Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Council Slow Moving on Take Home Vehicle Policy
The City’s Act 47 plan described the existence of non-essential take-home vehicles thusly: “a symbolically negative image to the City workforce and the public counter to the dire nature of the City’s finances and the need for permanent reform”. That’s why the coordinator instructed the City to right-size the fleet and re-examine the policy on take-home vehicles for non-elected officials. There were 83 such vehicles in September of 2003. That number was to be reduced in two steps.
First, 31 vehicles would be eliminated by removing the 24-hour privileges for employees not designated as performing public health or safety functions. Second, a closer look would be taken at the remaining 52 vehicles since it was found that 41 of those traveled less than 8,000 miles per year. Unless their use could be justified, they would be reduced by another 23 vehicles, thus reducing the level of take-home vehicles to 29, a reduction of 54 vehicles or 65 percent.
But instead of 29 vehicles, the number remains close to 58 vehicles according to newspaper reports. That’s higher than the level the first cut was supposed to achieve, and Council is taking up the matter. If a proposed ordinance passes the Mayor and 7 department heads will continue to have 24-hour unrestricted use. Employees driving over 1,200 miles per month aren’t entitled to one, but can be assigned one subject to availability. The legislation spells out further regulations and restrictions, including those on personal vehicles used for City business.
This episode again raises the issue of determining who is in control—the Act 47 coordinator, who wanted the City to “immediately amend” the take-home vehicle policy (that would have been in 2004), or the City, who seems to be getting around to it four years after the directive. It also raises the questions on the City’s contract with Flexcar’s car sharing program, which included a payment of $10,000 “for use by designated users of the City of Pittsburgh” and was touted by the Act 47 team when they stated “automated vehicle sharing can help reduce fleet size, reduce costs, and improve utilization”. Where is the punishment from the foot-dragging and where is the evidence that the City’s support of car-sharing is paying dividends?
First, 31 vehicles would be eliminated by removing the 24-hour privileges for employees not designated as performing public health or safety functions. Second, a closer look would be taken at the remaining 52 vehicles since it was found that 41 of those traveled less than 8,000 miles per year. Unless their use could be justified, they would be reduced by another 23 vehicles, thus reducing the level of take-home vehicles to 29, a reduction of 54 vehicles or 65 percent.
But instead of 29 vehicles, the number remains close to 58 vehicles according to newspaper reports. That’s higher than the level the first cut was supposed to achieve, and Council is taking up the matter. If a proposed ordinance passes the Mayor and 7 department heads will continue to have 24-hour unrestricted use. Employees driving over 1,200 miles per month aren’t entitled to one, but can be assigned one subject to availability. The legislation spells out further regulations and restrictions, including those on personal vehicles used for City business.
This episode again raises the issue of determining who is in control—the Act 47 coordinator, who wanted the City to “immediately amend” the take-home vehicle policy (that would have been in 2004), or the City, who seems to be getting around to it four years after the directive. It also raises the questions on the City’s contract with Flexcar’s car sharing program, which included a payment of $10,000 “for use by designated users of the City of Pittsburgh” and was touted by the Act 47 team when they stated “automated vehicle sharing can help reduce fleet size, reduce costs, and improve utilization”. Where is the punishment from the foot-dragging and where is the evidence that the City’s support of car-sharing is paying dividends?
