Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Take home vehicles - Public Works Dept (1/7)

I appreciate that the DPW included the actual resolution in the memo. It helps to understand if the Council resolution is actually being addressed.

As a reminder, this resolution was unanimously passed at the June 10 Council meeting (for a July 8 deadline). No word yet on when the Budget and Personnel Committees will be meeting. I know the Budget Committee has lots of meetings already because of the Capital Budget. I'm uncertain of the issues facing the Personnel Committee. Though they must be busy because on June 24 I requested a summertime review of pension plans (defined benefit vs. defined contribution) for non-union ee's. But at the Aug 12 Council meeting, I was told that staff will aim for an October compilation of relevant data.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

Vehicles taken home as a part of an employee’s job description need close scrutiny. “The director is expected to report whenever needed . . “ has the smell of this SUV follows this person where ever the person may be 24/7. At 23 miles a day a year of driving to work and back comes to only about 12,000 miles. How many miles does this vehicle go annually? The actual reasons for providing these take homes needs to be closely reviewed too. This description leaves one wondering why we would rely at all on an individual showing up in a timely fashion to who knows what late hour emergency from several towns southeast of here.

Trivial stuff will only influence things in Cheshire. However, in a case of a bigger weather event for instance being in Branford as a starting point probably could all but eliminate the ability of getting here in a timely fashion.

Municipal workers in positions of authority which can be expected to have a direct impact on the municipal budgeting process should have the appearance of being interested in what it is like to pay taxes for the budget items they are responsible for. This is best done by actually living in the town which provides them with their particular livelihood. Maybe the town shouldn’t require this but supervisory employees should understand this before they step into such a role.

Anonymous said...

If he wants to live 23 miles away, fine, but why should Cheshire taxpayers have to pay for his commuting expense that is probably over $7,000 a year?

The rules should be that if someone lives out of town, then they don't get a take home vehicle, especially when they live 23 miles away and the quickest they can respond is within 35 minutes because of the distance. Keep the vehicle in the south fire station lot and and the response time would be the same.

Anonymous said...

Parking the vehicle at the south end fire station could make sense. There is no reason someone at this level needs to be paid indirectly for their daily work commute anyway from a far away town.

Hope this commuter pays income tax on the value of the commute and any other freebies associated with tooling around in a big SUV away from the office. I’d bet $7,000 a year doesn’t come close to the town’s out of pocket $$$ on this deal especially considering the town has to pick up all the insurance payment for this activity in town as well as out.