Cromer wants to cut number of Hagerstown city vehicles being driven home

By DAN DEARTH (dan.dearth@herald-mail.com)
Kelly S. Cromer

HAGERSTOWN - At a time when fuel prices are reaching record highs, Hagerstown Councilwoman Kelly S. Cromer wants to save taxpayers a considerable amount of money by cutting back on a long-running program.

Cromer said she intends to try to limit the number of city-owned vehicles that municipal employees are allowed to drive home.

Of the 48 vehicles that city employees currently drive home, only 13 remain in the city, city documents show. The other vehicles are driven to other parts of Washington County or out of the state.

“The majority of the (take-home vehicles) are gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs,” Cromer said. “It’s a monumental waste of money ... There are way too many take-home vehicles.”

City documents show that 28 SUVs, pickups or vans are driven home by employees of the Public Works, Parks, Fire, Sewer, Water and Light departments. Members of the Hagerstown Police Department take home the most vehicles of any department in the city, but of those 19 vehicles, a majority are Ford Crown Victorias, documents show.

In February, The Herald-Mail filed a public information request seeking the cost the city incurred to provide employees with vehicles for fiscal year 2006-07 and to date for fiscal year 2007-08. The city responded almost a month later, saying, “There is no document that satisfies your request.”

A request for information about how much money was budgeted in fiscal year 2006-07 and fiscal year 2007-08 for the take-home vehicle program brought the same written response: “There is no document that satisfies your request.”

During a City Council work session earlier this week, Cromer asked the city staff to give her the addresses of all the employees who take home vehicles so she could track the mileage to get a better idea of how much the city is spending on gas.

Cromer also proposed taking away city-owned vehicles from employees who live outside the city.

“I’m going to keep pursuing this,” she said.

Cromer said she favors continuing the practice of providing take-home vehicles for employees who live inside the city because most of those vehicles are police cruisers and their presence helps deter crime in neighborhoods.

Documents show that eight police officers take home city-owned vehicles to Hagerstown addresses.

In addition to taxpayers footing the bill for gas, they have to pay for wear and tear on the vehicles, Cromer said. She also is concerned that the city could be held liable if a city employee gets in an accident while driving one of the vehicles.

“I’m looking into that,” she said.

Cromer said city officials have told her the vehicles are given to city employees who are on call and need the vehicles to drive directly to the scene of an emergency.

“Emergencies don’t happen every day,” Cromer said. “It would make more sense to me to pay them mileage (to drive their personal vehicle) to the shop, where they could pick up a (city-owned) vehicle and drive to the site ... There’s no reason to have take-home vehicles for the small amount of calls they get.”

Cromer said take-home vehicles also should be taken away from supervisors.

“They get high salaries and can afford their own vehicles,” Cromer said. “You have wants and you have needs. That’s not a need. It’s a want.”

City Administrator Bruce Zimmerman said the City Council plans to discuss the take-home vehicle policy during a work session next month.

Why oh why does Sman want to be such a pain all of the time. Maybe he just wants his own Cadillac to drive home. Why doesn't the city keep records on the mileage and gas used every day by city vehicles?? It is a simple matter to fill out a form report--if not daily at least weekly. It just may show that some of these vehicles are not worth keeping.

The city employees who take home vehicles are charged fee at the end of each year for that vehicle. I believe most are trucks (other than police) and are needed for call outs on a 27/7 basis. Trucks are needed rather than small cars to haul the equipment needed to make repairs. Only the directors do not go out on emergency calls and do not really need ot take their vehicles home though theirs tend to be cars rather than trucks.

They don't need the vehicles to drive home in. These are hard times and government must tighten its belt. Workers are paid a salary and that salary is meant to pay their bills which includes driving to and from work. No one and I mena no one in the city is that essential that they can't pick up a vehicle and then go to the scene. It is just one more perk Lew and Penny give the unions and the cuity employees so they get reelected.

My guess is Bob and the others will attack Kelly for this since it goes against a perk they give away for support. If they are giving vehicles and gas then they should take away the pay raise from the Springsted study that was a scam perpetrated on the citizens by an apparent corrupt power hungry council looking to solidify their position.

Tony it's not the union employees that get take home vehicles, it's management employees.
so you can't blame the unions for this.

Cool deal, if they were told they would have a vehicle to take home when they were hired. Do you think it was followed by: " Your salary or wages will be going up, we have this whacky wage study to confuse the citizens. It will bump up salaries in no time." .........Cool.

Their vote or support doesn't matter

What I would like to know is why does the paper report on Cromer's money saving idea but they won't report on Martin's money saving IDEAS.

At the last council meeting I think I heard him say something about a plan he had that would cut the property tax rate by two cents.

About the only thing I see coming out of Cromers idea is that the employee might lose their city car then get a pay raise because of it.

It doesn't? Do you think all of those union people going door to door and standing on street corners last election were city residents? Don't you think those who ar ein leadership influence how much help or money a candidate gets or even if they get union support? Don't the union dues go to the union who then can use it to support the candidates they like?

No in the city or out doesn't matter they can and do influenece elections in the city and do give support.

The city employees who take home vehicles are charged fee at the end of each year for that vehicle. I believe most are trucks (other than police) and are needed for call outs on a 27/7 basis. Trucks are needed rather than small cars to haul the equipment needed to make repairs. Only the directors do not go out on emergency calls and do not really need ot take their vehicles home though theirs tend to be cars rather than trucks.

It is the old argument no one was to address. Should city employees be required to live in the city, where they would be paying city taxes and supporting the local enconomy? Contributing to the fabric of the community. City employees living in the city probablly do have a little more financial and social impact on the city than someone living at the end of Dual Highway or whatever geographic area we are throwing out there this week. Sure gas expenditure is similar when you put the distance or mileage side by side. There is something said for the fabric of the community when those employed by the city live and deal in the city. ----Sorry, I am meshing two issues but it has always been the elephant in the room.

Many areas have this situation with cars, vans, trucks. Each municipality is different so solutions vary.
.. Some ignore it, minimize it or find out it is not an issue for their city or county. Other areas address it over a period of time. Or approach it in pieces.
In Montgomery County there is a utility lot at the edge of the county near Damascus MD. Those county workers living over the line drop their county cars off after shift and pick up their personal vehicle. Then they have a list of certain jobs where taking a county veheicle is essential to being on call. In DC many first responders have been slowly matriculated back to the city. Along with their work vehichles. I think they started with new hires.

I get it, if you are opposed to the idea of discussing variations on addressing city vehicles leaving the city limits then it is easy to say it just a non issue. I do not see it as a black or white issue, I see it being addressed in a gradual, case by case manner. All agree, certain employees need the vehichle for emergencies, maybe one or two or more could be thinned from the herd. I do not know. On the scheme of things, I do not see it as a big issue for me. But I applaud any citizens wanting to understand and take a closer look. I would not oppose citizens asking questions, I actually like the idea in general.

After seeing the govt handle that Springstat wage study I am jaded. I get it. If a staff member with a good salary who is not an emergency responder wants a "company" car, I am not really too concerned. It is business as usual. If some want to take a look, what is the harm in discussion? I am not going to try as hard anymore to find a way to be comfortable or take a stand. I can live with it. I am living with the bogus wage study.

If some find it really important or a concern, what is the harm in discussing? Bottomline: I agree with Tony, if we take the cars away, won't that motivate council to authorize pay raises. That is why I am tilting to not doing anything. The more we tweek, the more it cost. Even if we are not comfortable. Perhaps more will come out, I am just not getting it all right now. So I tilt to neutral.

I know I am awy from the City now, and thus have no real input into this issue, but I do have to say if a person is going to use specific language as "monumental savings" then such savings should be identified by the budgetary subject being raised. For instance, while in office with the City I was able to identify both revenue enhancement and expense saving totaling in the millions for the time served, and was the only council member opposed to the Springsted Study in FULL when proposed and approved.

The story as I have viewed it thus far is 48 vehicles nearly half of which are police related that Kelly is o.k. with that would still go home and based on the list provided the remaining 20+ are used by a lerge percentage of folks still in the County, which for example consdiering that most if not all use the City filling station for gas, and if one such vehicle is run by a person that lives near me in Greenberry Hills (outside City) and fills up on the way to the office, it is nearly half the distance one that lives in the city out at the end of the Dual Highway or along northern avenue that has to drive to the fueling station in the south end costing more in the long run simply by being located twice as far but enjoying an "in city" employee benefit at a greater cost for fuel to the taxpayer than the person near me in the south end just outside city limits. So in effect, there is no "monumental savings" to justify this political feel good approach.

This news makes an "above the fold" front page story today and much like my own proposald for cost signficant cost saving measures, Marty's ideas are mentioned somewhere between council comments and the sports page. My assumption is its because this type of reporting and the ability to grasp such an idea is "here and now" and easier to shout out to the court of public opinion for a spirited response regardless of whether the paper or the public in general truly believes or cares whether or not there are actually "monumental savings" that have been identified.

My guess, and again just a guess is that once you subtract the 20+ police vehicles that everyone agrees is o.k. to continue to take home, then the 10+ for folks that still live in the City to take home you are down to a dozen that may be questionable depending on location and a half dozen that we could generally agree are not needed to be taken home that may cost the City 5-10 thousand a year extra for gas, which compared to a 100+ million budget is not alot especailly considering it amounts to even less than the total increase council gave itself to attend functions through increasing its personal expense accounts in the same period.

Bottomline: I agree with Tony, if we take the cars away, won't that motivate council to authorize pay raises. That is why I am tilting to not doing anything. The more we tweek, the more it cost. Even if we are not comfortable. Perhaps more will come out, I am just not getting it all right now. So I tilt to neutral.

Tony don't take parts of my statement and use them as a quote. the entire statement was people / employees who live outside the city don't have a say in h-town elections. and again as i said before those with TAKE HOME vehicles are management not union.

If people were promised a car as part of their compensation package they should get to keep it as long as that agreement is in force. Otherwise it is like a pay cut after you accept the job.

Cutting waste in government is always a good thing, but I must wonder if this is where Kelly would get the biggest bang for her time, of if it is just easy pickin's. Low hanging fruit is worth going after if it gives fast and valuable results, but if this is the worst waste in city government it is much more lean than I think it is.

Sman, he lived in the City and drove a beat up marked cruiser (several years ago) and at that time, I wasn't responsible for the City's purse and no one cared that I complained about it. I didn't like it then and I still don't like it. The difference is now I can do something about it, even if it is just raising the issue. (and P.S., he didn't drive it everywhere off duty) Although, I did state that I don't have a problem with city police officers who live in the City having a marked police cruiser as a take home car. Why.... because it deters crime in our city neighborhoods, both criminal activity and speeding.

Ndano,

I’d think if you were gonna make serious allegations about someone who has not has such issues before you should be able to back up the statements with more meat than is on those bones. After all, I have been informed that you were fired by the city for gross misconduct (being drunk on the job) and so the sour grapes are yours.








Well, that was made up – but see what I mean?

Wow, I'm gonna need some popcorn and beer for this one, when Ms. Cromer gets back.

if they are incorrect I do apologize and if not then you are not what you present yourself as here on this forum.

Ndano,

I’d think if you were gonna make serious allegations about someone who has not has such issues before you should be able to back up the statements with more meat than is on those bones. After all, I have been informed that you were fired by the city for gross misconduct (being drunk on the job) and so the sour grapes are yours.








Well, that was made up – but see what I mean?

I was thinking more of a bunker and radiation protection as Kelly will go nuclear. I believe she was accused of committing a crime. ndano better have the proof about the job thing or a good lawyer.

As an incessant student it is obvious that you are not studying law. Accused of a crime? What crime? I thought you were the champion of the people and would at least look to Ms. Cromer for the facts before you attack me. I guess the entire council is a bit much for your diatribes and Yes, I do have a good lawyer

Tony If my research is correct

12 union police officers
1 union instrument tech.
1 union lineman
34 management

Have take home vehicles

I have never worked for the city. See how easy it is to answer a question and end the discussion.

A friend who works for the city informed me of these issues, the meat is in the details which I choose not to convey at this time. The info may or may not be true I asked a question and expect if Ms. Cromer is the person I think she is I will have the questions answered.