NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter

Transcription

1 Agenda Date: 3/13/2012 Agenda Placement: 10E NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter TO: FROM: Board of Supervisors Britt Ferguson for Nancy Watt - County Executive Officer County Executive Office REPORT BY: Molly Rattigan, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Fleet Management Update and Take Home Vehicles RECOMMENDATION County Executive Officer and Acting Director of Public Works request the following: 1. Receive a report on the equipment pool including current mileage per gallon statistics for vehicles and take-home vehicle policies and assignment; 2. Approval of Budget Transfer No. DPW012 canceling a designation in the Fleet Operations fund balance and increasing appropriations in the Vehicle Replacement budget unit and establishment of fixed assets in the amount of $148,000 for the purchase of four replacement Crown Victoria vehicles for the Sheriff's Office and one replacement Crown Victoria for the Probation Department (4/5 vote required); 3. Approval of Budget Transfer No. DAO006 increasing appropriations in the Vehicle Replacement budget unit with offsetting revenue and establishment of a fixed asset in the amount of $37,000 for the purchase of a vehicle for the District Attorney's Workers' Compensation and Automobile Insurance Fraud Programs (4/5 vote required); and 4. Authorization to purchase vehicles included in the Adopted Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Budget Hearings, the Board of Supervisors raised questions related to the Equipment Pool that will be answered with today's presentation. The first question raised related to mileage per gallon (MPG) statistics countywide. The total MPG has not changed much over the last four years due to the large number of fleet vehicles dedicated to Sheriff's patrol and specialty services. The County is implementing the policy decision to replace non-hybrid vehicles with hybrids when possible. Though it has not yet made a significant impact on overall fleet mileage, it is making an impact when isolated by vehicle classification. The Background and attached charts provide further information.

2 Page 2 The second question raised related to take-home vehicles assigned to County staff. At the request of the Board, staff reviewed the current take-home policy and take-home vehicle practices and found the two to be inconsistent. The current policy lists the number of authorized take-home vehicles for each department, but does not provide criteria for determining when a take-home vehicle is appropriate. The current Policy has not been updated in 10 years to reflect changes in staffing or the functions of the relevant Departments. Currently there are 51 take-home vehicles assigned with 11 going home with employees that reside out of the County. Generally, staff believes the current practice and take-home vehicles accurately reflects the business and service needs of the County and staff will update the Board on efforts to revise the current policy to establish criteria for take-home vehicles and make policy and practice consistent. Staff is requesting authorization to proceed with the purchase of vehicles approved as part of the budget, purchase five Crown Victorias scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year in order to save County funds by reusing instead of replacing the equipment for the vehicles and add one additional vehicle to the current fleet for use by the District Attorney's Office. Funds for the purchase of the Crown Victorias will come from the depreciation collected and held in Equipment Pool Replacement Fund Balance and the operating departments. The purchase of the new vehicle for the District Attorney's Office will be funded by Worker's Compensation and Automobile Insurance Fraud Grant Funds. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff reports. 2. Public comments. 3. Motion, second, discussion and vote on the item FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? Is it currently budgeted? What is the revenue source? Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary Justification: Yes No Equipment Pool Replacement Fund Balance District Attorney's Office- Workers' Compensation and Automobile Insurance Fraud grant Discretionary This item is discretionary in that there is no mandate to purchase five Crown Victoria vehicles scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year at this time nor is a vehicle purchase required for the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Fraud grant. The purchase of the five vehicles scheduled for replacement in Fiscal Year is to take purchase replacements that would otherwise be discontinued next fiscal year. Each current vehicle has up to $20,000 worth of equipment that would need to be fully replaced if the same vehicle was not purchased so the equipment can be transferred. Purchasing the Crown Victoria vehicles now will allow for the transfer of equipment, saving the County $100,000 at this time. The purchase of a Ford Fusion Hybrid for the District Attorney's Office is necessary for the investigator position funded by Workers' Compensation and Automobile Insurance Fraud Grants. The purchase and maintenance of the vehicle will also be funded by the grants with no impact to the General Fund.

3 Page 3 Is the general fund affected? Future fiscal impact: Consequences if not approved: Additional Information: Yes Depreciation and maintenance of the vehicles will be budgeted accordingly in future fiscal years. If this item is not approved, the Sheriff and Probation Departments will not be able to replace aged vehicles with the same model, requiring additional funds to replace equipment needed for a new model of vehicle in Fiscal Year The District Attorney's Office will not have access to a vehicle needed to conduct Insurance Fraud investigations and will need to develop an alternative plan to spend grant funds or risk returning the funds. There is a significant fund balance available in the Fleet Operations budget unit. Staff will be using this fund balance to offset the difference between the purchase price of the replacement vehicles and the amount available for depreciation in future fiscal years to refund operational departments for excess operational payments. Since five of the proposed vehicles are scheduled for replacement next year, funds from the fund balance will be used to cover the cost and hold the new vehicles until the current vehicles reach full depreciation and are surplused in Fiscal Year Since these vehicles are for law enforcement and require special upgrades, by the time the vehicles are ready for pick-up, the current vehicles will likely be ready for removal from the fleet. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION At the Annual Budget Hearing on June 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors raised questions regarding take-home vehicles and the average mileage per gallon of the County's fleet given the practice of purchasing hybrid vehicles. Staff was unable to provide detailed information at the time and committed to returning to the Board. Today's item will answer questions raised as well as provide an update on staff's current efforts to develop a draft revised take-home vehicle policy for review and possible approval by the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting date. Mileage Per Gallon At the budget hearings, staff reported the average miles per gallon (MPG) fuel usage countywide as This figure has remained relatively unchanged since The Board questioned why the average MPG appeared so low given the current practice of purchasing hybrid vehicles when possible. The figure presented included vehicles in all County departments including patrol vehicles and specialty equipment. The following addresses the impact hybrids currently have on the County's annual fuel consumption. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors directed staff, when possible, to purchase hybrid or the most fuel efficient option on the market, when replacing vehicles in the current fleet that have reached the end of their useful life or when a new vehicle is to be added to the fleet. The intent was to reduce the County's carbon footprint in part by

4 Page 4 decreasing the fuel consumption of vehicles. The County categorizes vehicles based on International City/County Management Association (ICMA) defined standards ranging from compact to patrol to utility and specialty vehicles. Due to market availability, hybrids are only purchased in three of the nine categories: compact, mid-size sedan and mid-size utility. Since 2007, the County has replaced fully depreciated non-hybrid vehicles with hybrid options where possible; however, the total number of hybrid vehicles currently owned by the County is still a relatively small percentage of the total fleet. At the end of Calendar Year 2011, the County's total fleet included 261 vehicles, of which 36, or 13.8%, were hybrid vehicles. This is compared to 2008 when the County's total fleet included 274 vehicles and 22, or 8%, were hybrid. Detailed information is shown in Attachment 1. The annual vehicle miles driven by hybrid vehicles is still a relatively small portion of the total vehicle miles driven by County owned vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are typically assigned as pool cars and to those Departments that may not require use of regular streets and highways. In some cases, utility hybrids can be used by Departments with inspector functions. Hybrid vehicles are currently not available or being used for Sheriff patrol functions, one of the highest mileage functions in the County. In 2011, hybrids accounted for 322,908, or 14%, of the 2,314,413 miles driven. This is compared to 2008 when hybrids accounted for 181,966,or 6.5%, of the 2,780,237 miles driven. Detailed information is shown in Attachment 2. Since hybrid vehicles still make up a relatively small portion of the County's total fleet, staff analyzed average mileage per gallon (MPG) over the last four years by type of vehicle where hybrids were an option. In 2011, 18 of 38 compact vehicles were hybrid for a total annual average MPG of 37.31, 4 of 36 mid-size sedans were hybrid for a total annual average MPG of and 14 of 20 utility mid-size vehicles were hybrid for a total annual average MPG of This is an overall increase in MPG of 2.27 miles for compacts, 7.12 miles for mid-size sedans and 6 miles for utility vehicles since Detailed information is shown in Attachment 3. As the County's current fleet depreciates and comes due for replacement, more hybrid vehicles will be purchased which will continue to achieve the goal of reducing fuel consumption. Take-Home Vehicles The Board asked about the number of take-home vehicles assigned as well as how many vehicles were taken home daily by employees residing outside of the County and how often employees were called out after regular work hours. The County's existing "Equipment Pool and Vehicle Use Policy" (Section 21) regulates the assignment and use of take-home vehicles for County employees, including prohibiting the use of those vehicles for personal business. As directed by the Board, staff reviewed the existing policy and the current status of take-home vehicles throughout the County. In general, staff believes the current practice and number of take-home vehicles is consistent with other jurisdictions and accurately reflects the business and service needs of the County. However, the current policy has not been updated in at least 10 years and includes an outdated list of total number of vehicles that each Department is allowed for take-home use. The current policy does not establish criteria for determining when take-home vehicles should be allowed other than setting a maximum number of vehicles for certain departments and has not been updated to reflect the current structure of each Department. Currently there are 50 take-home vehicles assigned to employees who serve in an emergency responder role for the County and one (1) take-home vehicle assigned to a non-emergency responder. The current policy allows 18 take-home vehicles in the Sheriff's Department, though in practice, there are 32 take-home vehicles assigned to the management command officers (Sheriff, Undersheriff, Captains and Lieutenants) and officers working in investigations, coroner, the problem oriented policing program, animal services and administration. The current policy allows for seven (7) take-home vehicles in the District Attorney's Office, though in practice there are 12 assigned to the District Attorney, Chief District Attorney Investigator, Supervising District Attorney Investigator and full time and part time District Attorney Investigators. The current policy allows for six (6) take-home vehicles in

5 Page 5 the Roads Division for the Roads Superintendent and five members of the Roads Maintenance Crew, which is consistent with current practice. The Public Defender's Office has one (1) take-home vehicle not included in the policy assigned to a Public Defender Investigator responsible for serving subpoenas to and from their work location. Finally, staff in Public Works, Agricultural Commissioner and Cooperative Extension listed in the takehome vehicle policy are not actually taking home vehicles on a daily basis. Of the 51 vehicles taken home, 11 are taken to employees' homes out of County. The Public Works Department is the only Department that currently tracks after-hours call-out data. In FY , there were 99 after-hours call-outs for road related emergencies, with one employee responding to 47 after-hour call-outs and all employees with take-home vehicles responding to at least 10 call-outs. Call-out data for law enforcement departments is not currently tracked but can be in the future. Staff has also evaluated policies from several other counties. Through this review, staff found that most counties allowed for take-home vehicle assignment to emergency responders. Additionally, most counties did not restrict the location of those vehicles to within the county's boundaries. Staff will be recommending to the Board an updated policy that clearly outlines that the County's goal in allowing for take-home vehicles is to provide the most effective use of the vehicles in terms of service provision and cost effectiveness. Instead of defining a set number of vehicles, the new policy will establish more formal criteria for assignment of a take-home vehicle. Criteria currently being discussed include: The employee is a first responder required to deploy immediately and directly to an emergency from their home. The employee is able to respond within a reasonable timeframe to an emergency from their home. First responder duties cannot be fulfilled by using a personal vehicle with mileage reimbursement. The employee is regularly required to be available other than normal duty hours to respond to different County locations. The vehicle is used to transport specialized equipment necessary for the department's operations or for immediate use in the case of an emergency. The use of the vehicle results in a reduction of costs. The County lacks the appropriate site to safely store and protect the vehicles and/or the necessary added equipment. Next Steps As indicated above, staff is currently working on a revised policy that will include take-home criteria such as those listed above and a procedure for approving use of a take-home vehicle and tracking call-out usage. Once that draft policy is complete, it will be reviewed with the County's labor associations, as required by memoranda of understandings with the unions. Staff anticipates bringing a policy for the Board's approval, with any comments from the labor associations, by June Once the policy has been approved by the Board, staff will return with a list of recommended take-home vehicles for the Board's review and approval. Requested Vehicle Purchases At the request of the Board, County staff has held off on purchasing vehicles included in the FY budget pending this presentation. Staff is requesting to proceed with purchasing the eleven (11) replacement vehicles approved with the budget. These vehicles include: two mid-size hybrids, one utility size hybrid, one utility non-hybrid and seven pick-ups. Staff is also requesting the approval of a budget transfer to purchase five Crown Victoria vehicles scheduled to be replaced in FY Four of these vehicles are for the Sheriff's Department and one is for the Probation

6 Page 6 Department. The Crown Victoria model has been discontinued and staff has been actively searching for a replacement model to use as a patrol vehicle for the Sheriff's Department and a transport vehicle for Probation. Replacing the Crown Victoria with another type of vehicle will require all the specialty equipment added to law enforcement vehicles to be fully replaced instead of transferred from the existing vehicle. The equipment on each vehicle can cost upwards of $20,000. Fleet staff was able to locate Crown Victoria vehicles still available for purchase to replace vehicles depreciating in FY and save money in the short term. Finally, the District Attorney is requesting approval to purchase a new vehicle. The Workers' Compensation and Automobile Insurance Fraud programs provides funding for the District Attorney's Office to perform investigative and prosecutorial services related to insurance fraud. The District Attorney's Office has a small fleet of County vehicles that are assigned to specific investigator staff. With the addition of investigator staff for the Insurance Fraud Programs, it is necessary to add a vehicle to carry out the investigative activities required of the programs. The purchase of this vehicle will guarantee that a vehicle is available for Insurance Fraud staff to perform their duties. There is sufficient funding available from this source to fund the purchase and ongoing expenses of the vehicle. There is no impact to the General Fund. Public Works and District Attorney staff analyzed the program needs to determine what type of vehicle would be best suited for the Insurance Fraud programs' use. They determined that a Ford Fusion equipped with the necessary safety equipment for investigator use would be the best choice. The requested vehicle is a 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid, which will provide reliable and cost-efficient transportation throughout the County for the Insurance Fraud program staff, making it the greenest choice. Local vendor preference will be factored into the procurement process for the vehicle. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A. Attachment 1-Fleet by Vehicle Classification B. Attachment 2- Mileage by Vehicle Classification C. Attachment 3- MPG by Hybrid Classification CEO Recommendation: Approve Reviewed By: Molly Rattigan