Loading...
Council Provided Information - 5/3/2022CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:May 3, 2022 RE: Ordinance Amendment: Use of City Owned Vehicles by Employees NEW INFORMATION At the April 19 briefing, Council Members discussed several policy issues and goals related to the proposed ordinance amendment. The Council also requested additional information from the Administration and responses to the four policy questions which are copied below. The Police Department shared an infographic (Attachment 1) about the proposed take home vehicle changes. It lists six intended benefits, the primary changes between current and proposed policy and additional considerations. The Administration also provided Attachment 2 with a comparison of fuel and maintenance costs for an employee using a city owned vehicle vs. a personal vehicle. An officer living at the expanded maximum distance of 60 miles from city limits would pay the City $180 bi-weekly, which is less than the $279.73 estimated biweekly fuel and maintenance cost for using a personal vehicle over the same distance. (The comparison is not exact, for example, one caveat is that the analysis assumes eight-hour shifts five days a week, however, many police officers work 10-hour shifts four days a week. Another example is that while employees do need a secondary insurance coverage on City-owned vehicles, they would also have a level of insurance on personal vehicles. Thirdly, the vehicle replacement cost for City-owned vehicles is covered by the City but an employee would pay the full cost of a personal vehicle.) Attachment 2 also includes three real world examples of police officers in different positions and how the ordinance amendment could positively impact the department’s operational readiness and some response times. Responses to Policy Questions 1.Balancing Hiring & Operational Readiness Goals with Budget Constraints – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration to what extent the proposed ordinance achieves the City’s competing goals of reaching full staffing of police officers with whether it becomes prohibitive due to the cost of increased funding for maintenance and replacements to ensure vehicles are safe and available when employees need them. Administration’s response: “With additional time, the Department could provide the Council and Administration with the current number of officers who are unable to take their assigned city-vehicle home because they live outside the current 35 mile limit. The Department is aware take home vehicles is a significant recruitment and retention issue for future and current employees. First time officers were now living further away from Salt Lake County – primarily due to the higher cost of living currently within the city, county and the area encompassing the 35 miles radius around the city. Today, officers are trying to find housing further away that is more affordable and conducive to their growing families. If officers are not allowed to take home a vehicle, this will remain a deterrent for them, and they will likely seek out employment at another agency. Expanding the take-home car policy to 60 miles allows Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: April 19, 2022 2nd Briefing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 3 or 17, 2022 Page | 2 the department to serve its current members while also recruiting additional members to join the SLCPD who wish to be a part of the best law enforcement agency in Utah.” Staff note: see pages two and three of Attachment 2 for three real world examples shared by the Police Department. 2.Increase Vehicle Funding in FY2023 Annual Budget – The Council may wish to request that increased funding be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023 to account for shortened vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules that may occur under the proposed ordinance amendments. Administration’s response: “The current projections for vehicle replacement account for all miles driven, regardless of the purpose (on the clock vs commuting). If increased funding is made available to Fleet, the increased maintenance on take home vehicles would be covered, freeing up proportionally the replacement fund.” 3.Who should Evaluate Personal Use Fee and How Often – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to keep the current ordinance language assigning annual fee evaluation responsibilities with the Council or if that would better fit with another part of the City such as the Fleet Division and/or the Finance Department? Historically, the Council has not consistently re-evaluated the fee annually. The evaluation could be part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget like other city fees many of which are adjusted annually by the CPI. Administration’s response: “Fleet would be able to provide projected costs per mile driven on City vehicles as part of their annual budget preparation. We are proposing that a reasonable cost split (between employee and the City) is stablished to then calculate the dollar amount for this fee and present it for approval.” 4.Coordinating Citywide Fleet Policy and Departmental Policy – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the pending citywide policy for personal use of city owned vehicles will be coordinated with each department creating a personal use policy. The ordinance amendments would require employees to follow both sets of policies. Administration’s response: “The City-wide policy will include definitions for personal use and incidental use, providing guidelines for best practices. Each Department with a take-home vehicle program, will define is policy surrounding off-duty personal use of such vehicle.” 5.Policy Comparison – Is there an updated comparison of how other municipalities and law enforcement agencies do take home vehicle policies? We understand an “apples-to-apples” comparison may be difficult because of the many nuances between the compensation packages, policies and rules. Administration’s response: “We haven’t received responses from other agencies consulted.”  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration recommended an ordinance amendment that makes several changes to how employees may take-home and use city owned vehicles. The ordinance mostly impacts public safety employees. While the take- home vehicles are not part of the City’s compensation package, the changes could put the City in a more competitive position for the recruitment of police officers, since take-home vehicles are a standard feature for many other police departments. Greater use of city owned vehicles is likely to occur based on the changes. This would result in a greater General Fund subsidy including some departments paying more in fuel and the Fleet Division incurring maintenance costs and vehicle replacement costs sooner than would otherwise be the case. The amendment also makes housekeeping changes to bring City Code in line with State law and some general language clean up. Expand Distance Limit from 35 Miles to 60 Miles; Increasing Costs to Fleet and Departments The ordinance amendment increases the maximum distance from 35 miles to 60 miles from city limits. An employee living more than 60 miles away could be allowed to use a city vehicle if the relevant department director and mayor both waive the distance limit. The longer distance limit is believed to be inclusive of all current City police officer’s primary residences. Page | 3 Departments pay the Fleet Division for fuel and the increased distance limit may result in a greater amount of total miles travels and therefore higher fuel billings for some departments to pay. The greater amount of mileage on city owned vehicles means faster wear and tear which would require the Fleet Division to provide maintenance at a faster pace. Vehicle replacements would also need to be done faster. Increased funding to the Fleet Division may be needed to account for these shortened maintenance and replacement schedules. Specific estimates on increase milage, maintenance, and replacement funding needs based on the ordinance changes could be requested from the Administration. Revise Personal Use of City Vehicles as determined by each Department The ordinance amendments restrict personal use from within Salt Lake County and an employee’s home county (current ordinance) to be limited within the employee’s standard commute. The shortest route from an employee’s home to their primary place of employment determines their standard commute. Each department would be tasked with setting allowable personal use distances beyond an employee’s residence and the standard commute. There are also allowances for personal use by public safety employees subject to callback duty which could improve operational readiness and response times. Another change allows employees to take-home a city vehicle when emergencies or inclement weather cause dangerous circumstances. Employees are required to obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal vehicle use. Payments to City for Personal Use Not Updated in over a Decade Per the current ordinance, an employee that lives outside of city limits makes biweekly payments for personal use of the city owned vehicle. The cost as set in ordinance is $3 per mile. No payment is required for employees that live within the City. A $6 per mile fee is required for use of a city owned vehicle to and from secondary employment. Neither the $3 per mile fee for personal use nor the $6 per mile fee for secondary employee use have been updated in over a decade. The two fees are not subject to the annual consumer price index (CPI) inflation adjustment so the City subsidy has been increasing as purchasing power declines. In 2019, the Fleet Advisory Committee estimated the following two subsidy scenarios: a. If only counting fuel and maintenance costs, then the cost is currently split 50% City / 50% public safety employee. b. If also counting insurance, wear and tear caused by longer distance travel and vehicle replacement costs, then the cost is currently split 80% City / 20% public safety employee. Vehicle Location (GPS) Data and Compliance Monitoring The Fleet Division will provide department directors with reports on how employees use a vehicle including GPS data. The geofencing technology can send alerts when a vehicle leaves an employee’s predetermined personal use area which each department would identify based on an employee’s standard commute and radius from their home. Prior to use, an employee must acknowledge they have no expectation of privacy when using a city owned vehicle. The Fleet Division has implemented the software platform to generate usage reports and alerts based on location data. Supervisors in each department would need to be trained on how to setup, use, and understand the reports. Some trainings have already occurred. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Balancing Hiring & Operational Readiness Goals with Budget Constraints – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration to what extent the proposed ordinance achieves the City’s competing goals of reaching full staffing of police officers with whether it becomes prohibitive due to the cost of increased funding for maintenance and replacement to ensure vehicles are safe and available when employees need them. 2.Increase Vehicle Funding in FY2023 Annual Budget – The Council may wish to request that increased funding be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023 to account for shortened vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules that may occur under the proposed ordinance amendments. 3.Who should Evaluate Personal Use Fee and How Often – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to keep the current ordinance language assigning annual fee evaluation responsibilities with the Council or if that would better fit with another part of the City such as the Fleet Division and/or the Finance Department? Historically, the Council has not consistently re-evaluated the fee annually. The evaluation could be part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget like other city fees many of which are adjusted annually by the CPI. Page | 4 4.Coordinating Citywide Fleet Policy and Departmental Policy – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the pending citywide policy for personal use of city owned vehicles will be coordinated with each department creating a personal use policy. The ordinance amendments would require employees to follow both sets of policies. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Comparison with other Law Enforcement Agencies A few years ago, the City’s HR Department and the Fleet Division did an informal comparison to other law enforcement agencies in the metropolitan area. They concluded the City’s take-home vehicle ordinance and policies were about average with some municipalities more generous and others less so. However, the different nuances of each agency’s take-home vehicle policies and the variation of compensation and benefit packages prevented a direct “apples to apples” comparison. Intangible Benefits Intangible benefits are difficult to quantify such as perceptions of increased safety, deterrence effect of putting more police vehicles in neighborhoods, improved operational readiness, and the convenience/time savings for officers. Outside work hours most take-home vehicles are used outside Salt Lake City because most employees live in other municipalities so the intangible benefits may be to residents in other cities. $179,600 for Vehicle Telematics in FY2022 Annual Budget The FY2022 annual budget includes $179,600 to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for General Fund vehicles. A few hundred vehicles in the City’s fleet have onboard sensors that allow the collection of data such as speed, engine idling time, location, intensity of braking, fuel consumption and more. The data provides insight into a vehicle’s health and driver’s behavior. The Fleet Division stated vehicle telematics can improve safety, “minimize long-term equipment damage, reduce operational costs, such as fuel consumption, and extend the maintenance intervals of heavy-wear parts like brakes and tires.” At last count, 762 General Fund vehicles were equipped with the hardware and a few hundred more need it. This ongoing funding is sufficient to cover the hardware costs for the remaining vehicles, upgrade to existing hardware to be compatible with 5G data networks and ongoing maintenance. Vehicle Storage at another Municipality’s Fire or Police Facility The ordinance amendment includes the option for a take home vehicle for a public safety employee to be securely parked at another municipality’s fire or police facility. This could be done daily if an employee lives outside the 60-mile distance limit. The intention is for the employee to save time by not needing to drive to the Public Safety Building or Pioneer Police Precinct to transfer from their personal vehicle to a city owned vehicle. Liability Insurance The ordinance amendment would remove the $200,000 minimum liability insurance the City provides and instead use the amount required by Utah Code 63G-7-802 Liability Insurance – Government vehicles operated by employees outside scope of employment. The City would cover liability up to the minimums set in state law. Employees are required to obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal use including passengers if any. Misc. Info: Council Members may wish to note the following points: - At last count, the City has 618 police vehicles with a replacement value of $28.4 million which is 43% of all General Fund vehicles. The City also has 113 fire vehicles with a replacement value of $33.3 million which is 8% of all General Fund vehicles. The fire vehicles are more expensive because they include large engines and other specialty response vehicles. - Public safety employees are required to keep an article of clothing and/or equipment in a city owned vehicles used for personal use that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City. This preparation helps when an employee must respond to emergency situations or off duty deployments. - Department heads are exempt from the fee and distance restrictions on city owned vehicles. - The Fleet Division estimates the emergency proclamation suspending take-home fees for City vehicles reduced revenue for fuel reimbursements by $453,704 in FY2021. This represented 16% of the fuel revenue in the FY2021 adopted budget. Page | 5 ACRONYMS CPI – Consumer Price Index FY – Fiscal Year GPS – Global Positioning System ATTACHMENTS 1. SLCPD Take Home Vehicle Infographic 2. City Take Home Vehicle Analysis Salt Lake City Police Department Expand the 35 mile limit to 60 miles to be inclusive of all current City police officers' primary residences. Limit the distance a take-home car can be driven for reasonable personal use while outside Salt Lake County. PROPOSED POLICY BENEFIT #3 Improved staffing abilities and response times BENEFIT #5 Operational readiness and 24 hour response for critical incidents Take-Home-Car Policy and Request to Expand Distance Limit BENEFIT #1 Cleaner environments with fuel efficient SLCPD vehicles BENEFIT #2 Improved recruitment and retention BENEFIT #4 Improved accountability for vehicle maintenance BENEFIT #6 Peace of mind with more police officers traveling in our communities CURRENT POLICY No police car may be taken home if an employee lives more than 35 miles from the nearest city limit. Employees who live within 35 miles from the nearest city limit can use their vehicle anywhere in the county they reside for reasonable personal use. $$$$Mile calculation examples Officer A lives 5 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit. This officer pays $15 to the City each paycheck for a total of $30 a month. Officer B lives 30 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit. This officer pays $90 to the City each paycheck for a total of $180 a month. Officer C lives 37 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit. This officer is currently not allowed to take their vehicle home. Additional considerations: When operating a police vehicle, employees must be dressed in a manner to reflect the department positively, have a police identification (such as a uniform or police jacket) and a duty handgun. Officers must have their two-way communications radio on and set to an audible volume when the vehicle is in operation. Officers must set good driving examples at all times. Once vehicles are assigned to an employee, that person is responsible for the maintenance schedule. An officer who lives in SLC does not have to pay the $3 mileage fee. Salt Lake City Public Safety Take-Home Vehicle Policy Currently, as stated in City ordinance 2.54.030, a vehicle assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City Police Department, or an employee of the Salt Lake City Fire Department, pursuant to their department's take home car program requirements, may be authorized to take home their assigned, city-owned vehicle. This ordinance limits the eligibility of this benefit to public safety officers who live within 35 miles of the City limits, except for vehicles provided to Department Directors. Lastly, a three dollar ($3.00) per mile payment shall be made biweekly by an employee who lives outside of the City and takes their vehicle home. (i.e., 35 miles X 3.00, one-way, billed bi-weekly at $105.) Vehicle Maintenance and Upkeep It shall be the duty and responsibility of the driver or operator of a city vehicle to see that it is properly serviced, maintained, and cleaned. This includes, but is not limited to, having the appropriate servicing performed on the vehicle at all designated intervals as set forth by the public services department. If the driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to have the vehicle properly serviced or maintained as prescribed by the public services department within ten (10) working days or two hundred (200) miles of the required service or maintenance time, such failure may result in loss of use of the vehicle to the user or department as well as possible disciplinary action. Biweekly Cost Calculation1 Below is a comparison between distance intervals and the fuel and maintenance cost associated. The biweekly cost calculation accounts for the total milage driven, round trip, every workday in a pay period (10). The employee payment is obtained by multiplying the distance by the three-dollar fee. The annual subsidy accounts for 26 pay periods in a year. Shortest distance to home from City (miles) Biweekly cost of Depreciation, Fuel and Maintenance Employee pays biweekly City's subsidies biweekly Annual City subsidy per employee 15 $161.09 $45.00 $116.09 $3,018.34 25 $212.64 $75.00 $137.64 $3,578.64 35 $264.20 $105.00 $159.20 $4,139.20 45*$315.75 $135.00 $180.75 $4,699.50 50*$341.53 $150.00 $191.53 $4,979.78 60*$393.08 $180.00 $213.08 $5,540.08 *Distance not currently covered in the take-home program It is important to mention that, whereas the fuel cost is absorbed by the employee’s Department, mainly with general fund dollars, the additional maintenance and accelerated replacement cost is left to be covered by Fleet. Personal Cost Comparison (Does not include cost of depreciation)2 1 Prepared by Jorge Chamorro, Compliance Division, Deputy Director of Public Service 2 Prepared by Jorge Chamorro, Compliance Division, Deputy Director of Public Service Shortest distance to home from City (miles) Annual Est. Personal Cost per employee Fuel and Maintenance Biweekly cost of personal fuel Biweekly cost of personal maint. Biweekly Personal cost total Assumed Maint., Insurance, Registration Assumed Annual Fuel 15/30 $3,149.40 $51.90 $72.13 $124.03 $1,800.00 $1,349.40 25/50 $3,959.04 $83.04 $72.13 $155.17 $1,800.00 $2,159.04 35/70 $4,633.74 $108.99 $72.13 $181.12 $1,800.00 $2,833.74 45/90 $5,848.20 $155.70 $72.13 $227.83 $1,800.00 $4,048.20 50/100 $6,118.08 $166.08 $72.13 $238.21 $1,800.00 $4,318.08 60/120 $7,197.60 $207.60 $72.13 $279.73 $1,800.00 $5,397.60 Real-world Examples Person Crimes Detective A detective assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Investigations Division, specifically a Person Crimes detective, is unable to take home their department issued vehicle because this employee lives approximately 2.5 miles outside the 35 mile radius. Part of this detective’s responsibilities include being on call during specific weeks throughout the year and also responding to an average of 2-3 call outs a week. Because this detective is unable to take a department vehicle home, this employee must first drive to the Public Safety Building and transfer any materials into their city-issued vehicle and then head to the crime scene. This detective is responsible for investigating crimes against children. A timely response by a trained detective is imperative so that the child can be properly taken care of and that a forensic interview and examination can be done to preserve evidence. This detective’s response time is extended by 30-45 minutes on average per call out because they are unable to use a take home vehicle. In this detective’s position, they are a member of the state’s Child Abduction Response Team. This requires them to respond to scenes across Utah. In one such case, the detective’s response time was delayed by more than 60 minutes. This did not include the drivetime to the scene in northern Utah. To be a survivor of sexual assault (no matter what age) is a traumatic and life changing event and our survivors need all of the assistance we can provide. It is of the upmost importance that these investigations are carried out in a timely manner and our victims are cared for of as quickly as possible. Patrol Sergeant An officer assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Patrol Division is currently unable to take home their department issued vehicle because this employee lives one mile outside the 35 mile limit. In 2020, as a member of the Department’s Public Order Unit, this employee was called out to a large riot in downtown Salt Lake City. Fortunately, this officer’s post, where their department issued gear is stored, was at the Department’s Pioneer Precinct. Had the employee’s post been at the Public Safety Building, this employee would not have been able to access the Public Safety Building due to the road closures and the fact that the employee was driving a privately owned vehicle with no police siren or lights equipped. In the event of a full-squad callout for the Department’s Public Order Unit, this employee, depending on the incident location, estimates an additional 30-60 minutes of readiness time before being able to go in-service to assist operationally. Police K-9 Member An officer assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s K-9 Unit is currently unable to take home their department issued vehicle because this employee lives three miles outside the 35 mile radius. This employee must use a personally owned vehicle to commute an average 45 minutes to the Public Safety Building. Because the employee is subject to call-outs, the employee estimates that if direct reporting from their residence, it will take about 30 minutes of additional readiness time. If the employee is not direct reporting from their residence and needs to travel back to their residence and then to the Public Safety Building, it will take about 60 minutes of additional readiness time. As this employee is a member of the Department’s K-9 Unit, the employee will be assigned a canine. All members of the department’s K-9 Unit are assigned specially equipped vehicles to ensure the safe transport of the canine. These vehicles ensure canine has an emergency escape should the vehicle’s interior temperature increase to unsafe levels. Without the milage being extended for the city’s take-home vehicle policy, this employee will have to transport the department’s canine in a personally owned vehicle, which is not equipped for animal transport, to the Public Safety Building and then to the scene. Response time could be delayed up to 60 minutes for a call-out. The city may incur additional costs for the officer to clean and sanitize any canine bodily fluids expelled during transport in the officer’s personal vehicle.