Fort Lauderdale’s “Fleet Services”. A profile of waste and mismanagement?
Fort Lauderdale’s “Fleet Services”. A profile of waste and mismanagement?
Several months ago, I asked for information from Fort Lauderdale’s Fleet Services Department. I wanted to know how much the City spends each year on vehicles, gas and maintenance.
There’s been a lot of grumbling from residents over the last several years about the costs in this area. For example, fire trucks normally have a useful life of 8-12 years in the Northeast US (where there is salt on the road and extreme cold temperatures). In South Florida, they should last longer; perhaps 10 to 14 years. But in Fort Lauderdale, fire trucks are regularly replaced every 4-6 years. Why? No one can answer that question.
Another example is how the City handles police cars. Every police officer gets his own car to take home. Why do we do this? Other cities don’t provide this perk. And when 85% of Fort Lauderdale’s 500 police officers don’t even live in Fort Lauderdale, it means that other cities are benefitting from the presence of an asset after hours, an asset that we are paying for. We get no benefit from that police car when it leaves the city at the end of the officer’s shift.
Wy aren't these cars out on the street?
Another example: the hundreds of various City Department vehicles. Each Department wants to have their own vehicles at their own disposal. You’ve seen them throughout the City. They have the Department name emblazoned on each vehicle, for example, “Code Enforcement”, “Public Works”, “Parking Control”, etc. Just like a family’s teen-age child wanting his or her own car, so too does every Department want their own little fleet of vehicles. Now, of course, there are specialized vehicles required for specific functions (trucks with “high hats” for example) that make those vehicles unique for a specific Department. But why do we need to hand out so many cars and SUVs to each Department? Why not have a pool of vehicles that each Department could draw from?
Building Department?
Vehicles for certain areas of the City?
Why a car for "special projects"?
Community Inspector?
Several months ago, I contacted the Head of Fleet Services, Ken Kalen. I asked him to provide me a report of fleet costs (vehicle purchases, gas and vehicle maintenance costs). I asked to have these costs broken down by Department and by year (a five-year period) so that I could see possible trends. It was as if I was asking for the impossible! Unbelievably, no-one had ever asked for that information before. His department had to collect the data manually from several data sources. After more than three weeks (and over $100 in costs that I had to pay for), I was given a CD. The data on that CD was basically useless. It showed no trends; Departments that spent tens of thousands of dollars on vehicles in one year spent millions of dollars the following year. There appeared to be no regularity or planning involved in assessing any specific Department’s annual vehicle needs.
Last month, our City Auditor did an audit of Fleet Services. The results of that audit show a Department that many would consider being “out of control”. Some of what the audit uncovered was the following:
· The audit found that existing vehicles in the fleet might exceed Departmental needs.
· Adequate safety and security controls are not in place to safeguard the City’s fuel supply.
· The City lacks authoritative policies to control vehicle abuse and misuse.
· The Finance Department is not conducting an annual reconciliation of fleet inventory.
· There are no policies set up to determine when vehicles need to be replaced.
· Vehicles were found where the vehicle “VIN number” did not match the license plate number.
· Fleet Services provides vehicle maintenance “in-house” by City employees. There has never been a study to determine if it would be less expensive to turn maintenance requirements over to an outside third party.
· There are no procedures in place to control who is authorized to sign for new vehicles. The Auditing Department found that the receipt of 70 new Police cars recently purchased was signed for by an unauthorized person!
· Fleet Services does not adequately track which vehicles need to be replaced.
· No studies have been done (benchmarks) to see how our City’s fleet costs compare to other city’s fleet costs.
· The City is not reviewing and verifying that Fleet Services employees are meeting City of Fort Lauderdale pre-employment standards.
This is just part of the disturbing set of findings that were done by our Auditing Department. To see the entire report, go to: http://fortlauderdale.gov/auditor/reports/2009-10/0910-03.pdf
It appears that this is one more example of our City Manager not doing his job. Most of these issues are basic; are fundamental to any department operating in an efficient manner. What are our Mayor and Commission doing to correct this problem? Nothing yet.
Remember, our Mayor and Commission cannot directly make any improvements to this Department; they can only ask the City Manager to do it. And since our City Manager is looking for a new job (his contract expires next month), don’t expect any improvements in this Department anytime soon. Is this another example of mismanagement and of taxpayer money being wasted? You decide.
If you are as upset as many people are, call or send an email to your Mayor and Commissioner. Let them know how you feel! Here is their phone number:
954-828-5003.
Here are their email addresses:
Mayor Jack Seiler: jack.seiler@fortlauderdale.gov
District I Commisioner Bruce G. Roberts: broberts@fortlauderdale.gov
District II Commisioner Charlotte E. Rodstrom: crodstrom@fortlauderdale.gov
District III Commisioner Bobby B. DuBose: bdubose@fortlauderdale.gov
District IV Commisioner Romney Rogers: rrogers@fortlauderdale.gov
If enough of us complain, they just might do something about it!
Earl Rynerson
Reader Comments
I think all vehicles should be hybrid and or electric.
Kaizer- I agree wholeheartedly.
Earl
Is no one tracking fuel milage rates of the vehicles? Its not uncommon to find employees siphoning fuel from their employer’s vehicles…
I’ve seen these vehicles around and I always wondered how much it would costs to keep late model vehicle in rotation for city use. Another thing that raises a lot of questions is how necessary are these vehicles in the performing of everyday duties. I feel that if it is not a vehicle that provides more than just transportation it is a waste of funds.
It makes Me so Angry to read this we have been paying Big Salary’s and have Several layers of Manangerment for years that should be doing a better Job.
The fuel bill to drive ALL these vehicles home EVERY might must be HUGE. PARK EM ! Drive your own car and use your own fuel to get back and forth to work. Did I forget to mention free vehicle maintenance?
For years now vehicles have been equipped with anti-syphon values. If you don’t believe me, get a clear hose and try and suck gas out of your vehicle.
That aside, the officer who works in our City and lives in West Palm Beach or some other far or not so far-flung places is putting an extra 50-100 miles a of wear and tear on “our” vehicles every day not to mention the cost of the gasoline to commute that distance. Having a car to take home should be restricted to those officers who live in the City. Then it becomes an incentive to be here. An officer told me once that he doesn’t want to live in the same City where he works. Fine, but don’t expect us taxpayers to foot the bill for his/her transportation to and from work.
There is probably an opportunity for more car sharing than is currently being practice. I, for one, happen to like that my neighborhood code enforcement officer drives a clearly recognizable vehicle. I don’t know if he uses it exclusively or takes it from a fleet of available vehicles. I hope the latter since I’m sure he spends some time in the office. Hopefully, all such vehicles will be all electric some day.
Ah, one of my favorite subjects, public vehicles paid for by our taxes. I’ve been looking at this problem for years. These cars should be used like I have to use mine. I take it to work, park it and start my job, then I take it home. On the way I might do grocery shopping. I pay for the gas (no matter how expensive it is). I pay for the insurance (no matter how high my premiums become). I pay for the maintenance like the 4 new tires I just bought. I also pay for auto tag renewal every year too. I wash it myself also. Tally the cost of all that and then sit down before you pass out.
Unless there is more of a general out cry from all concerned tax payers than the missuse will continue costing us even more.Flyers and pitetions need to be sent out or distributed and raised concernes addressed to all our comissioners at public meetings.The cost the misuse needs to reighned in and monitored by an independent non bias department.
All of these politicians, civil servants and government workers would never make it in civilian life. They should thank God they got this scam of civil service and unions to protect them because they are unemployable on the outside. Why do we pay top dollar for these city managers who are incompetent? Would someone please hire a recent local college graduate at a sensible salary for the job? Our current mayor and commissioners are the worst yet! If they had any pride they would resign.
Well sorry to here that the city mismanages it’s fleet however I would like to comment that while many police agencies in other parts of the country don’t issue take home cruisers..most shared police cruisers become broken down rolling toilets after 2 years of 24/7 use..the city then has to replace them every two years Is that really any more cost effective? and as someone that seeks to bring my 7 plus years of dedicated police experience to your city..the take home car program is a huge attraction..When the economy was good no one cared that the municipal employee’s were behind in pay etc..now that the role’s are reversed it’s the “I don’t get that why should they”…Some of us are very dedicated and work our asses off to serve the public..and I’m also a taxpayer too
Sorry, John- I don’t agree with you that shared cruisers become broken down rolling toilets after two years. A professional police force will not trash cars if the department monitors the use of the cars (an asset paid for by the taxpayer). It’s not based on shared cruisers, it’s based on messy cops. I was in a ride-along program here last year with a police officer (using his own police car), and the car was filthy, with water/juice bottles, trash, everywhere. Instill a sense of responsibility and the cars, while getting more miles, will become an asset that uses taxpayer dollars more effectively. Earl
As a police officer with a take home vehicle, I first off want to sat THANK YOU to the taxpayers for allowing me this PRIVLEDGE…key word there..I did not say a right, but a PRIVLEDGE!
Mr Rynerson, I could show you tons of studies from my dept alone that shows the cost effectivness of a take home vehicle program vs a shared vehicle program.
That being said, police officers who are in a vehicle are immediately available for service while enroute to work and many of them do such that, ie: crashes, robberies etc.
Ill agree that it might not be the best and prudent thing to do to allow out of city/county take homes but alot of agencies now charge for these vehicles that are taken out of city/county. Im sorry public, but we as police officers do not have the same job as you….we are here to protect you, serve you…our car is an extension of our office, for some of us, a mobile office with computers, printers and weapons…all to serve you! Yes it is a job perk and we all appreciate it. Alot of these take home vehicle programs are a result of contract negotiations and in this age of payroll freezes, rollbacks and pension restructuring, it is a benefit that we still enjoy. Lets place blame and focus on where it should…not the beat cops, not the fireman in the house waiting for the run…but the politicians, bean counters and abusers of the system!
I don’t think police officers work their asses off to serve the public….I’ve seen you in action. Not impressed. As for the take home auto program, of course it’s a huge attraction. I thought having a good paying job was a huge attraction with health insurance, paid for vacations. That’s enough. I too have wondered what it is that paid officials do when Earl has the time to obtain information and bring it to our attention for free!! Armoring ourselves with proper information will give us what we need to fight the city and all it’s wastefulness of our tax dollars.
Just back charge the police officer the mileage that they put on the car while out of the City. Easy solution. As far as the fleet blame Gretsas. He is the lying dog who should know how to properly set up, manage, and track the data on the fleet. I am sure there are dedicated employees and managers of the fleet with great cost saving ideas. Unfortunately they must submit and answer to the elected “wimps”, with a four year shelf life, or a scumbag lawyer who fears a law suit and have actually argue what is just and true.
First off, lets start with the fact that we can’t compare Fort Lauderdale to the rest of the nation yet again. Fort Lauderdale is very unique and also twice as populated as most areas that you keep comparing it to. Also as far as fire and police go, these units take a major beating with the call volume that this city has. Lets be realistic and compare our city to West Palm Beach…. We run way more fire and police calls than they do and they have the same policies. Public works vehicles can be extended because, no ones life depends on them. Fire and police vehicle cannot. Trust me, these city fire trucks that were recently retired were 10 YEARS OLD first of all… So get those statistics right and secondly, they were beat up from the constant high call volume!!! The same goes for the police cruisers.Clay: Since you apparently work as a fire medic (in the public sector??) I’ll have to take most of what you say with a grain of salt. Sure, you want to protect your job, so you make statements but don’t provide any facts. I’m posting your comment here, (as inaccurate as it is), in the hope that in the future you’ll make statements that are more correct in substance. Earl