordinator at
$31,000.00, a Part time Retiree (960 hrs per year) at $26,800.00, a
Supervising account clerk at $52,855.00, and an account clerk at $40,643.00.
Q. What is the Public Reaction to the "Take Home" Policy?
A. The public reaction to our take home policy has been outstanding. The
Sheriff, Board of Supervisors and Watch Commanders have received
numerous calls from citizens thanking us for having take home marked
patrol cars. All have commented on how much safer they feel with a marked
unit parked in their neighborhood. Some elderly citizens have commented
that they will now take walks in the evening hours after dark when the
officer is home. They feel much safer with the marked cars in their
neighborhood.
12
Fresno County Sheriff's
I
I,~ , w
y~i w~ ~~~~1 ~ ~~i
'I
i
`I i
:II~II 'I y. ~Ilaa+j I'.~1~
l7y ~ I rC
lilb ~ [~.;Ihll.
~I~~ ~ J' I
Y 1 ` I' I q
I"~ ' ~ xf
q uA
44 lyl
'4. ~I, # '~k~lw.ry~l
~I. .at7~~~:1':,,a
j~3~a~paeEb':
Y It,,~;,.a{1;.,-
Fleet Management
Proposal
SherifF Richard Pierce
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF'S FLEET MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared to examine the feasibility of placing the Sheriff's fleet
under the Sheriff's Department and the feasibility of atake-home patrol car
program. The report will include the purpose, background, objectives, proposed
plan, calculation of iota) program costs, and program benefits.
PURPOSE
The rationale for and anticipated benefits of the take-home patrol car plan, for the
Fresno Sheriff's Department is as follows:
• Vehicles could be obtained through alease-purchase plan that would
spread the purchase pr(ce ovar three years. This would allow for the
purchase of approximately 100 additional vehicles needed for the take-
home plan within ttre current dollars budgeted.
• The vehicles would be ordered fully aqulppad to our specifications
including computers. In essence, this would be a turnkey (ready for
immediate service) operation. There would not be down time or
additional expense for equipping the vehicles after delivery.
• Although capital costs would initially be higher because additional cars
would be required, the total costs for the program would be lower
because maintenance costs and frequency of replacement vehicles
would decrease.
• There would be less wear and tear on the vehicles, Cars would be
better maintained and last longer in the care of one driver.
• Citizens would feel safer as more patrol cars would be on the street
~nrhile deputies drove to and from work, court, training, and other official
duties.
• Citizens would feel safer with the marked patrol vehicles of off-duty
Deputies parked in residential neighborhoods.
• Morale would Improve because transportation to and from work would
be provided by the use of assigned take-home patrol cars.
• Productivity well increase because deputies would no Longer have to
setup and remcve their equipmeni at the start and end of each shift.
1
• In emergencies, off-duty deputies could report directly to the scene
instead of driving to their assigned Area Headquarters to pick up a
vehicle.
• Overorowded parking areas et Sheriffs facilities will be reduced.
BACKGROUND
Patrol vehicles for the Fresno County Sheriffs Department and most other !aw
enforcement agencies have traditionally been managed through a fleet
assignment sysiem. That is, sufficient patrol vehicles are purchased to meet
staffing requirements for Areas, shifts, and beats. The vehicles are "pooled" at
various locations and assigned to deputies as they come on duty.
Under this fleet assignment concept, deputies are assigned an available vehicle,
usua'ly not the same vehicle shift-to-shtft. Some vehides are used 20 hours a
day, seven days a week.
Ttre basis for this fleet management approach is that while maintenance costs
per vehide are higher than non-patrol use vehides, the required number of
vehicles can be kept to a minimum. In other words, maintenance costs may be
higher, but the capital costs for providing sufficient fleet vehicles are kept as low
as possible and can be incrementally adjusted to meet projected long-term
demands. Since the 1976's several law enforcement agencies have assigned
take-home vei~icles to uniformed patrol officers.
The currant method of providing patrol cars for the Fresno County Sheriffs
Department is based on a system of shared or "pooled" vehicles. Deputes
coming on duty are issued an available vehicle, and may or may not get a vehicle
they have previously driven. The currant patrol fleet is comprised of 87 vehides,
which vary in age and condition, and includes those vehides kept on hand as
`extras" to provide transportation during regular vehicle maintenance and down
time. Approximately 184 deputies use these 87 vehicles in patrol operations.
Sheriffs patrol vehide are purchased new, driven an average of 45,000 miles per
year by deputes and retained as long as serviceable. Recognizing there are a
multitude of variables impacting the timing of purchase of patrol vehicles, the
County makes every practicable effort to retire blocks of patrol vehicles from
patrol service +n•hen they, as a group average, have attained 85,000 to 90,000
miles. Maintenance and repairs are performed or arranged by Fleet Services,
which rscovers its costs from the Sheriff's Department through a "fixed fee" for
fleet overhead, "depreciation fee" for the replacement of vehicles, "usage or
meter tee' for fuel and maintenance, and a "replacement fee" for equipment.
2
OBJECTIVES
• To identify the financial and operational advantages associated with a
take-home patrol car program.
• To identify the financial and operational advantages associated with
the utilization of outside vendors for maintenance.
• Examine the associated issues and impact on criminal activity.
• Identify citizen perception of safety and security, and increased law
enforcement productivity.
STUDY METHODS
A special committee from within the Sheriffs Department including a
representative of the Fresno Deputy Sheriffs Association conducted the primary
analysis for this report with assistance of staff members from Fleet Services,
Purchasing. County Counsel, CAO, Auditor-Controller, and Risk Management,
Much of the information used to develop this report was based on an
examination of law enforcement agencies that have implemented some form of a
take-home patrol car program. This included site visits to several law
enforcement agencies. In addition, vendors that were capable of providing the
volume, equipment and installation necessary to Implement and supply this
program were contacted, and in some cases visited by the committee.
PROPOSED PLAY
In order to develop valid comparative cost Information, certain assumptions must
be made regarding stake-home patrol car program, For purposes of this
analysis, the following were assumed:
• All deputies on active patrol duty would be assigned vehicles.
• Vehicle use would be restricted to operation while on patrol, to and
from work, and any otherjob related activity as assigned.
• Deputies would be required to provide reasonably secure parking
accommodations for take-home vehices.
• Absent specific permission from the Sheriff, deputies residing outside
of Fresno County would park their assigned vehicle at approved
secure locations such as county maintenance yards and area
substations within Fresno County.
3
Initially, a statewide search of vendors was conducted. State and Federal bid
programs were also considered. Ford Motor Company was then ccntected to
obtain additional vendor referrals of dealers that could provide tumkey vehicles at
the volume needed for implementation of the take-home program.
0.fter review by the wmmittee, the list of potential vendors was then scaled down
to six vendors. All siz vendors were provided our specifications for the vehicles.
Five of the six vendors responded with price quotes for turnkey programs.
Each of the vendors was asked to provide referrals from police agencies that
they had done business with in the past. Based on the information received from
the vendors, the list was narrowed to two potential vendors. A site visit was then
arranged with Philpott Ford in Nederland, Texas and Southwest Public Safety in
San Antonio, Texas. Philpott Ford Is a complete turnkey operation and
Southwest Public Safety works with Northslde Ford to provide vehicles.
During the site visits the committee, along with Tom January from County Fleet
Services, met with the vendors, toured their faclllties, observed their
workmanship, and production capabilities. Philpott Ford was the only vendor that
could supply on demand the number of vehicles needed from available stock.
Northside Ford with Southwest Public Safety could only provide vehicles after
placing an order with the factory.
Philpott Ford's pricing of vehidea, equipment, and labor to outfit vehicles was
lower than aIi other vendors including the California State bid utilized by County
Fleet Services. In addition, only Philpott Ford could provide a special wiring
harness that they install in their vehicles. This revolutlonarr harness provides for
less installation time, isolation of add on equipment for quick problem
identification and exchange, and is touted as having 'zero defects" since
introduction in Philpott Ford's Police Vehicles.
CALCULATION CF TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS
In order to make valid comparisons between the currant fleet plan end the take-
home plan, it is necessary to determine a common unit of measurement. This
common unit of measurement is essential because the characteristics of vehicle
use in the two plans are significantly difrerent.
Under the current fleet plan, patrol cars are available for use a maximum of 11
shifts per vveek yr 572 shifts per year (11 shifts per week x 52 weeks). In
practice, when idle time, maintenance and repairs are considered, patrol cars are
actually In use approximately 9 shifts perwesk. On average, patrol cars in the
current patrol Fleet accumulate approximately 45,000 miles per year or 96 miles
per shift for 488 shifts per year (9 shifts per week x 52 weeks).
Alternatively, a vehicle under the take-home plan is available for the same
number of shifts as the deputy assigned tv the vehicle. Since a deputy patrols an
average of four shifts for 41.5 weeks per year (1680 hours), the patrol car is
4
r.^
actually utilized for 166 shifts per year. AL 96 miles per shift, a vehicle under this
plan will be driven approximately 15,836 miles per year. We add to this a
projected "Commute' mileage of 25 miles a shift, for a total mileage of 20,086 per
take-home vehicle per year.
In order to make valid Cost comparisons, the current "mileage dependent" or
"usage" charges (fuel end maintenance) forfleet vehicles can be calculated.
These annual per-vehicle Charges are $14,400 far fuel and maintenance (45,000
miles x .32 cents per mile).
Since the total number of miles will be considerably lower for the take-home
vehicles, the annual per-vehicle charges for fuel and maintenance will cost
approximately $6,426 (20,086 miles x .32 cents per mile).
Other charges include "fixed" to pay for overhead expenses, "depreciation" to
pay for replacement of vehicles, and a 'replacement fee" for the replacement of
equipment.
The proposed take-home plan would include transferring the Sheriffs vehicles
from County Fleet Services to the Sheriffs Department. This transfer would
require the following staff to oversee and administer the program:
• One Sheriffs Sergeant
• One Supervising Account Clerk
• One Account Clerk
In addition, the lwo mechanics assigned to the downtown garage should be
transfen'ad to the Sheriffs Department to service and repair all the vehicles not
assigned to the area substations. Local vendors would be utilized to service and
repair the vehicles assigned to the area substations.
There would be no increase in the funds beyond, that which is already allocated
annually for the fleet. In the 2002-03 budget that amount (excluding radio
charges) was $3,672,838 (usage - $1,584,436, fixed - $859,031, depreciation
$1,011,748, replacement $217,821). Each subsequent budget year would
require the same amount of funds be allocated for the program. Any funds not
spent would rollover each year and would be applied toward increased costs and
replacement of the remainder of the Sheriff's fleet.
When the new fleet of lease-purohase vehicles reach their useful Irfe expectancy,
they can be sold back to the dealer with the funds applied to future lease-
purchoses.
A survey of local dealers and automotive service businesses was conducted by
the Sherffs Fteet Comrnlttea to determine the financial and operational
advantages associated with the utilization of outside venders for maintenance.
5
Costs for maintenance wets found to be very competikive and in some cases
lower. By utilizing outside vendors ,for maintenance, costs would be directly
related to the maintenance of the vehicles and would not include the additional
overhead necessary under the County Fleet system.
PROGRAM BENEFITS
1. Citizens feel safer. The presence of patrol vehicles parked in neighborhoods
deters criminal activity, but the primary benefit is citizens feel safer. Deputies
traveling to and from work bring additional law enforcement presence to the
neighborhood, adding to their feeling of safety.
2. More cost effective. Agencies implementing take-home programs repoR that
the single-user vehicles last longer. On average, the vehicles lasted four to
six years. Some agencies reported seven years. This is attributed to the
reduced amount of limo the vehicle is In use on an annual bass and the
better care and treatment stake-home vehlcle receives.
3. Less down time. A related program cost is'down time," or the amount of time
the vehicle is available for patrol activities due to maintenance requirements.
The City of Visalia, California, repoRed that take-home patrol vehicles
experienced 60 percent less down time than fleet vehicles. The maJorfty of
vehicle down time is shifted to when the deputy is off duty.
4. Improved morale. Several departments contacted reported Improved morale
along with reduced absenteeism and attrition following adoption of a take-
home vehicle program. The take-home plan also provides deputies with a
significant economic benefit.
5. Increased productivity. There will be an increase In law enforcement
productivity resulting from the implementation of a take-home patrol vehlcle
program. This can be estimated by calculating the increase in the amount of
additional time deputies would be available far enforcement activlt•,r.
Approximately 30 minutes would be saved each shift by not having to
remove, inspect and set up each deputy's equipment in the patrol vehicle.
This results in a net increase of B full-time deputies (30 minute6 x 166 shifts x
164 deputies, divided by 1660 hours = 8.2 deputies). There would also be
less downtime in the middle of shifts due to patrol vehicle refueling and
equipment transfers.
6. Improved response. There will be an improved response to slgnlflcant
emergencies by off-duty deputies. They will respond from home as apposed
Oo picking up a vehicle before responding.
6
RECOMMENDATION
After thorough research of the benefits of a take-home vehicle program and site
visits to the perspective vendors, the committee's recommendations are as
follows:
1. Implement stake-home patrol vehicle program for the Fresno County
Sheriffs Department.
2. Increase the existing Sheriff's float by approximately 100 vehicles (65
Ford Crown Victoria Patrol Vehldes and 35 Ford Expeditions).
3. Utilize a 3-year lease/purchase agreement to obtain financing for new
vehicles through Ford Municipal Leasing Company.
4. Obtain additional 100 vehicles (65 Forci Crown Victoria Patrol Vehides
end 35 Ford Expeditions) from Phitpott Ford as the Vest vendor
capable of meeting the Sheriff's overall vehicle needs at wmpetitive
pricing.
5. Effective July 1, 2003, transfer the entire Sherlfts fleet and budget
(exduding radio shop charges) of $3,672,836 from County Fleet
Services to the Sheriffs Department. Any funds not spent would
rollovor each year and would be applied toward increased costs and
replacement of the remainder of the Sheriffs fleet.
6. Transfer from County Fleet Services the two mechanic positions
assigned to the downtown garage and the downtown garage facilities
to the Sheriffs Department to service the Sheriff's fleet and other
County vehides as required.
7. Utilize Ford Dealers and qualified local vendors for all maintenance not
performed by Sheriff's Department fleet mechanics during the initial
pilot maintenance program.
B. Add one Sheriff's Sergeant, one Supervlsing Account Clerk, and one
Account Clerk to oversee and administer the 5herlffs fleet program.
All costs of additional positions to be induded within the dollars
currently allocated for fleet services.
7
TIMELINE
t. Aprii 2003 -Order 100 vehicles (65 Crown Victoria and 35 Expedltlonj
utilizing the $1.5 million sat aside in the current fleet budget to fund the
first year of the lease-purchase plan.
2. July 2003 -Accept delivery of Ford Crown Victoria and Ford
Expedition Patrol Vehicles.
3. July 2003 -Transfer responsibility of Sheriffs Fleet to the Sheriff.
4. July 2003 -Transfer two mechanic positions to Sheriffs budget.
B
SHERIFF'S BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2002-03
Depreciation Fund ;1,500,000.
7000 Services and Supplies
7101 Risk Management $ 200,000.
8300 Equipment Series
8300 Lease-purchas0100 vehicles (65 Ford Crown Victoria
& 35 Ford Expeditions) fully equipped. S1,300,000.
70TAL ;1,500,000.
SHERIFF'S PROPOSED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
PROPOSED BUDGET ;3,672,836.
600D Salary Series
6100 Sheriff's Sergeant $ 110,128.
6100 Mechanic $ 50,179.
6100 Mechanic $ 50,179.
6100 Supervising Account Clerk $ 52,855.
6100 Account Clerk $ 40,643.
7000 Services and Supplies
7205 Maintenance -Equipment 51,793,852.
7265 Office Expense $ 15,000.
9
7385 Sma;l Tools & Instruments $ 25,000.
7400 Special Department Expense (Fleet Sofhvare) $ 120,000.
7415 Trans, Travel & Education S 15,000
8300 Equipment Series
8300 Lease-purchase (2n° year payment) $1,300,000.
8300 Purchase of replacement under-cover cers $ 100,000.
TOTAL 53,672,836.
1C
PROPOSED VEHICLE TYPES AND QUOTES
The following figures are based on quotes received from Philpott Ford through
Fresno Sheriff's Department and we are indebted to both of these organizations.
A. FORD CROWN VICTORIA PATROL CAR---2004 MODEL
Base Price with options as per Philpott Ford quote: $25,605.00
EXTRA OPTIONS
Siren UTM 4 Lite Bar
Partition Wig Wags
Prisoner Seat Computer MCT
Radio 25 Watt VHF Push Bumper
Siren Speaker Shot Gun Rack
Graphics as per specifications supplied
TOTAL $32,770.00
NOTE: Many of the options are available at different prices and we researched
the Internet and used figures from Fresno/Philpott Ford for all quotes given.
B. FORD EXPEDITION SUV-2004 MODEL
SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLE 4 X 2 XLT 910 A MODEL
EXTRA OPTIONS
3 Passenger Bench Seat-Vinyl Cloth Captains Chairs
5 Passenger Premium Stereo CD
4 Speed Automatic Transmission 4.6L V 8 Engine
HD Rubber Floor Covering Siren UTM 4
Partition with Floor extension Light Bar
Wig Wags Rear Prisoner Seat
Graphics to specifications provided Computer MCT
Gun Lock Radio VHF 25 Watt
Push Bump
TOTAL $36,356.00
13
CU51'OMIZED PRODUCT PRICING SUMI6IARY -
Cars aed uNd Traelu
Fad Uae-• Fr veil ]?YOpoK laP: F.MbfE71'E CONE _
COatrctt bho Mein FAX 419 46B 3699 Oak: 12-Mu-04
!redact Deralptlse: 2004 Pours ]nkmeptor as vic
A Bld Series: apeeial eervia vehicle A. Bare Prke: S 3 770.00
d Pehtished ~ taeh Udow
Code Dptioua Bfd irks Cole v Ba Prtce
mtC look b altar:l7fM 4
cloth bent bwkcu, vinyl tcffi hq 1aTD! TA
charmnl I W partitloa/hnrieN with Loot
Whit attatlor WT sxttadoe
720A model aerica 3.27 W a rode 5oet
Brdtd d tmr sotw DeC
oocrua disabled to sheae to be provided
tnd:a o
Jm stereo radio
ttaerdoarmouldin delxed radio l3 wty,.g
leafenyve rear lode Candles omh
! wC:doua
TaW al& TubllahM Opdoez
G IIapshiiahd tiem Iticed~s euh helaw~, em m e:caed 24°fil S= 0.0 Y.
s Bid Prise Bid Prue
Iqt ds to otsier 4 4-1.04 for 1004 models
77N1 desk wa with earli a date
We do have there orca m a:odc ~ the
t [me. b:a ate m ea ro 'or sale
Deb to rreeio Cu colt iacluded
Tadi et C U1N61ieNd OpEtma:
D. Ceafrrc[Prim Adjestaetrt:
& 3rLvu7 Charsea: 0 nriea 9.93/mlle /
F. Tomlof A+D+C+D+6=F f ~ X0,00,
Ci. Qaantit7 Ordeml ] : F' s 37,7T6.m
i
CUSTUIVL ZED PRODUCT PR1 G SUMMARY 1 .
Can arts f.feht Traclu
Eod Ufer: Fremo County (HavW) PrYMtt wp: EAII~TIF COluB
Contact: John Atmer Daat 12•MarA4
Predrd Desa'Ipfix: 3064 ~Padltiar ?
a ata s«tea: epoelat tatvla rolls vrhlde ? w. a.¦e eHce s s6no
]i PrWish¦dO rs terrlaaach w
eoAe Bf 'cc Cade na ertce
4x2 XLT 910A model iR{r7 sirx lTtyvl4
Gptb c oiln obrit! Cd tttDAGTA
3 atanaer betlth scot v' trhh Boor atension
r~ u wi 8wt
'um stereo CD nsQ seat AEDEC
.6L Yd to - .m m vided
4spd aWr Inns
HD ntbbat 8om oe~r++a lorY
n~o VHF 75 tvt
7oLt1 of A pub4Yad U
C. Ur 16W fframlre N ?Nsw, r¦t b road J5Y.1 S• 0.014
]O:dl'tia ors 1SWlhiee
SI is last to ordv 2004. sub ect to ab s
ads on3 deli from IStL:ry oppt
96-120 1
Coot ofdaIi to Fceaao ont adudcd
Total ¦fC Urprbacarn Optic®:rf~~~-
D. Contract ericc AC~e¦t: L~~.'~~~J
1w D¦Ilvtry Rm>'pen: 0 w"les f.93,`r10e ~ L? -w~
F. TotalotA+R+G+D+1:=P 9 ~OJli.00
G. Qw¦tity Ordetea i : P ~ f ~ 96.00
C. FORD TAURUS SEDAN UNMARKED POLICE VEHICLE
2004 MODEL
BASE PRICE: $11,381.00
RECOMMENDED OPTIONS
Dashmiser double (Windshield)
Corner Front Strobes
Rear Strobes
6 Outlet Power Supply
6 Way lighted switch box
Whelen Siren 200 Watt
BP 100 Speaker
Motorola VHF 99 channel 100 watt radio
Wig Wag Headlights
Decklight 3Triple-Red-Blue-Amber
Wire %z glass or half slider barrier screen
Lower Kick panel for barrier
TOTAL $ 16.125.00
NOTE: The same statement regarding options as noted for the Ford Crown
Victoria, and Ford Expedition apply to the Ford Taurus.
14
CU9Tp(VOy1+D P DlJCT PRICING 9I111QlARY B D ON CONT]{Lq,CT
Can ead LIBhe Traebe
PlC.A,C CONTRACT VB ]0~1 /2004
F.nd Uwn Hawaif IPrauo eesmty, Cell) lAilpett Rqt BTBME'I-IE CONF
Coetacs: loha Mafia Fu 559 488 3699 p~K 26,MMOy
Prndar l4serlpl{ol; Fnrd Tet¢ye 9004
A. 9bi Scciv: ABC A. Hap Ptiw: S 11 87.00
b tubllrbd ltetttba each below
Cede tSooa ~ Prltb Cede !Nd IYke
V6 en 'x Auto trm i.OL We ae hlddl 3004 HGAC
P53 model for 2A05 r kccs P52 'Ali01VWlD8 COh1RACT
lbrZ004 afromLXuriato CAlOPQRR8VI8WONLY.
~ ~1r1 teriee 2001 TAURUB WBNT OUT OP
Sd Dadutnatt dvuDle uindaltie:d ! 255.00 RODL'C1'IgN Y
55 mma 6mt saobcs 9 9p.00 2045 4RICII+O NOT V[ff
Si rarsnoMs f 99.00 AVAILABLB
59 6aWot S 399.00 to
6I 6 waytl aRittf Dos S 119.00 79 1/2 wuc !Z ar half soda 8 4L.00
ds wedrn sIICn 300 wm S 299.00 '~tttler sueea
70 IW 100 S 26500 81 lover klrJr 1bt Dania S 55.00
69 *latauL VHP 99 obemtd l00 watt S 1390.00 Im emadw radio ate available
tad:e
Tortl d H. Fub:~bd Optiem: S 3J05.00
C. 0 8s1ed O eoa traolm aeeh oat m acecd 2l9t1 9~ 2.9 X
Bli Prln e0e ~ hya
v^ haedD ! 119A0 HGACNATIONWIDECONIRACI
_ 3 ni Ic bloc, antic S 310.00 PRICING VH10.03
v this is hid od• far review 2005 ote these Lt • 84ottseL 4Q MY MI2 Viii'
atd~rn mxacioea sot 27 ehtmel evci'. )r fa 791.00- Much late
atab8ehed Pmd Oovemmat Sate 100 wtd Ysed above
Diriaioo
De1iv m Pram Califbtnte oe .
Onw rider k d defiv would be m oosa would have to be added
90.120 s m Cehf. Cal'fo gig
Tool of C TlePeDllabad Oytiem: S U9.OD
Q CodtnRPriteA/ltupneeH r.~
G I)dNery Cheraw 0 atUr ~ i!7lta8c S 4d0.N
F. TehlotA+BtC+D+li•Ir 8 16125.p
G. Qewtiq Ordered 1 : F~ S 1 123.00
& IIGAC Adeoh4ttadw Fr IIYVm Fee Srhedak, 7abY Al
SUGGESTED PLAN AND BUDGET FOR TRANSITION
TO A MARKED FLEET OF POLICE VEHICLES
OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR HCPD
? The plan as shown in Chart "A" revised 04/02/2004 has been compiled
by West Hawaii Crime Stoppers and Ford Motor Credit Corporation with
figures suggested by WHCS by them as to the number and type of
vehicles required.
? Total figures were based entirely on those submitted by HCPD in their
report dated December, 2003.
? Financial figures for yearly comparisons were based on those in the
HCPD report dated December 2003.
? The figures shown in chart are those for 2004 and do not reflect possible
increases in the price of cars, nor a possible increase in the subsidy.
However WHCS has used higher figures for the suggested vehicles than
quoted
All figures and suggestions were sent to Ms. Barbara Lyons, Ford Motor
Credit Corporation for analyzing and making changes where required.
The final figures for the number of vehicles recommended yearly are
flexible and are easily changed and reworked to suit HCPD plans and
needs.
The figures factored in for maintenance and the budgeted cost are based
on present vehicle warranties and discussions with other agencies.
? WHCS is prepared to assist in any way and welcomes the opportunity to
discuss this report at length.
? We believe there should be a savings on insurance but have not factored
this into the figures projected.
? A savings may also occur in gasoline costs since the fleet cars will be
using the correct grade as required by the manufacturer,
15
Ford Motor Credit Company Ina Ameaean Read
P.0.8oa 1719
LkarCOm, M~tltipan 4812:-t 739
Mach 30, 2004
Alw Pratt
Hawaii Crvms7opptrs
Re: Ferd Municipal Finance Program -Quotation for County of Ha~rau, Rl
Par yew request, anachcd is a Icase/purchttse quote for the Comty of Hawaii. Rates and paynunt factors an applicable
for total amounts funded over 55 million. This quote is goad for deliveries made by 07,'0l~'2004. This finance proposal
applies to:
uanti Descriotian Pricy
100 2704 Fora Crown Victoria Police In[ereeptors wilt Accessories last. 534,000.00 each
30 2004 Ferd Expeditiotts with Accessories Est. 538,000.00 each
100 2004 Ford T~mts Salons with Acoessories C•
st. 517,500.00 ta:h
(Ranee) No Payment Payment
iotol Amount Funded of P m imin RR^te Factor Amount
Fst. 5690,000.00 3 Annual in Advance 3.57 0.345J92 52,170,628.6E
Est. $6r90,tX1U.00 ; Annual in Advance 3.83 0.264266 SI,b62 X33.14
Est. 56,290,000 00 5 Annua: in Advance 4.09 0.21618? $1,359,816.23
'Payment ¢mounrs are colt ¢red fv multinlyin~ rota! amounts funded timer the payment facron
The Ford Municipal lease-pure:~tase finance play requires no security deposit, ha, no prepayment penalty, no nulcagc
penalty, or hidden ftes. The proga:n is tiers-recourse to the dealer, the sum as cash sale from the dealer w the muninpal
customer. A[ inc~ptioe, the new egwpment titlerr±3istraioa ind:ptcs the municipality as Registered Owner, and
designs?es Font Motor Credit C.etnpany, P.0. Box 1739, Dearborn, MI 48121-]739, az Firzt Lienholder. t tern rnd,
the municicality bays ine cgyipment
5~. The municipahty, as Owner of:ecerd, is e]igib!c far th_ Ford Goyemmera price
Concessions o-other disccunts, to reduce product cost.
Please tinter Fax1 Credit'sfiaancG:g is suhjxr to: ecmp[ered and wmri;ed .~L;uniczjva! Finar:ee Application: 1) .evlew
and approya! of the Afwricipcliry(s ova mast recau audited financial stetementr; end .j mutually acceptable
documentation
Lr you need additioral information, please czll m: at 1-800-241-4199, then Press t. Tltar:k you for your interest in tt:c
Ford Municipal Finance Plan.
Sinccmly,
urfi'irn n9rJ
Barbara Lyons
!btazketing Coordinator
Attachments
Currently Annual Pymts. Comments
406 Subsidized Units C $488.00 each + $163.06 each liability absorbed by the County (per their $3,171,964.32
report -copy attached) -Total of $651.06 per unit
Year 1 1. Replace 230 subsidized units with 230 marked fleet (100 patrol cars; 100 $1,359,816.23 $3,171,964.32 (Subsidized units)
administrative units; and 30 SUVs) Contract #I -Exhibit A
2. 176 Subsidized Units remaining $1,375,038.72
3. Maintenance: 230 units x estimated $40 per unit/montlt x 12 months $1 10,400.00 $2,845,254.95
Est. Total for Year 1: $2,845,254.95 $326,709.37 Estimated Savings for year 1
Year 2 1. Contract #1 - 230 marked fleet $1,359,816.23 $3,171,964.32 (Subsidized units)
2. Replace 50 subsidized units with 45 new patrol cars and 5 SUVs -Contract #2 - $371,841.64
Exhibit B
3. 126 Subsidized Units Remaining $984,402.72
4. Maintenance: 280 units x estimated $40 per unit month x 12 $134,400.00 $2,850,460.59
Est. Total for Year 2: $2,850,460.59 $321,503.73 Estimated Savings for year 2
Year 3 1. Contract - 230 marked fleet - Exhibit A $1,359,816.23 $3,171,964.32 (Subsidized units)
2. Contract #2 - 50 marked fleet -Exhibit [3 $371,841.64
3. Replace 50 subsidized units with 45 new patrol and 5 SUVs -Contract #3 - $371,841.64
Exhibit B also
4. 76 Subsidized Units Remaining $593,766.72
5. Maintenance: 330 units x estimated $40 per unit month x 12 $158,400.00 $,2,855.666.23
Est. Total for Year 3: $2,855,666.23 $316,298.09 Estimated Savings for year 3
At the end of three years, consideration may be given to trading in 100 units at an "estimated" trade value raneine between $3,000-$5,000 ner dealership based on the condition of
each unit and model year. Also, the 4'" and S'" payments would he remaining on Contract # 1. To release titles on 100 patrol units, a payoff is needed. Upon request, Ford Credit will
provide an "actual" payoff. However, for [he purpose of this review, an estimated amount would be $1,385,356.96 -see Exhibit C.
Year 4 1. Contract #1 - 230 vehicles - Exhibit A $1,359,816.23 $3,171,964.32
2. Contract #2 - 50 vehicles -Exhibit I3 $371,841.64
3. Contract #3 - 50 vehicles - Exhibit B $371,841.64
4. 76 Subsidized Units Remaining $593,766.72
5. Maintenance: 330 units x estimated $40 per ttnit/month x 12 $158,400.00 $2,855,666.23
F,st. Total for Year 4: $2,855,666.23 $316,298.09 Estimated Savings for year 4
Year 5 1. Final Payment due on Contract #I - Exhibit A $1,359,816.23 $3,171,964.32 (Subsidized units)
2. Contract #2 - 50 units -Exhibit I3 $371,841.64
3. Contract #3 - 50 units - Exhibit B $371,841.64
4. Replace remaining 76 subsidized units with marked fleet consisting of 66 patrol $567,274.69
cars and ]0 SUVs -Contract #4. Exhibit D
5. Maintenance: 406 units x estimated $40 per unidmonth x 12 $194,880.00 $2,865,654.20
Est. Total for Year 5: $2,865,654.20 $306,310.12 Estimated Savings for year 5
PLEASE NOTE: The above price and payment information are based on estimated amounts for 2004 --and does not account for any price increases on cars and tracks over 5 years
or rate increases/decreases over 5 years. The following estimates are being using in the above example:
• An estimated $34,000 for a fully equipped 2004 Ford police interceptor; an estimated $38,000 for a fully equipped 2004 Ford Expedition; and an estimated $17,500 fora 2004
Ford Taurus Sedan. Payments are based on an estimated 4.05% interest rate for 5 years with annual payments throughout the above example
*Estimated total savings of $1,587,119.40 over 5 years does not account for liability insurance coverage on new units.
Schedule 9AMPL& Lxhibst A
Payment SehedLLle Leaae Number: SAMPLE
Lease Lease
Payzneat Payment Lease Inters et Principal Conelu ing
Number ~ Date Payment Portion Portion Payme t
1 ] / 0 / 2004 1,759,816.13 D~00 [,349,016.73 4,9]0, 0].77
2 ] / 0 / 2005 1,359,E16 .27 199,672.44 1,160,143.79 ],770, 39.98
3 ~ / 0 / 1006 1,359,836.73 152,686.62 1,207,129.61 2,562. 10.77
g 7 / 0 / 2007 1,739,816.1) 103,797.87 1,756,010.36 1,306, 91.01
S 1 / 0 / 2008 1.373.821 14 57,929.13 1,106,892.01 I.00
TOTAL 6,799,0[6.06 509,086.06 6,290,000.00
Schedule 3AMP1,1 )brhiblt B
Payment Schedule Lease Number, SAMPLE
Wass Lease
Payment Payment Leaae Interest Principal Cor.cludln6
Bomber Date Daymeni Portiere Pott ior. Dayme t
3 7 f 0 / 1004 771.E91. 69 0.00 171,B41.Cd 1,748. 48.3E
3 / C / 2005 371,841.6{ 34,600.91 317,241.23 1,030, 17.13
3 3 / C / 2006 371,841.64 13,752.14 3]0.069.50 7CC, 27.6]
q 7 / 0 / 2007 J7:,E41 .64 28,303.33 747,190.12 737, 69.41
4 3 / 0 / 1008 ]71,842.40 14.473.47 357,769.51 1 00
TOTAL 1.[99,209.44 139,109.94 1,710,000.0']
Schedule SAMPLE Bxhiblt C
payment 6chedule Lease Number: SAM P:.E
Lease Lease
Paymen[ Payment Leese Interest Drineipal Cc^clud: ng
NumSEr Dace Payment Pori sor. Portion Pa} .er.c
1 q / 0 / 2009 7)3,035.80 0.00 735,035.80 2.664,964 20
? 4 / C / 2003 735,035.80 107,931.03 627,104.75 2,037,859.43
) 4 / 0 / 1000 733.034-80 82,537.31 fi52.502.49 1.3E ,]56.96
4 9 / 0 / 1007 7)5,035.90 46,106.96 676, 92B.8< 70 ,425.12
5 4 / 0 / 200E 735.0]8.96 18,610.34 706,426.12 1.00
TOTAL 3,674, 301.66 173,181.66 3.400,000.00
6cF.e dole 6AMPLfi Bxhibi n
Dayman! 6chedule Lassa Sumbert SAMPLP
Lease Leaae
Payment Payment Laaaa interest Pz ineipai cnnc uding
Number Date Dayment Portion Dertien Pa nt
L 4 / 0 / 1004 567,774.09 0.00 367,174.69 3, OS ,725.71
2 4 / 0 / 7003 567,279.69 03,397.78 4L 3,977.31 1,37 ,748.00
3 9 / 0 / 1006 567,779.09 67,696.29 503,578.40 3,06 ,369.60
4 4 / 0 / 3007 567,774.69 43,301.37 523,97].32 54 ,196.2!
S 4 / 0 / 7008 367,276.73 77,080.45 346,196.76 1.00
TOTAL 2,E7Q.375.{9 212,379.49 2,624.000.00
12/02/03
HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLEET VS. SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE REPORT II
100% NON TAKE HOME FLEET
The 100% non-take home fleet program involves the purchasing of fleet vehicles for
each sworn officer (406), but does not permit the officers to take the vehicle home. The
officers would need to report to their respective district stations in their own private
vehicles and patrol in their assigned fleet vehicle. Their private vehicle would be parked at
their respective stations. An ample amount of parking stalls would be needed to
accommodate the fleet and private vehicles.
Table 7 compares monthly and yearly costs for a subsidized and anon-take home
fleet. This table does not include the cost of parking stalls $2500.00 per stall). The number
of stalls would depend on the fleet option selected. The County Planning Department
reports that they generally allow for one quarter of an acre to accommodate 30-40 parking
stalls depending on the design.
Table 7 (100% Non Take Home Fleer)
Unit Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy Fleet Yearly Fleet Fleet
Monthly Monthly Yearly Cost Cost Monthly Monthly
(per unit)
Primary 309 $488.00 $150,792.00 $1,809,504.00 $4,017,000.00 $334,750.00
Support 97 $488.00 $ 47,336.00 $ 568,032.00 $1,261,000.00 $105,083.33
Back up 81 $1,053,000.00 $ 87,750.00
Sub Total $488.00 $198,128.00 $2,377,536.00 $6,331,000.00 $527,583.33 $1083.33
Damage 487 $110.00 $ 642,840.00 $ 53,570.00 $ 110.00
Insurance (Inclusive)
Liability 487 *$66,202.36 $794,428.32 $ 952,922.64 $ 79,410.19 $163.06
Total $488.00 $264,330.36 $3,171,96432 $7,926,762.64 $660,563.33 $1356.39
• figure represent 406 subsidized units only at $163.06 per unit which the County absorbs.
100% TAKE HOME FLEET PROGRAM WITH COSTS
To implement a take home fleet program, additional costs must be considered. In the
present subsidized program, officers are responsible for maintenance, cleaning, damage
insurance, and private storage. These costs are accounted for in the officers subsidized
auto allowance. With a take home fleet, the officers would be entitled to compensation for
their time and expenses to clean and store the County owned vehicle. The County would
need to absorb all of these associated costs.
Selecting any form of a fleet program would also entail the purchase of "back-up"
vehicles. These vehicles would be utilized by the officers when their fleet vehicle is
damaged or in repair. The ideal ratio is one "back up" vehicle for every three fleet vehicles.
For the purpose of this study, we used a less costly ration of one to five, or 20% of the total
fleet.
Pagc I ol~ I
Subj: Re: ALOHA
Date: 1/29/04 10:16:10 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
From: CSIPRATT
To: John.Maier@fresnosheriff.org
CC: skyline@kona.net, vernu@kona.net, konacoles@konacoast.com, Hashboy46,
eakanajr@hawaii.rr,com, islandboyz@pobox.com, kokoolua@hawaii.rr.com,
KalunaJ001@yahoo.com, JeanT@hawaii.rr.com, cdkoppdds@hawaii.rr.com,
wvagm@hawaii.rr.com, blyons@ford.com
Thursday, January 29,2004
Dear John:
Following are the questions we have and thank you for your help. It is
very much appreciated.
1. Name of agency
2. Number of sworn personnel
3. Number of marked police cars Unmarked cars (if any)
4. Type of car used for patrol and 4 wheel drive (SUV's)
5. Price of standard car with police package
6. If extended warranty purchased and cost
7. Cost and type of extra equipment
8. How purchased i.e.: over 3 year period or 5 year period
9. Are these "take home" vehicles
10. If so does officer receive allowance for overnight "Storage"?
11. Is maintenance done "In House"?
12. H not what is the annual cost or budget for privatized maintenance?
13. What is the average yearly mileage for vehicles?
14. When the vehicle is "retired" from use how are they sold?
15. What is the average price realized for the vehicle?
16. On a rotation basis how many vehicles are purchased yearly?
17. Please provide any other details that pertain to the use of a marked fleet
I.e.: Cleaning.
18. What percentage of cars are purchased (if any) for back-up purposes
19. How many staff are required to monitor the fleet.
What are their positions and salaries?
20. Public reaction to the "Take Home' policy
The atwve information would allow us to compile our own report. Can we quote
the information was provided by your department.
Please let me know if there are any questions. If you provide me with a fax
number I will send you copy of the H.C.P.D. report.
Sincerely and with aloha,
Alan
Alan J. Pratt., Ph.D
President-West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc.
Past President 1997-2001. Crime Stoppers International, Inc.
Friday, January 30, 2004 America Online: CSIPRATT
\Ilcn, herr are the ans~ccrs to yuur yucsuuns;
Subj: Allen, here are the answers to your questions;
Date: 2/4104 2:00:12 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
From: John.Maier@fresnosheriff.org
To: CSIPRATT@aol.com
«Allen.doc Aloha.doc» Hi Allen, I hope this information helps you or gets you started. Please feel free to call
me or a-mail me with any additional questions that you may develope based on what data I have given you thus
far. If you would like I can fax you our departments proposal that the Sheriff took to the Board of Supervisors for
our program, it is approx. 12 pages. This document my fill in may other questions your group may have. My fax #
is alc 559-488-3699. I left you a phone message, and would like you to page me and I will call you back. There
are a few topics that are easier to tell you than type, this information is supplemental to several of your questions.
Talk to you soon.
Friday, February 06, 2004 America Online: CSIPRATT
Allen, here are [he answers [o your questions;
1. Fresno County Sheriffs Department
2. 467 Sworn personnel
3. 293 Marked Patrol Vehicles and 202 unmarked vehicles.
4. Ford Crown Victoria and Ford Expedition
5. Patrol Car Price - $36,694.60, Patrol Expedition Price - $46,748.57.
6. None Purchased
7. $12,020.1 I, Light bar, push bumper, strobe kit, Floor console, computer docking station with stand &
computer antenna, Kenwood dual band radio & antenna, directional light stick, dual gun racks, cage.
8. Lease Purchase over 3 years.
9. Yes these are take home vehicles.
10. No allowance for overnight storage.
11. Yes, some maintenance is done in house and the majority is done through private vendors.
12. Maintenance budget is $862,000.
13. Average yearly mileage is approx. 24,000.
14. When the vehicle is retired, the vehicle is bought back by Philpott Ford and the money is put back into
our department Fleet budget.
I5. $5,000.
16. Approx. 25 - 35.
I7. All vehicles are take home vehicles. The officers are not required to garage the vehicle. It is the
request of the Sheriff and the County Board of Supervisors that the Marked Patrol vehicles be parked at
the curb in front of the officer's house or in the driveway for visibility. We have 9 full service caz
washes on contract through out the county that the officers are free to use as needed to keep their
assigned vehicles clean. The contract price runs from $4.50 to $6.50 per wash. We have two
contracted tow companies for 24 hr [owing through out the county and outside the county. We have a
variety of vendors on contract for all related supplies and services. At the point our departrnent started
managing our own Fleet, we also took control over a two bay service center in the basement of our
Administration building and the two journeyman mechanics. They service all of the Headquarters
based vehicles and others the Fleet staff designate. Our county fleet facility now works for us as a
vendor. We have all of our undercover vehicles (73) and heavy equipment serviced there.
18. We have four patrol substations. Each substation has 4 marked vehicles assigned to it as spare vehicles
for officers to use if needed. There are six spare administrative vehicles.
19. We have five people in our Flee[ Unit. Their salaries and positions are, One Sheriffs Sergeant at
$ 110.128, One civilian vehicle coordinator at $31,000, one partime retiree at $26,800 (960 hrs a year),
one supervising account clerk at $52,855. one account clerk at $40.643.
20. The public reaction to our take home program has been outstanding. The Sheriff; Board of Supervisors
and our Watch Commanders has received numerous calls from citizens thanking us for having take
home marked patrol vehicles. All have commented on how much safer they feel with a marked unit
parked in (heir neighborhood. Some elderly citizens have commented that they now will take walks in
the evening hours after dark when the officer is at home. They feel much safer with the marked unit in
their respective neighborhoods.
Subj: RE: COMMENTS
Date: 3/4/04 8:44:05 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
From: john,maier@sbcglobal.net
To: C$IPRATT@aol.com
Hi Alan, I have been busy with budget preparation, pre-packing to move sometime in May (my wife and I are
having a new home built) and taking care of our two grandchildren approx. 80% of the time. No excuse for time
management thou.......
First I am still waiting for your quote; I sent Emmette an a-mail asking when I can expect it. As soon as I do 1 will
get it to you.
Secondly, I would prefer to talk to you via phone about that report. It is so fictitious and unbelievable, that what
governing body would even think that there is any merit to their alleged findings. I my circle of administrators we
would call that report good HAPPY HOUR material. I would like to see someone buy a new Tahoe for $30,665,
the base government Tahoe is $37,325. Then put $14k in equipment, our vehicles are highly equipped and it cost
$6700 per vehicle for equip. I can go on and on, even in the maintenance area. Anyway, if you looked at our
RFP I faxed you that was given to our board of sups, you can see that we are talking a different language and
looking out for public funds and the safety of our employees. We have 523 pieces of rolling stock. 323 marked
units and 189 unmarked units and the rest are various types, trans vans, MCI buses, dirt bikes, snowmobiles,
snow-cat, ATVs, trailers, etc. Our annual budget is 3.8 mil...and out of that we still pay fuel..... (Who was their
financial wizard, those were some interesting figures)
will talk to you soon......jm
From: Maier, John W. [mailto:John.Maier@fresnosheriff.orgj
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:16 AM
To: john.maier@stx:global.net
Subject: FW: COMMENTS
-----Original Message-----
From: CSIPRATT@aol.com [mailto:CSIPRATT@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March Ol, 2004 12:34 PM
To: Maier, John W.
Subject: COMMENTS
Monday, March 1, 2004
Aloha John
How are things going? Have not heard from you for some time.
What are your comments on the HCPD report? When do you
expect the quotation?
Look forward to hearing.
Regards,
Alan
Friday, March 12, 2004 America Online: CSIPRATT
Subj: RE: Marked cars
Date: 3112/04 7:32:26 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
From: john.maier@sbgglobal.net
To: CSIPRATT@agl.com
Most agencies install the following police accessories in a Taurus for an unmarked assignment;
1 Dept radio
2 Comer strobes (wig-wags)
3 Deck lights (red and blue in the rear package trey and constant red forward up by the rear view mirror)
4 Screen/partition
5 AVL (Automated Vehicle Locator System) For safety of the officer, in an investigative assignment when the
agency does not always know where they are at. If the officer gets into trouble and does not know where he is,
this system works through the radio. It is not a major cost. The most efficient and least expensive is run through a
Kenwood radio. Our agency has built our main frame computer to accept an AVL system that works through the
MDT's (computers) in the vehicle.
I will call and get you a quote on a Taurus with above items 1 thru 4.
From: CSIPRATT@aol.com [mailto:CSIPRATT@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:48 PM
To: john.maier@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Marked cars
JOHN
I would be inclined to forget the computer in the quote.
Also we need a quote for the unmarked cars Ford Taurus.
Are these fitted with the police package but unmarked?
Keep in touch. I think the letter to the West Hawaii
Today will be published one day next week. The editor
is on vacation until Monday.
Have a great weekend.
Alan
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 America Online: CSIPRATT
I'ugr l oC 1
Subj: Re: THE PRICE OF VISIBILITY-PART 3.
Date: 4/11/04 9:10:07 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
From: konacoles@konacoast.com
To: CSIPRATTat7aol,com
IN my opinion the report is well written, and gets the point over fairly well. It is easy to read, and if not approved
will be the basis for a lot of questions from the general public.
On page 5 at the bottom under Subsidized Vehicles is the much touted statement about the blue light being
sufficient to identify a vehicle as a Police car. Almost all of the western states use a combination of Red and Blue
lights, the reason for this is of all things VISIBILITY. The red light has a much higher recognition potential during
daylight hours. Blue lights fade into the background. All one has to do is watch the local fire brigade approaching
Code 3, and then a police unit of any color approaching and they can readily see the difference. Blue lights come
into their own in bad weather and hours of darkness, but the police here operate 24 hours a day.. That is the
reason for both colors. The PD escorts huge vehicles using their little blue lights in broad daylight. 1 seldom
even see the blue light before I see the vehicle being escorted. Operating police cars should all be equipped with
a light bar of red, and blue lights to the front with the red light on the LEFT side so that the approaching traffic can
see it. Lights in the rear should be yellow and blue. The Sheriffs cars are properly equipped from a Visibility
standpoint.
hate to say this, but with the increase in traffic in this area and the change of driver's attitudes it is going to be
just a short while until someone runs into one of these vehicles sitting on the side of the road, or in code 3
operation. In my 28 years in pafrol cars alone, I have investigated dozens of police car accidents, and I can't see
how they have avoided a facility so far.. Ron
- Original Message -
From: CSIPRATT@aol.com
To: cdkoppdds@hawaii.rr.com
Cc: vemu@kona.net ;konacoles@konacoast.com ; Hashboy46@aol.com ; eakanajr@hawaii.rr.com ;
islandboyz@pobox.com ; kokoolua@hawaii.n-.com ; KalunaJ001 @yahoo.com ; JeanT@hawaii.rr.com ;
wvagm@hawaii.rr.com
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: THE PRICE OF VISIBILITY-PART 3.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
CLIFF
1. The report is ready to go to the printers. k will total 43 pages
with the Fresno Report and the other appendix.
2. We do not want to take to the printer without some feedback from
the members of the "Visibility" committee at least. We
will wait for Ron-BiIlJack-to comment, and welcome comments
from all. This report is going out (as all do) as a West Hawaii Crime
Stoppers and we need all to read same.
3. Am very proud of this report. tt is factual, figures are 100 percent
HCPD figures were used to refute, it is not in any way a weak report.
Thank you for your outstanding help and the many contributions
made to the final issue.
Regards,
Alan
Tuesday, April 13, 2004 America Online: CSIPRATT
WEST HAWAiI CRIME STOPPERS, INC.
CURRENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NAME POSITION OCCUPATION TELEPHONE
Officers and Directors
Alan J. Pratt., Ph.D President Management Consultant 322-9969
Clifford Kopp, DDS Vice-President Prosthodontist 331-8191
Ms. Asako Pratt Secretary/Treasurer Consultant 322-9969
Directors
Eddie Akana Department of Public Safety 936-4711
Jack Brunton Former Police Chief 331-1138
Ronald Cole Retired Police Officer 327-9304
William Hash Retired Police Officer 322-6849
John Kaluna Department of Public Safety 557-9209
Harvey Martin Hawaii State Employee (Supervisory) 328-2700
John Schick G.M.. Waikoloa Village Association 883-9422
Gerald Thompson Retired Police Officer 328-9154
Vern Ungerecht President of own company 326-2263
Ms. Kathleen Vilander Retired Police Officer 329-5839
Members of the Visibility Study Committee - Dr. Kopp is the Chairman.
16
INFORMATION RE: WEST HAWAII CRIME STOPPERS
? West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc was formed in January 1981, and is a
registered not for profit corporation in Hawaii with IRS 501 (3) c status.
All connected with the organization are volunteers.
? The mission of the organization is to work with the media and law
enforcement to assist in the apprehension of criminals through the
provision of a tips line for anonymous calls to be received. On receipt of
a call the caller is given a code number, and is not required to provide a
name. If as a result of the information received an arrest is made the
informant can receive a reward of up to $1,000.00.
? Tips to West Hawaii Crime Stoppers have solved three homicides.
? The Board holds a luncheon meeting on the third Friday of each month
throughout the year.
? The fonner police officers on the Board have close to 150 years of
service in various law enforcement agencies on the mainland, between
them.
? Members of the Board have attended 24 Crime Stoppers International
Conferences in different States and Countries.
? The 1994 C.S.I. annual training conference was held in Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii, and was hosted by WHCS. Over 600 delegates and families
visited Hawaii for the weeklong conference. The conference generated
an estimated $4.5 million into the local economy.
? Dr. Pratt was President of Crime Stoppers International, Inc, from
September 1997, to September 2001. During that time he and his wife
Asako traveled an average of 60,000 miles annually to states and
countries, including an invitation from the South Korean government for
a ten day visit to set up Crime Stoppers in that country.
? West Hawaii Crime Stoppers does not request nor receive Federal, State
or County funds and must fund raise to pay rewards.
? The West Hawaii Crime Stoppers Web site, www.whcrimestoppers.com
is available in eight languages, and is the only program in C.S.I. with this
feature.
17
MAHALO
West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. would like to say thank you to the
following who have supported us one hundred per cent since w~ completed
our first "The Price of Visibility" report in March, 2003, dovering the
possibility of the introduction of a fleet of marked police vehicles.
Barbara Lyons: Municipal Finance Department. Ford Motor Credit Corp
Sheriff Richard Pierce: Fresno County Sheriffs Department
Sergeant John Maier: Fresno County Sheriffs Department*
Philpott Ford- Texas*
Bobby Leithead-Todd: Former Councilwoman, Hawaii County Council
Councilman Joseph Reynolds: Member of the Hawaii County Council
Councilman Aaron Chung: Chair, Finance Committee. Hawaii County Council
Reed Flickinger: Editor, West Hawaii Today
Lane Wick: Publisher, Hawaii Island Journal
Richard Paul: Chief of Police, Gillette, Wyoming
David Shock: Lieutenant, South Bend, Indiana Police Department
Sharon Spilman: Puamana Web Services and all those Hawaii County residents
who placed messages of support on the WHCS Web Board.
* Responsible for supplying figures and quotations, which allowed for the
timely completion of our report.
If we have forgotten anyone please accept our thanks and gratitude.
Alan J. Pratt, Ph.D. Clifford D. Kopp. D.D.S.
President. WHCS Chair- Visibility Committee, WHCS
18