Calm yourselves people!!!
I�ve worked for the City for years and have driven a City vehicle the entire time; my vehicle has never been replaced at 50,000 miles. The one I�m driving now has 80,000 miles on it and I was told months before this article was written that there are no plans to replace it till �maybe� next year. When ever my vehicle is replaced it goes to another division for them to use for another year or more.
Don't worry your tax dollars are being treated with respect by the Fleet Services.

Grassy Knoll,

I don't believe a word you said about that Toyota unless you got a one in a 10 million lemon.

Toyota's are warrantied for 36 months to 7 years. Under the warranty of a brand new vehicle all this would have been repaired for free by the dealership if it actually did happen.

I have never heard of so many things going wrong with one Toyota.
Now if you said it was a Ford, I might have believed you...but they are also WARRANTIED for more than 24 months....always!!!

The Grassy Knoll,

You know what I agree with you that that kind of damage can and will happen. Especially when someone else owns the vehicle. When someone else owns the vehicle and has to pay for the damage or maintenance... no one cares.

Even better for reasons to support the premise of getting rid of lots of city vehicles and letting city staff drive their own personal vehicles and be reimbursed for any mileage on 'official business". Then and only then can we sleep at night knowing for certain that no one will be abusing vehicles without having to personally deal with the consequences.

Ok, Ok I can already hear the whining and complaining. At least make vehicle maintenance and operation cost part of each city departments operating budget. If city workers are needlessly tearing up city vehicles and their boss has to pay for the cost of maintenance and repairs out of their budget at least some of this abuse will be minimized.

When I was in college, I worked for a company that had a broad variety of maintenance tasks to perform over a facility of 200 acres or so. We had a brand new toyota pickup truck we drove. It was driven throughout the day, from 6 am to midnight every day. but aside from running a few errands during the week to the hardware store, suppliers etc, and to an off-site location each day (total round trip about 30 miles) it was mostly around the facility.

It was completely trashed in less that 24 months and with far fewer than 40k miles.

The seat springs were broken because of the frequency of the driving entering and exiting the vehicle during short stops. The door handles had to be replaced multiple times because of the frequent openings and closings they would break. the seat adjusment levers broke because of frequend changes caused by multipe, different drivers. the radio stopped working because of how often it was switched on and off and the number of times the channel was changed. The transmission was replaced because of the frequent starting, stopping, low speed driving, and towing of various pieces of equipment. the brakes were replaced at least twice. The power steering went out because of all the close-quarters driving.

So dont pretend to know what these trucks might look or run like because you are able to run your personal car longer. it really is apples and oranges.

What is wrong with our ELECTED city council members? Why do they not question and challenge? Why do they appear to only RUBBER STAMP whatever the city staff wants? Who is running this city anyway?

There is way too much fat and waste. No one is suggesting cutting muscle... just fat. There are way too many employees which means too much money spent on salaries, benefits, retirement, and overtime. Way too many employees spending money on all kinds of other things. Way too many vehicles which means way too much vehicle cost, way too much fuel cost, way too much operating cost, way too much maintenance cost. Way too many buildings. Way too much equipment. Way too much inventory... when was the last time the City Council took a hard look at how much city money is tied up in just inventory?

Instead of approving to replace 10 vehicles why didn't the city council take a harder look and say something like... 10 is simply too many, we will approve 5 this year, 2 next year, and 2 the following year and we are going to reduce your vehicle inventory by one vehicle. What is wrong with our elected officials? Do they not know how to be tough when it comes to budgets and spending and negotiating? Do they not know how and when to be tough when dealing with Department Heads? Of course they are going to come in prepared with a good argument and justification... don't we expect at least that of them? They are adults, they are seasoned managers. They can and find ways to get by if they are not given everything. Better to try trimming to see what it gains than to never try and never know. If a huge mistake is made and a couple of the vehicles that were denied totally die they can still be replaced... it isn't the end of the world. More than likely the amortized cost of a few months extra life will still more than make up for any supposed loss of savings thru the purchasing contract anyway.

Instead of approving like for like vehicles why didn't the city say something like... pick-up trucks cost way too much to operate. Fine, if we need to replace 5 vehicles this year then let's replace them with vehicles that will cost significantly less to operate.

Maybe the best solution is to just give every single department head a performance contract. Let them earn a bonus that is commensurate with how effective they are as managers at doing more with less... let's see some increase in productivity and a decrease in staff. Any department head that says it can't be done? Show them the door because they really aren't trying to save and reduce all they are doing is trying to build a power base.

The city council needs to take a long hard look at outsourcing. There are a ton of city employees that could be eliminated just by contracting the work out to private firms. They will find ways to be more efficient because they will have to bid against other firms. One great example of how this can be effectively is with facility management. A lot of organizations have gone to their Director of Maintenance and said... look, this is what it is costing us every year to operate your department. This is what we will be spending if we outsource the operation to a contracted service provider. You have a choice, get with your employees and make a decision. Find ways to trim costs and operate your budget for the same cost as the contracted service provider and you can remain as our employees. If not, all of your jobs will be eliminated and you may apply for work with the new contractor; though we are unable to guarantee that they will hire you.

Sounds tough? May be. That is what a lot of us are up against every day in the real world. We have to produce results that demonstrate we are at least as efficient and as productive as those who would replace us at our jobs tomorrow if they were given the opportunity. Why should city jobs and even entire city departments not be expected to produce the exact same kind of results? Why should taxpayers be any less demanding than shareholders?

To: A man of gladness seldom falls intro madness
Great name and great post, how filled are those board meetings, by the tone of some posts you would figure pickets should be around city hall on a daily basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
By A man of gladness seldom falls into madness... on June 10, 2008 9:37 AM

You know, everyone can attend the budget hearings, come to City Council meetings and make their opinions known - heck you can run for city council if you dislike all of this so much. Blogging and complaining really don't solve any "problems". Remember the Salem Witch Trials, where a lot of speculation and mis-information led to the prosecutions and deaths of a lot of innocent people? These blogs kind of remind me of that.

People who don't have all the facts or information or technical knowledge to be making educated decisions about fleet management, are coming up with final decisions on how the city should be run. I understand that it's your tax dollar, but you should be truly informed on where and how your tax dollar is being spent. If you don't understand something, don't speculate or run with these wild ideas of "how corrupt and unethical the city is", show up to a meeting once in a while, contact your local official, get the facts. All the budget documents, CIP and Operating, are even posted on the City's website.

I heard on the radio this morning that the Kane County Board decided not to purchase any more gas guzzling vehicles and pick-up trucks were one of the vehicles in their cross hairs. Going forward fuel efficiency will be one of the important criteria for consideration and justification.

Well good for them! Hopefully many other local units of government will follow their leadership.

Bubo,

dito that!

Early on Councilman Bob commented that it was the Director of Public Works who made a "good case" for vehicle replacement. For those of us who were unable to attend the meeting... what was the justification that was so compelling that city council members went against their own hunches or instincts to put this off for at least one more year?

Ted,

I was hoping that Councilman would put this one to bed by posting the financial justification that he should have been able to review before voting yes on this one.

Any chance the Sun can put this one to bed by obtaining a copy of the justification that was presented to the Council before all but Furstenau voted yes?

While I don't want to see the City wasting time writing justifications for pencil sharpeners, I would hope that $222K would get on their radar.

Bubo

You know, everyone can attend the budget hearings, come to City Council meetings and make their opinions known - heck you can run for city council if you dislike all of this so much. Blogging and complaining really don't solve any "problems". Remember the Salem Witch Trials, where a lot of speculation and mis-information led to the prosecutions and deaths of a lot of innocent people? These blogs kind of remind me of that.

People who don't have all the facts or information or technical knowledge to be making educated decisions about fleet management, are coming up with final decisions on how the city should be run. I understand that it's your tax dollar, but you should be truly informed on where and how your tax dollar is being spent. If you don't understand something, don't speculate or run with these wild ideas of "how corrupt and unethical the city is", show up to a meeting once in a while, contact your local official, get the facts. All the budget documents, CIP and Operating, are even posted on the City's website.

In general, experts recommend shutting an engine down if it will be idling for more than one minute. The amount of fuel needed to restart the engine will be less than the amount of fuel consumed if the engine was left idling. Something for all drivers to consider when waiting in lines or at a really long traffic light. I know countries like Germany have installed electronic signs at major intersections telling motorists when to turn their engine off and when to turn it back on... helps decrease air pollution too!

Another consideration is that gasoline engines suffer more wear and tear running at idle speed for extended periods of time than do diesel engines. Diesel engines also perform better when running at a constant speed and suffer less wear and tear.

Possibly the city should investigate purchasing diesel engine powered vehicles for uses where there is anticipated to be a lot of idling? Possibly the city could install some simple stickers on the dashboard of city vehicles reminding all vehicle operators to turn off the engine whenever possible? Besides wasting fuel and money it will also help cut air pollution.

The only thing that can save us from these out-of-control real estate tax increases is a citizen vote to do away with home rule powers. Simple as that.

Then our real estate taxes would be capped unless approved by a referendum. That would cause everyone 400 S Eagle Street to break into a cold sweat. Maybe we finally would get some city department managers who actually knew how to manage a department budget responsibly... knew hot to reduce department expenses... knew how to eliminate unnecessary jobs... knew how to get more than 52K miles out of a city vehicle.

Power is in the people. Don't bi*ch about how things are. Get out there and start to organize a movement if you believe the city isn't being a good steward of our tax dollars.

Ted,

I didn't want to post anything on the ombudsman page to take away from Jim's good by posts, so here it is..

Can you create some new blogs?

*Goat Farmer on Plank Road story you published, warrantless search, animals in prison, legal fees, eminent domain to fix a problem created by a builder and government officials etc... lots to discuss here

*Guy and his wife held driveway for hours at "well known gang house" front page story. If they guy didn't want his ice cream to melt, why didn't he take his shirt of to show the cops no tattoos? Are the police really supposed to stop using Chicago Avenue or Charles since this guy moved into the gang house?

The cops would see more at the pool than if he had taken his shirt off. Father of the kid with the pseudo gun at school is a victim?

I would have stripped to my birthday suite to save the ice cream in this weather. But I don't have any compromising tattoos? Does he?

Response from Ted:

OK, they may not be on the specific topics you mentioned but some new entries will be posted soon.

Thanks Moderator Jim for topics like these. Also, tell Mike Mitchell, your new city council reeporter to keep up the good work! His reports on police and city spending has been fascinating and entertaining.

Tell Ted Slowik that his comments here are insightful .

I'm still in awe that city vehicles have such a low standard. It's not quite surprising to this long-time Naperville resident, but it is a surprise that the coucil passed this in spite of complaining about it.

My Fellow Bloggers,

If City of Naperville officials were making all the right decisions as some people on this thread suspect, my question is why did my real estate taxes go up 18.27% last year instead of the national norm of about 3%.

I live in Will County and unfortunately unlike Dupage, Will does not divide my city portions between expenses and pension. It lumps them together. But together they are up 18.27% in one single year. I think that is outrageous!

Maybe if they held on to these vehicles until they were fully depreciated and used we could go back to 3% instead of 18% increases. If this is not the problem, what is the problem! City Manager Bob Marshall does not seem to know that the problem is. If he did he would have communicated the problem to the residents. Former City Manager Peter Burchard ran away just before our tax bills came out reflecting an 18% plus tax increase. He knew he would be ousted so he made a deal to scold Dick Furstneau in return for a balloon parachute payment.

Councilman Wehrli tried to blame all the city problems on DF's lawsuit. DF was not the stupid one willing to pay attorneys in excess of a million dollars to defend his petty lawsuit at most worth 127,000 dollars. Our other City Officials made that very unwise decision. At most you pay an attorney 10-20k to defend a 127k lawsuit. Not 8-9 times the worse possible damages. This is simply insanity revealing its worse face!

Obvioulsy, Dick Furstenau has been voting against all these wasted expenses while his colleagues have been voting for them. Well time has proven DF right! The horrendous increases in taxes have proven DF right. No wonder they felt a need to reprimand him for scolding city employees for their wasteful habits. They should have joined DF in scolding employees for their wasteful habits instead of siding with them. Had they joined DF in reprimanding city employees we may have seen a 3% increase in the budget instead of the 18% plus increase we just paid for on June 2, 2008.

One of our serious problems is giving city employees pensions that are more than double the pay of what most current school teachers start their careers. Another problem is starting pensions 14 years before mandatary requirement age.

Here we have a City Manager in the best health of his life and we allow him to retire while he is in peak condition at the ripe young age of aporoximately 50 with an 85k pension and possibly full health benefits. And then we put him to work for us in a different capacity where he may not be qualified, due to lack of experience, for another 180k. And suddenly we have an 18% increase in our taxes and everyone is blaming it on idling city vehicles. All the idling cars in the City of Naperville could not do as much damage as Marshall's retirement pension while he is fit enough to run marathons. Let us stay focused on the real problems escalating our taxes!

Back to the idling trucks with 52 thousand miles. Since these trucks according to city officials are more like trucks with 80k plus miles due to the massive idling, are we being truthful and dislcosing this equivalence to the potential buyers? Or are we being dishonest and hiding this information from the potential buyers and in essence SCREWING THEM?

I sure hope we are still an ETHICAL CITY which will not SCAM an unsuspecting buyer. We know they can pull a scam and pay police OT during charity funds with taxpayer cultural money! Let us hope that is the only scam the City of Naperville is involved in at the present time!

"By Joe Taxpayer on June 7, 2008 10:01 AM
Councilman Wehrli lamented over the cost of the Furstenau lawsuit against the city, but now has no problem digging into the taxpayers' pockets to replace vehicles with only 50,000 miles on them? it would be interesting to know which dealership is going to benefit from this $222,0000 decision?"
_____________________________

Joe Taxpayer,no conspiracy here, if you go back and actually read the article, you will find that the city is purchasing the vehicles through the State of Illinois Join Purchasing Contract, not a local dealer. The dealer the State uses for this program is Bob Ridings Ford, which is located in Taylorville, IL.

As far as the vehicles being replaced, they were made between 1999 and 2001, were mostly pick-up trucks and had mileage that ranged from 52,000 up to 88,000. 8 to 10 year old trucks may have low mileage, but the hours and type of use they get in a municipal fleet dictate early retirement. Comparing a work truck to a daily commuter that only carries a bag of groceries and golf clubs is apples to oranges.

Just for giggles, the 3,000 miles that is used as an oil change number actually translates into 50 hours at 60mph. The problem with excessive idling, is that the oil is not being changed when it should, it is being changed at 3,000 miles which could be significantly more than 50 hours with all of the idling these vehicles do. That aside, the other problem is with the engines emission control system. The fuel mixture at idle is a bit more rich than say highway speeds, this works the catalytic converter and other emission control parts more than expected in the same number of "miles". Good Luck with your dilemma I hope it all works out for you in the end.

Anonymouse, instead of hating and attacking me, maybe you should read the whole thread. Councilman Bob posted:

The City Council and City Manager have given all city departments strict orders to avoid unnecessary idling. In some cases, though, like the example I gave for wood chippers, the vehicle pulling the unit remains stationary or moves excruciatingly slow as the crew performs the work.

From watching these chippers work on my street, I have observed that sometimes they sit for 5 to 10 minutes in spots with a lot of material. The indication from denny is that they should be shut off for that time. However, the driver is still in the vehicle waiting for the move signal. This worker is indeed being paid to sit in an idling vehicle. Why should he have to sit in stifling heat or frigid cold on the day it is his turn to drive? By the way, no words were stuffed into denny's mouth, I just questioned his meaning, all part of a debate.

While it is touching that you want to copy my phrases, your knee jerk reaction of hate towards me must preclude you from thinking before you type. Which state route in Naperville will be continually blocked by the Canadian National's trains? I assume, since we are talking about City of Naperville vehicles, he is talking about Naperville rail crossings.

Maybe if you concentrated a little more on the subject at hand instead of attacking me, anonymouse, you might be a useful addition to the debate. Otherwise, you just come across as a cyberstalker.

Councilman Wehrli lamented over the cost of the Furstenau lawsuit against the city, but now has no problem digging into the taxpayers' pockets to replace vehicles with only 50,000 miles on them? it would be interesting to know which dealership is going to benefit from this $222,0000 decision?

Ken,

Obviously you don't know much about wood chippers. A vehicle towing a wood chipper is a vehicle in operation, not an idling vehicle. The vehicle is being operated as designed and as intended. No one has questioned that. What has been questioned was just plain wasteful idling. Wasteful because the engine could be turned off, but is not. As has been pointed out, if you have been keeping up, some city vehicles are specialized and need to be kept idling due to electrical system considerations. No one is questioning that either.

In your typical fashion you attempted to stuff words in someone else's mouth, this time Denny's, and you did it using a knee jerk bad example. You might want to think your accusatory examples through better next time before you click on the "submit' button.

Same thing goes with your statement about trains plugging up state highways. Another subject on which you should educate yourself first before you start spouting off though that is not something we will be debating on this thread.

Most of you bloggers wouldn't last a day doing the work of the average city worker, yet you all feel you have some right making all these negative comments.. Great support. Don't forget about your 9AM tee time on Monday.

This is an outrage. I did not move my family to Naperville so the city employyes can drive around in cars with an excess of 52,000 miles. It is embarrassing. We need to band to together. Let's start an organization to guarantee that our city employees drive only the newest of vehicles. Old cars are nothing more than an eesore--an environmental hazard---makes the whole environment around the car hazardous to look at. This new organization will meet next week at the Tall Grass clubhouse. The name of this organization will be New Sedans For Our City (or NSFOC for short). Please bring your checkbooks. We need to hire an attorney to make sure any oil stains are remediated. We will sue for the follwoing remedies. 1.) The city will have new cars. 2.) The city will not have old cars. 3.) Car wash coupons for all gas fill ups over 8 gallons, and 4.) reimbursement of attorney fees.

Well, anonymouse 1:45pm, the example given was dragging the wood chipper. The vehicle idles along while workers feed the chipper. Pothole patching crews also have a driver going slow as they patch the potholes. There are probably other jobs city workers do where they would be turning the vehicle on 1000's of times a day if you all had your way.

Knee jerk blanket answers often are not the solution to a perceived problem. Trains plugging up state highways is a good example of that.

Anonymous 1:45. Amen!

So Ken, Yes they should turn off the engine unless they are stopping for very brief periods. Excessive idling is bad for everyone. I admit, however, That many of us might be forced to do just that if Canadian National starts plugging up state highways with trains. Think about it!

Ken,

Why in the world would we be PAYING city workers to SIT in an idling vehicles as part of their job? If they have work to do they should be out of their vehicle doing whatever work they are being paid to perform. Trying to compare other work environments with a lot of city workers who work outside does not automatically translate and you know that. Some people work in offices and have heat and air conditioning... some times those offices are connected to factories or warehouses that do not and you should know that too. A lot of city workers are hired with the knowledge and understanding that they will be performing their work duties in an outside work environment. That is not a justification for idling their vehicles and if these workers are not comfortable working outside then they never should have taken the job.

If they are taking a break fine. If it is inclement weather and they are taking a warm up break fine. Other than that, why in the world would the city be paying city workers to sit in an idling vehicle? If anyone has seen this type of "work" going on, please report it so that we can eliminate some more unnecessary city jobs.

So Denny, are you saying that city employees should not have use of the heater and A/C when they are sitting in their vehicles as part of the job? Do you work in an environment that does not have heat or A/C in use? I could see the no idling policy if no one will be in the vehicle, but the described uses don't seem to fit that category.

Hmmm, could it be that all this idling is because city employees like their air conditioners in summer and their heaters in winter?
If there is not a policy not to leave the engine running there should be! That way they would have to constantly look over their shoulders when they violate the rules.

Councilman Bob,

Did Naperville's Finance Director (Mr. Krieger) do a capital budget that demonstrates what the transportation Director claims to be true. Maintenance costs will exceed the cost of purchasing new vehicles? 500K to 1,000K miles on a good diesel truck is not unheard of.

If someone in Finance did do a multi-year capital outlay budget justifying the replacement can you post it or a link to it?

If there are no facts to support the need to purchase the new vehicles, why would anyone in authority vote to replace the new vehicles?

Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Bubo

Thanks Councilman Bob.

Moderator Jim, I'll have to repectfully disagree as to the potential impact of the idle time on the vehicles.

Either way, good luck in your future endeavors.

T.B.

No offense taken Jim, again good luck in all your future endeavors.

Come on Moderator Jim, We don't want beaters running the streets of our great city do we? Watch out when using the word entitled, it seems to infuriate some that read it. Or was that the point all along. Good luck to you Jim from another Jim.

I do not think idling has any significant wear and tear on an engine. I have a Toyota that has 312,000 miles that is running excellent. I would like to think that my extra 260,000 miles "driven" over city vehicles is much more stress on a vehicle than idling to light up an arrow.

I do appreciate all Councilman Bob has done for us. I just blogged on the Marshall Pension Thread commending him and expressing my opinion. He posted there a little late so if you missed his post there please go back and read it....it was rather informative!

Councilman Bob should not be above constructive criticism though, if he wishes to blog here. No one is! That is what makes this blog site interesting. Everyone should have thick skin and accept criticism and complements equally well. I am sure the Councilman can handle anything thrown his way and can defend himself. If he feels he is above criticism, he should NOT be here in the frying pan with us. I do not believe that to be the case. Councilman Bob has a very strong personality and appears very intelligent!

Only through constructively criticising each other can we learn and move forward!

I would like to end by wishing Mr. Lynch the best and thanking him for all he has done to build this blog site into what it is today. I am sure Host Ted will continue in his footpath and make it even better!

As I did on the Marshall Pension Thread, I would like to urge all Napergatians who cancelled their subscriptions the last 7 years, to please renew them so we can show support for the Naperville Sun in these difficult times.

I would also like to ask Chicago Sun-Times officials to re-evaluate their decision in laying off the one person who stopped the decline of the Naperville Sun and actually increased circulation by 1000 subsciptions in his first year at the Naperville Sun. I believe Tim West is very close to retirement age and maybe Sun-Times officials could have offered him a parachute payment to induce him to retire a few months early...thus saving Mr. Lynch and the important turn around he has brought to the Naperville Sun!

Naperville Sun editors on June 5, 2008 2:18 PM

You're a "Punny" guy (pun intended - rhymes with funny) and I don't "necessarily" disagree with you.

I'm also no mechanic, but I would challenge you to tell me that there is no difference between a pickup truck with 52,000 highway miles (something many of us drive), vs. a truck with 52,000 "municipal city" miles (starting, idling and stopping, etc.) that also probably has 10X (10X is just my opinion, I don't know) the idle time.

I hate to put this back on you (and at the risk of sounding like another group who like to blog - (rhymes with paperweightians)), can the Sun investigate, i.e. simply call the local Ford dealer? (or just walk over to Avenue Chevy)? and ask a mechanic if idling has any affect on a pickup truck? I would venture to say that when these trucks are evaluated they are in far worse shape than their 52,000 miles would indicate. Based on what the mechanic says, you can go back to the city council and present your findings - then you may have a good story to print.

I can't believe I'm trying to stick up for the city, and would love for someone to prove me wrong. I believe the city staff this time, and it makes sense that these trucks with 52 - 80K miles on them have served their time.

In case it wasn't clear, my last posting was directed to Jim Lynch.

Since it looks like we're both posting in real time, let me just tell you that I will miss you when you depart. The Sun is definitely the go-to publication for Naperville, and you deserve kudos for making it so. And starting this blog was a good move too. As a fellow transplanted New Yorker, you've been a joy to talk with the times we've been at the same events. In a way I'm jealous, because change is generally good, and I know you will make the most of the next portion of your professional journey. And you'll have fun at the same time. Keep the faith, ~CB.

Naperville Sun editors on June 5, 2008 1:41 PM

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Councilman Bob simply gave the reason why a truck would have higher idle time thereby reducing the life span of a city vehicle. If you look at mileage as your only determinant of replacement you are missing the big picture.

I drove thru downtown today and had to merge into the left lane because of construction (nothing new!). The right lane was blocked by a city pickup truck pulling a trailer with a blinking arrow on it, and shielding some guys who appeared to be filling potholes. I would venture to say this truck will run (idle) for 8-9 hours today and have no more than 10 miles on the odometer.

This doesn't make it any easier to accept, but it does seem logical that this can be a legitimate reason to trade in a vehicle. I appreciate Councilman Bob commenting on this blog, but I can see why he will probably grow tired of this. Everyone seems to want his opinion, and then go on and on criticizing it once it is given.

I also must have missed the article where the Sun reporter contacted any of the local car dealerships and asked the service departments what towing, idling, constant starting and stopping will do to a truck? I'm sorry to vent on you like this, I enjoy the blogosphere you have created, I just feel your comment is unfounded. Also, please don't mistake my rant here as letting the city off the hook - They also need to come forward with proof that this was the right thing to do. I think, however, this is something the Sun should have insisted on to make the story more complete.

Re T.B. 6/5 @ 8:39a - The City Council and City Manager have given all city departments strict orders to avoid unnecessary idling. In some cases, though, like the example I gave for wood chippers, the vehicle pulling the unit remains stationary or moves excruciatingly slow as the crew performs the work. I don't know whether the wood chipper derives power from the vehicle, but the explanation as to why wear-and-tear on that type of vehicle wouldn't be reflected just in the mileage made sense to me. Other city vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances and squad cars need to remain in idle if they have equipment on board that requires more power than the battery can reliably supply.

On the link to the agenda item, since the link I provided apparently doesn't get you there directly, try this:

Go to www.naperville.il.us,
Then click on Government,
Then click on Agendas and Minutes,
Then click on City Council Agendas, Minutes & Videos,
Then click on Agenda Packets,
Then click on June 3, 2008 Packet Without Cash Disbursements (large file - sometimes takes some time to bring up),
In the Bookmarks window, click on I2B Vehicle Replacements.

Ciao for now, ~CB.

I agree with you Ted. I believe the paper has been on a great course. And yes, I will agree that your city hall reporter, Mike MItchell, is doing an exceptional job. I look forward to his reports. The other nice thing, is these blogs. They are interesting and it's nice to see councilman Fiesler blogging with us.

It's really the new age of journalism, in a way. Hopefully the future is bright for this paper.

Hold on a second here! Yet again we are sliding down that slippery slope of half-truths and spin doctoring.

All of the vehicles being replaced are pick-up trucks with the exception of one Explorer SUV. Neither pick-up trucks nor SUV's are used to pull wood chippers around. The size of the pick-up trucks we are getting for this price can't actually pull much of anything around. Councilman Bob would be wise to get some honest answers on why it is even remotely necessary to be idling any of the kinds of vehicles being replaced, if that is indeed what is decreasing their useful life. For basic safety reasons, to comply with existing motor vehicle laws, and to be responsible stewards of the environment no city owned vehicle should be allowed to just idle. City owned vehicles should always be turned off when not actually in operation.

As far as the city budget explanation goes... well it really just doesn't hold water if you actually stop and think about what has been said. Professional purchasing and finance departments are used to planning and managing these typical kinds of deadline conflict situation. This is far from being unique and is actually a typical part of managing these departments efficiently and effectively.

Yes, a budget did need to be approved. Certainly the replacement cost for these vehicles was one of the line items in the approved budget? Why were the replacement vehicles not discussed during the budget hearing process? Maybe the budget approval process is what needs to be fixed here? There is absolutely no reasons that both actions could not have been taking concurrent, parallel paths since the deadlines of both are so well known and understood by city staff.

In all reality the City of Naperville should have had this very same deadline conflict last year and should expect to have the same deadline conflict next year and in coming years. City staff needs to communicate and plan these actions with city council so as to avoid forcing council members to make decisions under duress, or in this case artificial created duress because the whole matter could have been planned out better, discussed, and approved weeks ago. Again, shame on city staff and let this be a red flag to the city council to watch for related to future approvals in coming months and years.

If nothing else the City of Naperville should be talking with the people who run the state purchasing program and similar purchasing departments from other communities and work to find either another order deadline or to determine if multiple order dates throughout the year can be negotiated.

Councilman Bob, considering the amount of money involved with this purchase was this order just blindly placed with the state purchasing program or did city staff actually go out to competitive bid from all pick-up truck manufacturers to determine the true actual cost savings. In other words did the City of Naperville save $50 or $500 over what Fair Oaks Ford would have charged or even without the state program would it have been possible to purchase a different brand/model at a lower cost from another manufacturer/dealer? How much did we save per vehicle over the next highest bid? Did the true net savings really justify the forced, rash decision making process?

Some other posters have suggested that certain brands of vehicles may be more durable, reliable, or efficient. Certainly JD Powers and others can help substantiate or negate such claims. In this day and age I do think the City of Naperville has to be mindful of total life cycle cost. Acquisition cost. Cost to operate. Cost to maintain. Residual value. If one truck cost $1,000 more to purchase new and has lower maintenance cost, is more fuel efficient, and is anticipated to have a higher residual value 10 years later; then I would be all for purchasing vehicles that can be shown to be more cost effective over the entire life cycle. Justifying city purchasing decisions based upon the acquisition cost alone can certainly lead us to being "penny wise and pound foolish".

Seems the debate could be settled rather easily by asking the maintenance staff for condition reports on these vehicles. At first glance it would appear that these vehicles have many years of life left, but upon closer inspection there may be reasons such as: long idle times, age of vehicle, maintenance /corrosion preventiveness,& safety issues/liability issues. It is one thing to drive a personal vehicle for 10+ years, quite another issue when that vehicle is operated by city employees.

Our company keeps domestic work vehicles to 7 years/ 90k-100k. we have experimented with keeping a couple of vehicles longer with expensive mechanical,and depreciation results.

An Observer –

I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers that the city “will be receiving 50% less than blue book value this year...." While I read in the US Today in early May that SUV trade-in values are falling, I haven’t seen 50% reported anywhere.

I just traded in an SUV two weeks ago with a blue book value between $5,500 and $7,500 depending on how you rated the condition of the car. The dealer’s trade-in offer was $6K and Carmax offered $6.5K. It was essentially a wash after the tax savings of the dealer’s lower offer. That's hardly 50%.

**********

I’d like to thank Salesman and Councilman Bob for their thoughtful responses.

Salesman rightly pointed out that these vehicles would loose most of their trade value after 60K miles and are also more expensive to maintain. My guess is that the $22.5K per vehicle cost is due, in part, to the trade-in credit the city received for the vehicles leaving the city’s fleet.

Councilman Bob did a nice job of showing that the timing was not some city department shenanigans, as some alleged, but caused by the city budget timing. It just goes to show how facts can go a long way to alleviating knee-jerk reactions.

I was also very interested in Councilman Bob’s comment that many of the vehicles are idled for extended periods of time such as when they’re pulling wood chippers. I’d like to know if the vehicles are idled to run the chipper equipment or if the vehicles are idled when they otherwise could/should be turned off. Do chippers have their own power source/motor or are the dependent on the vehicles?

If the vehicles have to be idled to run the equipment, I think the city is doing a good job in counting the idling time into the life of the vehicle. A vehicle with 52K miles on it really has an engine with usage greater than the odometer indicates. However, if the vehicles don’t need to be idling to operate the chippers, then why the hell are they left running?

T.B.

P.S. Councilman Bob – I tried to go to the agenda link you provided but the page “could not be found”. Has the agenda moved to another site? Thanks.

I don't know why you are all surprised. Isn't this decision just typical Naperville behavior? When the townspeople as a whole decide that the continued facade of big homes, expensive cars, big schools, higher taxes has gone on long enough, they will elect officials who understand fiscal responsibility.

As a former long-time resident, it makes me so sad to see what this city has become.

I've always called 'em like I see 'em. Those who have followed this forum since I started it in April 2007 will know, I don't make comments in hopes that people will agree with me. I despise waste and corruption. I know that good people sometimes make bad decisions, and I try to always remain respectful and professional and to not make things personal. I'm uncomfortable with praise, because I know, as the song goes, "That's life...riding high in April, shot down in May."

So in response to recent comments--thank you, but, we're just doing our jobs, as I feel we have been all along, even when some haven't seen it that way. We have a good city hall reporter--Mike Mitchell--who has keen judgment and is able to spot an issue like these vehicle purchases on an otherwise light council agenda, and who knows that's what he should write about, that's what people care about. He gets it. We get it. But nothing's changed--I'm the same person I was a year ago, a month ago, when many on here were calling me pro-establishment. I'm not pals with anyone in the city. I actually met Sgt. Greg Bell today during a fundraiser for Muscular Dystrophy Association. First time I've talked to him in person. He seemed nice.

I'm going back to something I've said before. Residents, taxpayers, voters--you're the ones with the potential to effect real change. We're merely the forum, the medium to express your message. We're the vessel, but it's what's inside that's important, and you provide that.

Anyway, I usually drive cars until they get close to 200,000 miles on them. My cars are paid off. I like it that way. Replacing vehicles at 52,000 miles, well, it seems unnecessary to me. Then again, I'm no expert, I admit I didn't observe the debate last night, haven't read the staff recommendation, haven't researched the topic well enough to take a strong stand on it. But my first reaction to this story was, "Gimme a break. 52,000 miles? Must be nice..."

To Anonymous 6/4 @ 9:24 and everyone else - great posts.

On the vehicle replacements, it was pulled from the Consent Agenda (the items that the staff thinks can be approved without discussion) by me and perhaps another Councilman. I thought it was natural to question whether the vehicles could be used at least another year before replacing. Our Director of Public Works made a good case for why the 9 vehicles, model years 1999 - 2001, would cost more to maintain than to replace. He also pointed out that many of the vehicles are idled during a good portion of their use, as in the case of trucks that pull wood chippers during brush collection. There's a formula used in determining when a city vehicle has reached replacement age, and we asked our finance staff to update it for future analyses like this, especially in view of newer vehicles' improved longevity.

The total cost for the 9 replacement vehicles plus one new vehicle (9 pickups and 1 Explorer SUV) was $222,515, which seemed pretty reasonable to me. You can see the full agenda item at:

http://www.naperville.il.us/ccpacket/ccp060308.pdf.

On the timing: Yes I agree that we were being rushed into this decision, given that the order needed to be submitted by this Friday 6/6 to get the discounted rate under the state joint purchasing contract. When I asked about that, the answer was that the timing crunch comes from the need to have a city budget in place before the replacement vehicles could be ordered. So there's apparently always been a crunch in getting the vehicle replacement item before the Council between the May 1 fiscal year beginning and the early-June contract deadline. According to the information we were given, delaying the purchase would have resulted in an additional 12-14 months before we could have received replacements under the state purchasing contact.

So that's what went into my decision in favor of the purchase. Although we approved these replacements, I do think that future replacements are going to be disapproved without up-to-date supporting information.

Best, ~CB.

PS to Joe 6/4 @ 2:50p: I agree that buying a depreciating asset should be avoided where possible, but I always heard that BORROWING to acquire a depreciating asset was worse. Which is why I've never understood why people take loans to buy cars.

Host Ted and Moderator Jim,

I want to thank you both for the new direction you are taking the Naperville Sun. It is truly nice to see all the new threads you are posting up that deal with cost cutting and saving the taxpayer as much of his hard earned money as possible.

We really are in a crisis! I see a real estate crisis in addition to the gas crisis. Million dollar homes are sitting on the market with no one making offers. Vacancies in commercial property are harder and harder to fill.

It is really mind-boggling that the City wants to trade in 52,000 mile trucks. I put that many miles in one year on my car some years. If I can get 200,000 miles before I trade, I will get 200,000 miles. One of my cars is a 1975 Cadillac that works just as good as my 1999 Toyota. Does the city not change oil and lubricate every 3000 miles on its trucks? Does it not wash its trucks? Does it not tune them up once a year? Does it not inspect them? What is going on here?

I read somewhere that a blogger asked for a 10% reduction in city expenses. While more is better, let us all be realistic and stick with Ernie's Napergatian proposal of 5%. We are talking about city officials who have been on the taxpayer bottle sucking every dime out of us for decades. Let us go slow on them while we get them off this sucking bottle.

Wow! Eight of nine council members voting for waste and inefficiency. I watched that City Council meeting last night. I like how they give LIP PROPAGANDA before RIPPING the TAXPAYER. As the Napergate Man once said a decade ago they are simply there to rubber stamp City Officials. I don't understand why! But maybe since City Officials passed on many benefits to them including pension and full health insurance, they managed to corrupt them.(except for DF) Maybe they made them feel that we all in it together. I am not sure!

However, it appears the only solution is for us to vote new council members in who want to join the Naperville Sun, the Napergatians and the masses in watching our expenses so our taxes can be affordable once again!

Every person and every business is suddenly making cuts throughout the nation. But not the City of Naperville! All they do is pass it on to the taxpayer! That appears to be the easy way for them. I think it is time to let them also know it is very easy to oust them from office in the 2009 local elections! Easy begets easy! If they want to take the easy way out of each important decision by agreeing with City Officials, we will also take the easy way out by voting a new slate of candidates in! What goes around, usually comes around!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. As my fellow Napergatians have done before me, I also would like to wish Moderator Jim success in all his future endeavors. He really made some serious changes in the Naperville Sun and earned my respect. I wish he could have gotten us that interview with the Napergate Man. But I understand he could not control that!

I am hoping one day circulation at the Sun will soar again and Moderator Jim could be brought back. If an understaffed operation like the Naperville Sun is making cuts, one again has to ask how an overstaffed operation like the Naperville City Hall can avoid cuts. The Naperville Sun has a large building in Naperville and pays much real estate tax to the City of Naperville. Maybe, just maybe, if taxes were a little less at that building, we would still have Jim with us. At least he fought hard and did what he could do. I hope we all continue Jim's legacy of watching out for the taxpayer....watching out for improprieties...watching out for cronyism! I am also going to miss Jim's Friday columns. I will continue my subscription as all indications are that Host Ted is furthering what Moderator Jim started at the Naperville Sun!

PS.II Is Moderator Jim still writing his Friday column? Is he still overseeing the Naperville Sun publications? Can we have one last chat session with him so we can all personally tell him how grateful we are that he was able to turn the Naperville Sun around, after that horrific decline following the Napergate Era from 22,000 to 15,200? If not please wish him well on my behalf, Host Ted!

Host Ted,

It is nice to finally see that the Napergate Man and the Napergatians no longer have to lead the charge against City Hall.

It is nice to see that YOU are leading the charge. That you are playing watchdog. That the Naperville Sun is finally being the New Newspaper it promised it will be.

Maybe it took you and Moderator Jim some time to get your feet in the water. But it seems like you have finally jumped in the water. I wish Jim could be around to help you. It is not going to be easy to stand up to City Hall unless the masses stand up with you.

I can assure you the Napergatians are 100% behind you Host Ted. It seems like the rest of the town will be following shortly to back you and other Sun Officials in undertaking your watchdog duties.

While it may seem you have some resistance, it is nothing nore than a handful of wackos who each blogg 200 times a month. They have been on here for a year and a half with no support. I have yet to see one FEMALE in Naperville join them. It just seems very odd.

They are just a bunch of guys who want the status quo. They don't want the old Boy's Club penetrated. They enjoy the glass ceiling status they think is invincible.

I think their days are numbered. They have been exposed as HOLLOW MEN! Loose bearing and all as others have stated!

Host Ted,

Thanks Host Ted for following in the footsteps of Moderator Jim. Before I proceed I want to thank Moderator Jim for his services to the City of Naperville as a watchdog in his final months.

With you latest thread, Host Ted, you are showing an undertanding of why not only Napergatians are frustrated with city waste but many others as this thread seems to show.

I am watching the news as I write and United Airlines is gounding 94 737s to try to deal with the gas crises. Laying off an additional 500 employees today besides those they laid off last week.

And look it how our City of Naperville is behaving! Could they not have tried to get a couple of years more out of these vehicles in these rough times.

Are police going to be driving around a little less during this gas crises? While we only need 3 police in downtown has anyone considered they be more effective on foot instead of SUVs. Police on foot in downtown are just as effective as police in SUVs. Chicago has many police on foot in the downtown area!

I want to join my fellow Napergatians and ask for a 5% cut in all city expenses including pay, pensions, gas, electricity, air conditioning and whatever anyone can think of. The days of business as usual and pass everything to the taxpayer must come to an end!

Once again we will really miss you, Mr. Jim Lycnh. Thanks for finally understanding our town and treating the Napergatians very fairly on your blog site! I am confident Host Ted will continue treating us fairly now that he and the residents understand us better.

If it was not for your blog site, we would have been continued to be misundertood. Thanks for allowing us the privelege to blog!

The City Council excluding the brave Dick Furstenau made a foolish decision. They should have never allowed City Staff to pressure them before a looming deadline.

Not only do I agree with most that 52,000 miles on a car today is not the same as 52,000 miles on a car in the 70s or 80s.

Of course since City Staff do not have the wisdom to pay an extra 2000 bucks for a Toyota truck and get 200,000 miles instead of 52,000 miles on a Ford, they possibly could have made the right decision to unload the potential lemons they bought. Has anyone ever told them what FORD stands for.

1. Find On the Road Dead.

2. Fix or Repair Daily.

I have owned 2 Fords in my life time and those were my experiences. I bought my kids 2 Toyotas and I have never had to fix, repair or find anything on the road dead in nearly 8 years now. I learned my lesson. How come the City Official have learned nothing in 178 years?

Furthermore, if anyone watched CNN's "$4 dollar gas and where do we go now," they would have realized this is the worse time to sell those 10 Ford Trucks. They will be receiving 50% less than blue book value this year due to the rise in the cost of gas and an exponential decline of demand and value for those trucks.

All the experts on CNN said only a fool would trade a truck in to save gas on a more efficient car. The savings are not there and when you are getting 50% less on your truck than you would have last year. The amount of money you save on gas would never compensate for the thousands and thousands lost in the trade in of your truck. And when you trade a truck in for another truck instead of a car...assuming it was a little more fuel efficient...the savings in gas become negligble and could never measure up to the 50% greater losses on the TRADE IN VALUE compared to prior years.

I am glad to see none of the posters have been Napergatians so far. This to me indicates that a grass roots movement is building to rid us of the majority of our City Council members who are more worried about their personal pensions than they are about the taxpayers.

It seems once someone is elected to the City Council, he is bought by the system. It use to be the Brestal Law Firm bought them. Now it seems the City Finance Director buys them with the 10,000 salary, the undisclosed pension, full health insurance benefits worth over 10k per year, life insurance benefits worth only God knows how much, cell phone allowance of 50 bucks even though they already have cell phones that may be on unlimited plans, internet service for their home even though they already have unlimited plans at their home. Only God knows what other benefits they may receieve!

I wonder if they get a car allowance! I wonder what else they get.

The School Board in comparison works for NOTHING and just as hard. I have no problem paying Council Members what they are being paid if they would NOT be beholden to the City Finance Director and City Manager. If they would read their packets. If they would not allow City Staff to pressure them. If they would watch out for the taxpayers like Mr. Furstenau. Not one of them bothered to go to the Water Commission meetings to help save us million as DF went. I guess they only do what is required...attend City Council meetings and rubber stamp CRONYISM!

They are still rubber stamping as witnessed by these truck purchases as they rubber stamped Bill Brestal's development projects prior to the Napergate Era!

I am frustrated and infuriated by our City Council minus DF!

I feel may be it is time for me and others to run for the Council and give Dick Furstenau some support. It is no secret why they don't like Mr. Furstenau. He is an honest man who watches for the taxpayers. The rest of the city council members are there to rubber stamp and collect their salary and benefits. Nothing more...nothing less!

Salesman makes some good points. Not exactly apples to apples as he stated because most corporation do not purchase cars anymore in favor of leasing to gain tax benefits. The amortization is slightly different when there are no tax benefits and when ownership takes place over leasing.

Considering the millions and millions of dollars being spend to build the new public works facility on west Jefferson one must question the logic of building such a structure and buying equipment to maintain city vehicles if they are being turned over this soon into ownership. Surely we didn't need to spend all of these millions and millions of dollars just to save a few bucks on tires and oil changes? I sure hope the justification for this facility was a lot better than the case that was made for the new vehicles.... or... did city staff pull another fast one on the city council?

Warren Buffet rule#1

Never buy a depreciating asset.

I have driven a company provided car for 17 years, and while this isn't exactly an "apples to apples" comparison, we order new vehicles once our cars reach 51,000 miles. I questioned our leasing agency as to why this was and their response was the following.

Similar to an actuary in the insurance business, the new car and used car business have certain "rules of thumb". Once a vehicle reaches 60,000 miles it has lost its maximum trade in and resale value so leased vehicles are often ordered and replaced before they reach 55,000 miles. Also, once a car reaches the 60,000 mile point many major upgrades or repairs (tires, transmissions, etc.) kick in and require additional costs.

Maybe someone else in a leasing agency could confirm this, but there are formulas that cost accountants use to calculate the useful life, risk reward, and maximum return of a vehicle.

I drive my personal vehicles to 100k +, but my car is also around $40K to buy new, and the pickup trucks for the city are going to be $22.5K a piece - just speculating here, but they are also probably stripped-down models? I'm wondering why the Sun doesn't simply call the city leasing department and ask how this is determined. Are the trucks used for snow plowing, are they basically beaten and worked hard? Do the trucks pull heavy equipment on trailers causing the drive trains to wear faster? Lots of info missing, but if 52,000 is determined to be the useful life of these trucks I'd like to see the reasons laid out.

The City Council simply needs to stop wasting money and to stop approving everything staff recommends.

The City Council should immediately demand an across the board 10% reduction in expenses from each and every department. Flat out make it happen and tell the department heads that they may not permit any decrease in service levels. If a Department Head can not maintain service levels or reduce the cost by 20% flat out terminate them and replace them with someone who knows how to manage the department assets more efficiently and effectively.

There is way too much fat in the city budget. If the city council doesn't start cutting the fat out it will only get worse and worse. If there are any city council members who don't know where or how to look for possible cost savings please do one of two things... step aside and let someone else run for office who can and will find these opportunities OR hire an outside consultant that will independently and objectively make recommendations on where and how to reduce the entire budget.

I can not believe our acting city manager actually allowed his staff to bring a recommendation to the city council for replacement of vehicles that are no where near the end of their operational "life cycle". Hopefully Marshall is near the end of his own operational "life cycle" as "acting" city manager. This is just another clear example that he is attempting to function way beyond his ability and level of competence.

It's true that 100,000 mark is no longer the life of the vehicle. Gosh, I know nothing about cars, but from personal experience, I can tell you I've already ridden three cars into the 175,000 category.

I change the oil, but almost never wash the things.

These city vehicles are carefully manicured by city staff as implied in the article. I don't understand how they can make the conclusion that 52,000 is time to upgrade?

The council must have been surprised as well. In the big scheme of things, it's not a ton of money for a city of 140,000, but hey we're spending $20,000 plus on our property taxes.

It would be nice to see a little creativity. Maybe Furstenau isn't such a bad guy. He's got an ego, for certain. But he does seem genuinely interested in fiscal sense.

I'm hoping things will change soon because I look at other governments that have gotten out of hand, primarily Chicago and Cook County and the State of Illinois, and it's becoming more appealing to live out of the greater Chicagoland area.

I'd love to see the math the city council used to rationalize this purchase due to "fuel savings". Something a lot of people seem to forget about buying a more efficient vehicle doesn't mean you will be saving moey. Sure, the price you pay at the pump may be lower, but the following factors need to be considered:

-At how much of a loss are the non-fuel efficient vehicles being sold at to offset the near-zero demand for gas hogs in today's economy?
-How much more does it cost to insure brand new vehicles compared to older and less valuable vehicles?
-How much MORE do the new vehicles cost compared to the value of the old vehicles?

I just crunched the numbers myself as I debating ditching my mid-sized 5 year old SUV for a hybrid. Not only would I need to give nearly $20,000 (or more, given the price gouging and high demand of hybrids lately) over the non-existent trade-in value of my SUV to drive off in a hybrid... but my car insurance would also nearly double. I'd need to either keep the hybrid car longer than I've ever kept a car or drive thousands of miles more than I normally do before I'd even begin to see any "savings".

Either way replacing a modern car at 50k miles is ridiculous.

There can be some extreme cases where a vehicle may need to be replaced after 52,000 miles. Possibly it just was a bad vehicle and the maintenance cost was excessive. Possibly the vehicle was used in such a way that that the total engine hours is not reflected in the actual miles.

As a general rule though I do think the city should consult with some outside experts to determine an appropriate mileage benchmark before a vehicle is replaced. All of the automobile manufacturers have made tremendous gains in quality over the last two decades and many vehicles can realistically operate in a satisfactory manner for far in excess of 100,000 miles.

Most "company cars" that corporations provide to their employees are only replaced after 70,000 to 80,000 miles.

It would also be good to know what happens to all of the vehicles that are being replaced? There are a lot of non-profit organizations around us that have vehicles that are 15 and 20 years old that they have to make last. Seems it might not be a bad idea for Naperville to donate some of these vehicles to organizations that know how to get every last mile out of them... I know a few that would be very grateful to receive a vehicle with only 52,000 miles on it!

If we are going to "waste" money I would rather see it wssted on the tail end by donating these vehicle than to try to recoup any residual value that may exist. Or maybe we could have a "book" transaction whereby the cultural fund buys the vehicles for their "fair market" value and then the city council uses the existing process to award the vehicles to local non-profit agencies that are in need of a vehicle.

The short version is that it is a joke to replace the vehicles after 52,000 miles!

If they cannot last longer, perhaps they are buying the wrong vehicles. I just grabbed a Hyundai with a 100,000 warranty (and good mileage, to boot!)

Why can't this City comprehend that they are bleeding us to death? Did they never hear the story of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs?

This City is ill-run, and the pure girth of the wealth here has hidden that fact for years and years. With housing finally "broken", perhaps we will now see if they have any actual ability at running a City. If not, it is incumbant on us to replace them.

The city council should be questioning the value and necessity of ALL city owned vehicles. The city council should mandate the reduction of the city fleet to the absolute minimum number of vehicles necessary. All "perk" cars should be eliminated.... meaning vehicles that are only used to transport people from one point to another. We pay our city employees very well and they can receive a mileage reimbursement for any official business miles driven. The mayor would do well to lead by example and turn in the keys to his own city vehicle.

The only vehicles that should be authorized are specialty vehicles like police and fire along with vehicles that are needed to transport equipment or materials. City vehicles should not be provided solely for personal transport. All city vehicles should be "pool vehicles" and none of them should be assigned to any one individual. Assigning a vehicle to any one person is an immediate red flag that the vehicle is not essential for official city business. Other than police and fire vehicles there should be a strict city policy prohibiting the use of any city owned vehicle to transport a single occupant at any time.

Vehicles that are recommended for purchase always will always have city staff making some kind of justification like the vehicles will be more fuel efficient; which really is kind of silly when you think about it... is city staff ever going to say the vehicle will use more fuel? City council would be well advised to direct city staff to provide fuel consumption reports to demonstrate that staff recommendations are delivering on their recommendations over the long haul.

A better question is why city staff shoved this purchase recommendation under the nose of our city council at the very last minute with a looming time deadline? Seems whoever is responsible for purchasing either isn't doing their job very well or city staff deliberately short-circuited the city council's ability to discuss and make a clear decision without the pressure of time hanging over them. City council would also be well advised to direct the city manager, finance, and purchasing to plan better for future approvals and to not pull a stunt like this again and not subject them to making decisions under duress.

City staff should be evaluating a whole list of factors... life cycle, maintenance costs, fuel costs, downtime experience, utilization, etc. City staff should be evaluating vehicle ownership vs leasing vs occasional renting vs even outsourcing certain specialized vehicles/equipment/functions. The capital cost of vehicles along with the added expense of operation and maintenance plus the potential added liability of every extra vehicle on the road should be scrutinized and justified to determine if it is absolutely essential to city business.

The city council should also take a hard look at the value of outsourcing the entire fleet management operation. There are numerous fleet management firms that can be hired to better and more efficiently purchase, manage, and maintain city vehicles. The nation-wide fleet management firms have access to better purchasing arrangements for fuel, maintenance, and vehicle costs because of their nation-wide purchasing power and existing contracts with suppliers. Plus they have access to better information regarding vehicle maintenance experience and life cycle replacement costs.

Maybe Councilman Bob can chime in and let everyone know how many vehicles are owned, leased, etc... i.e. used or operated by the city of Naperville, maybe give us a breakdown by department? I think a lot of people would like to know and others would be truly amazed at the numbers. How about some numbers on the amount of gasoline and diesel fuel consumed as well? With skyrocketing fuel prices what is EVERY department doing to eliminate, reduce, or conserve fuel costs?

Unreal.

52,000 miles? Heck, I still consider that a nearly brand-new vehicle. A pick-up has an awful lot of life left in it after traveling only 52,000 miles.

This is the height of wasteful spending. Shameful.

Could this fiscal irresponsibility be contributing to the reason why parking rates at the Metra lots are going to increase so dramatically this year? Why did the city need those gas-guzzling pickup trucks in the first place; and by the way, how old are they? Maybe my husband should take his 10 year old car with 58,000 miles on it(which is in excellent condition)and sell that to the city of Naperville, since paying for his parking pass at the Metra lot will be close to making a new car payment in a few months.

We have 3 vehicles. All bought new.

Toyota 175,000 miles
Toyota 150,000 miles
Dodge 110,000

all driven extensively. So I don't even buy the 100k rule your car is dead.

They are 14,14, 7 years old. They look great, you would never guess their ages.

The problem the City is having is they are buying the wrong make, buy foreign.

Dodge is the newest vehicle and caused most trouble greatly it was under warranty.