City of Flint Dot Net

Enter your search terms Submit search form   Web www.cityofflint.net www.tedjankowski.com www.thejankowskifamily.com

Home
Up

Home
Up

The City of Flint just purchased 14 new Tahoes for the Police Dept. This in itself is not a bad thing. The problem lies within the reasoning behind why, we purchased the Tahoes.

We were first told that the City would save money overall because of the costs of Maintenance. So let’ look at the TCO “True Cost to Own” A number of  websites had different numbers. However, I went with the lowest difference in “True Cost of Ownership” because Edmunds is a known authority in this area.

Assumption: Given the expected service live, to be approximately three years of police service in the city, or five for a POV “Personal Operator vehicle. “ The TOC on a Chevy Tahoe (minus police package and wear and tear) is $60,224 compared to the Chevy Impala $45,724 The SS model (minus the Police package.) That is $14,500 more for the Tahoes. Where is the savings?

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/chevrolet/tahoe/100396666/cto.html

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/impala/100550667/cto.html

It has been referenced that repair costs are unbelievably high. I recently read in The Flint Urinal, that some one allowed the city to spend 1.25 million on a garbage truck. I can only imagine what has been allowed on the police vehicles. The severe mismanagement of the City Maintenance Dept should not be used as a factor for whether we buy one vehicle over another. As was admitted in the meeting before the regular council meeting that was discussing at length, the upcoming vote on Garbage trucks. Preventive Maintenance has not been preformed on these vehicles properly for many years. So, we buy different vehicles because we failed to maintain them?  That just doesn’t make any type of common sense. That goes for purchasing the Peter-Built Garbage trucks over the International’s also. (but that’s another topic altogether.)

Another reason given as to purchasing the Tahoes was Safety. On the surface, you may feel that bigger is better. However, the testing does not prove that either. For that information, I also checked many websites and settled on  www.automotive.com . That contained data that is more comprehensive. Again, the Tahoes safety factor was significantly lower than that of the Impala. In addition, it has a much higher rollover rate. The State of Michigan testing doesn’t compare or even test for safety. However, it does show that the Tahoe is faster on acceleration. By as much as a half second up to 60 Mph and a full second up to 100 Mph. When it comes to braking, the Tahoes 144 foot braking from 60 MPH compared to the Impalas 136 foot braking at the same speed leads me to believe, that the Impala would have been the better choice for safety. If you are interested, you can find that information at www.justnet.org/pdffiles/msp2005report.pdf

            http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/chevrolet/tahoe/safety/

http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/chevrolet/impala/safety/

From everything here, it is apparent that the Impala was the far better choice.

Then there is the matter of the purchase process. According to the Ordinance 18-21.4  COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIRED.  “All supplies and contractual services, except as otherwise provided herein, when the estimated cost thereof shall exceed $3,500 shall be purchased by written contract or purchase order from the lowest responsible bidder, after due notice inviting proposals; and no purchase in excess of $3,500 shall be made by the Director, except upon the approval of the City Council.” And the next ordinance 18-21.5  FORMAL CONTRACT PROCEDURE. A bid should have been sent to the “Bidders List” The ordinance states “The Director shall also solicit sealed bids from all responsible prospective suppliers who have requested their names be added to a “bidders list,” which the Director shall maintain by sending them a copy of such newspaper notice or such other notice as will acquaint them with the proposed purchase or sale.”  We should apologize to the Auto Dealerships of the city of Flint. They have stood by this community and remained in the City Limits while others have chosen to run to the suburbs and abandon Flint. The bidder’s list was not used to bid on the contract. Applegate has had vehicles broken into, had wheels and tires stolen right off new cars in the Lot. Then our city rewards them by not even letting them place a bid.

Now, to me what should be a “No Brainer.” The Impala is equipped with an engine, the 3800 V6 that is built right here in Flint. We can cry to the State and Federal Government all we want to about reasons why plants are closing. Blame it on Imports, lack of tariffs, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. This is hypocritical at best. How do we keep businesses in Flint going if our elected officials refuse to buy the products, that we make here? We want them to come in and help keep the plant open but we are not going to buy anything they produce. 

Feel free to call me any time in the evenings, except for Monday’s. I have school on Monday and don’t get home until late.

Since I have space, let me also mention the purchase of the Peterbilts over the Internationals.

Let me first make an educated observation. If we have a maintenance dept. Willing to spend almost ten times the vehicle replacement cost to repair it. What is the difference as to whether we have Peter-bilts, Volvos, International’s or Tonka trucks. If we didn’t have the talent to work on the Internationals, and we’ve never had the Peterbilts. Who is going to work on them? Did we get some training included in that purchase price? That was brought up in that meeting but I don’t remember getting a solid answer. I may have to go back and watch it again. Did we get a maintenance service contract?  “TruckCare Services” or “Maintenance Manager?”  http://www.peterbilt.com/index_par.asp If we did, then I can see how we would be saving money over letting our maintenance dept. work on them. I believe it was Erhen who asked the question, but I doubt many people heard it or were paying attention. How much of the new equipment repairs were warranty, and how much were repairs we had to pay for. The guy who thinks alignments correct vibration problems, had his numbers ready, but wasn’t prepared to answer it completely. He was set up to defend the purchase of the Peterbilts. Not defend the waste or abuse of the current equipment. It’s like this. You buy 10 Tahoes and 10 Impalas. You change the oil and do preventive, and predictive maintenance on the Tahoes and do nothing on the Impalas. Then we reason that buying more Tahoes is the better decision. Because they last longer? This is how the City council was making the decisions on both these purchases. I would however, tend to agree with the maintenance dept’s apology. That having fewer types of equipment to maintain is better for maintaining repair parts. They are right on the money there. Also, that none of these vehicles had been maintained properly for years. Also, that the Volvos’ are a nightmare to work on. His example he gave about the tachometer not working and the transmission not shifting was right on the money.  Now through all this discussion, I never heard anyone mention predictive maintenance or even ISO standards. But, it does appear that the maintenance dept is attempting to get it’s act together. They seem to be heading the right direction. They are more on track than they have been in years. I just still cannot believe that someone actually spent 1.25 million to repair a 150,000 dollar garbage truck. If you owned a 15,000 cavalier. Would you spend over 10,000 to repair it? I doubt any one of you would spend 7,500 to repair it. Even if you spent 2000 one month and then went a year before spending another 2000. If the Engine Blew? Would you replace it? I think not. Mismanagement of repair costs in the past is not a argument to spend more money in the future. I’m glad I don’t think that way with my check book.

Ted Jankowski

810-235-6601      

Flint, Mi 48506

www.cityofflnt.net