Interview with Aberdeen City Councilwoman Ruth Elliott:
As part of The Dagger’s coverage of the City of Aberdeen’s municipal election on Nov. 3, the following questions were presented to each candidate for mayor and city council.
The five questions (bolded and boxed) were chosen to generate discussion on specific topics. The candidates’ answers have been included verbatim as received by email or reported following an interview.
1) If you are unsuccessful in your re-election bid and never return to office, what will your legacy be? How do you want to be remembered?
I believe I will be successful. If and when I decide to hang-up my political hat, I hope the citizens of Aberdeen remember that my utmost concerns were for them. Keeping spending down which in-turn keeps taxes down is what I have always endeavored to accomplish.
2) Do you believe Aberdeen gets enough “bang for its buck” from the city police department? Would Aberdeen be better off dissolving the APD and handing protection over to the Harford County Sheriff’s Office? What changes, if any, are needed within APD – underfunded, overfunded, top-heavy, etc?
For the most part, the Aberdeen Police Department does a good job. Our budget when all aspects of cost are considered, which include salaries,pensions,health insurance,liability insurance, fuel, clothing, maintenance, repair, 401K contribution, cars etc., is approximately 34% of our budget. The total general fund is only $12.4 million. Of that nearly $4 million is spent on salaries, overtime, property insurance, fuel, repair & maintenance of vehicles, purchase of add’l vehicles, uniforms, etc.. This alone is 1/3rd of our total General Fund, not counting all the additional benefits mentioned above. With all this said, I would not be in favor of dissolving our police department. I would however, like to see some reduced spending in a number of areas such as:
a. Limit take home cars to only those officers who live in the city limits. 95% of officers, live outside City limits. Only 4 out of 46 live in the City.
b. Fuel Cost budgeted at $133,000 a year can be reduced if cars are limited to officers living in the city.
c. Motor Vehicle Expenses budgeted at $88,600.00 a year, can be reduced if cars are limited to officers living in the city.
d. No new police cars would be needed ($110,000), if cars are limited to officers living in the city.
e. Vehicle Insurance would be much cheaper.
3) What do you believe is the best path to securing Aberdeen an affordable, sustainable, longterm water supply?
I have advocated for many years that we need our own facility and not rely on the County and State to provide our water needs. As development revenue is received, I have been told by our current Mayor, Mr. Bennett, that he will support a program which sets aside a portion of revenue to secure our own water facility.
4) If the Wetlands team came back with another proposal for annexation similar to the one talked about two years ago (including the millions of dollars upfront for city infrastructure, funding for city personnel and equipment, new fire substation, etc), what would your vote be and why?
The voters of the City by referendum have said “no”. The millions of dollars were on the table back in 2005 also. At this time we cannot provide the services required for such a large development.
Plus this land is outside our development envelope. Even the County is not in favor of R-3 zoning. High density housing is not what I believe the voters want. As you know an annexation request can be submitted time and time again. I’ll listen to the voters.
5) Who do you hope is elected mayor and why?
A Mayor who will listen to the people and act accordingly.
From Elliott’s biography on the city website:
Councilwoman Ruth Elizabeth Elliott was born in Aberdeen. She is the daughter of Nelson J. and Jessie E. Farrell also natives of Aberdeen. Her father worked for the town of Aberdeen for 45 years. She graduated from Aberdeen High School. Attended Harford Community College and the University of Delaware. She is married to Robert Elliott who is a life-long resident of Aberdeen. They have four (4) children; Pamela Jean, Robert Jr., Larry Nelson and Gary Allen, (twins). She also has seven (7) grandchildren and 2 great-grandsons. She worked at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and retired from there after 32 years service. She was first elected to the Aberdeen Board of Commissioners (our governing body) in 1982. She was the first woman ever to serve on the Board since Aberdeen’s incorporation in 1882. She served for five (5) consecutive terms (1982-1992). When the Aberdeen Charter was changed in 1992 to a Mayor and Council form of government, she ran for the Mayor position (1992-1994) and became the first elected Mayor of Aberdeen. In November 2005, she returned to the political arena by winning a seat on the Aberdeen Council. She is currently serving as Aberdeen’s Liaison to the Senior Center Advisory Board, and the Heritage Trust Committee.
Question 2:
A) More than 4 officers live within the City Corporate limits.
B) Fuel costs will increase not decrease, these cars will run 24/7.
C) Motor vehicle expenses will increase not decrease, again the cars will run 24/7.
D) Fleet replenishment cost will increase not decrease, again the longer and harder you run the vehicle, the sooner it will need replaced.
E) Who’s car insurance is decreasing?
There have been many studies completed on the take home car program. A majority of these studies have proven that the benefit to a take home car program outweights the negatives. I would suggest anyone who is unaware of the benefits to contact the Sheriff’s Office, Aberdeen PD, Bel Air PD, and Havre de Grace PD to review any of the studies in which were used to impliment such programs.
Question 4:
The voters were lied to. I challenge the City to hold another referendum on the Wetlands or Glengarry Annexation.
Question 5:
Why didn’t she answer. She has a Bennett sign in her yard. Maybe she thought that was a HIOB sign, I mean, you can TRUST HIOB for MAYOR.
She has no clue about half of what she talks about. I have only lived in this city for just about 5 years and I know that one of the reasons she picks on APD has to do with a former chief. She has outright lied to my face about issues and I very much hope that she does not get re-elected.
She was quoted in the record as saying that the only thing the officers need to worry about when they receive their paychecks is groceries. Apparently I’m missing out somewhere because I pay for way more than groceries each week.
Ruth- if you are reading this, please contact me with my house keys, additional car(since you dont think officers should drive anyone else in their cars),money for my BGE bills and childcare.
Cmon Ruth tell the truth it wont hurt a bit people will still talk to you!How about being a representitive for the people instead of a convenient mouthpiece to people “no pun intended u know the parking lot “whoops” for the redshirts!
Question #4. Mrs. Elliiott, you and I both know that you voted against the Wetlands because the bad propoganda and a tax increase threatened your possible re-election bid. Now it clear that the annexation was not purposed fairly to the citizens of Aberdeen. By the way, my sources at the County level say they will not block rezoning for the Wetlands Glengary property. If and when that happens, will you take and write a check to the City for what we missed out on? As a City Council Member, you slhould have made sure the truth was brought to the Citizens of Aberdeen about the Annexation. That was your job. My feeling is that you will be re-elected, which gives you the opportunity to make adjustments in previous decisions since the circumstances have changed.
Question #2 The answer to this solution is not to cut the most important thing this City has and that is its safety, it is to make sure we do everything we can to keep improving it so businesses and people move here. When you own a business, you can do one of two things, as expenses go up, you can either charge your current customers (taxpaying citizens) more to live here, or you can go get more customers (taxpaying citizens and businesses) to fund the defiect that we will accumulate. Changing hte way you look at a business situation, will cause you to re-evaltuate the issues to find different solutions. The problem actually isn’t the 4 million dollars that have to spent on the APD, the problem is that you only have 12 million in income. They say a problem well stated is already half solved. This City has an income problem, and unless we are a business and residentual builder friendly, income will not increase. As a business owner and someone who built a new building in City limits, I have never experienced such difficulty in my life in the many projects I have been involved in that I encountered in this City. My contractor who has built in many Counties, City’s, and States, he said he will never attempt another project in this City. He is not the only builder-developer who I have heard say this.
I appauld the fact that you got on here and answered these tough questions, I just would ask that you re-evaluate the answers you have given and see it through the eyes of someone else who has no financial gain in this election. Ignore all the whispers of those who try to influence you and make your decisions based on the best available facts and from the Citizens you will be representing. Thank you for your public service.
Lance Hersh
443-528-3046
My friend da helio mon say di lady don no no trut. She tell da lie cuz she can. Wetlans be good for savin bu Rut don no wetlans from wet pants. She jus no fix da pot holes in her frens street. she don even no how da gummint supposed to work. she mess up every time she look at da budget. Da popo tell me dey hate da woman. Why she still be aroun?
Ruth has been picking on the police department for years after Whitey was the chief. She’s been taking pot shots since Jolly was in charge. She comes off as this little sweet lady that is full of sugar and spice and has your best interest in mind. It works on the elderly voters but I think the younger voters realize that she is a bag of wind. Most of the Elliott signs are in relatives yards and are not always votes, she guilts them into sign placement and counts on the senior vote.
Once and for all lets get this no good lier out! Thats all I have to say bout her.
The Clout seem’s to think Ruth is a permanent fixture. she has certainly’ beat the odd’s in past elections.
Vet- unfortunately you are correct. Ms Elliott can’t balance her own check book, has zero understanding of the budget process, public safety or the attraction and retention of good officers or anything to do with public works beyond small unbudgeted projects for her loyal supporters. Yet she will win because the young and the intellegent and the disenfranchised registered voters of Aberdeen just dont vote in the town elections.
Mr. Thong;
My fren da helio mon say da sme ting bout dat lady. He tell me she be a lot like a she dog. Do he mean dat she bite? She don never be no good for our citibitties, but she be very good for da old vegetable man and da WAY OL POPO CHIEF.
Marley,
What a memory; you’re showing your age. I too remember Bill Haus,the old Chief and the sister in law of yet another chief.
Im young, of average intellegence, and a non-business owner. Ill be voting and not for this ole bag.
Go Hiob!!!!
Watcher,
I like it that I am wrong and you are gathering information for an informed vote. It gives me hope.
I can agree that some of the police cars can be given back to the city. I saw one Aberdeen car in Baltimore County parked at I guess an officer’s house. It’s been there just about everytime I go by. Why does he need it? What is the benefit to the citizens of Aberdeen to have the cars outside of Aberdeen?
Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT an Elliott supporter! But I think the police cars can be limited.
Hooter;
Have you read any of the documents about take home cars. I’d be more than happy to debate you on the subject but please read about it first.
No I have not read any documents concerning take home cars. But as a taxpayer, I am concerned. I realize some officers must carry specialized equipment or are on-call, but for a regular officer to be “issued” a brand new car at the taxpayer’s expense? Especially when that officer drives to and from Baltimore? In the fincially difficult times for Aberdeen? It would just seem logical that they take home cars could be scaled back.
Hooter;
emotion is great if you’re in love or something but it sucks as a source for information. First off who gets a “brand new car”? Every officer must carry a ton of equipment every day and if he or she is in a pool car it has to transferred from privet vehicle to patrol car twice daily and chances are that the officer has to take it out again at home. That however is absolutely no excuse for the take home car. When I came on Council, all the eligible officers lived within a 20 mile radius and qualified for the take home car. The only other lived about 22 miles away.
The officer is responsible for all maintenance of the car. The pool cars were always out of gas or a flat spare was in the trunk or the car was filthy. etc. The maintenance saving alone makes this a worthwhile program. Now each officer has to take care of and maintain the car because he or she is fully responsible.
I won’t even address the public safety element. What do you do on I95 when you see a patrol car? Same as everybody else – brake check!
The officers are responsible for the maintenance of the car? I had to check with an aquaintance on the APD to verify. And their response was “Since when?”. I realize you were on the council and should be well informed, but I can tell you that none of the officers pay for the maintenance of thier patrol cars.
Dave didn’t say the officers pay for the maintenance of their cars. Each officer is responsible to see that their assigned vehicle is kept in good working order, regular service is done when called for, and the vehicle is kept in service.
The maintenance savings on vehicles ran 9 hours per day, 45 hours per week versus vehicles ran 24 hours, seven days per week, 365 days per year should be obvious.
Additionally, in response to your “Brake Check” comment: Why should the residents of Aberdeen pay for the I-95 brake check?
At the beginning of my attempt to help you think this through I said “emotion is great if you’re in love or something but it sucks as a source for information.” That of course was after you had let me know that you haven’t read anything about the subject. I tried being nice and you then wordsmith the living shit out of the response and still remain every bit as ignorant as when you started.
“The maintenance saving alone makes this a worthwhile program. Now each officer has to take care of and maintain the car because he or she is fully responsible”
So exactly where is the savings if the City still pays for the maintenance? Looks to me like it would cost more since they need at least 3 times the amount of cars.
Example: $100 per car for maintenance. If they have 45 take home cars, that equals $4500 right? Now if they have lets say 20 “pool” cars then it equal $2000.
Now I know it doesn’t cost $100 per year to maintain a car, it was just an example. Now please give an example how take home cars cost less money. In doing so, please include how the City makes up the difference in purchasing 45 cars versus 20. Short of any of that information, as a taxpayer in Aberdeen I am against take home cars.
hooter
I think you math is off and so is your reasoning!!!. In additon, maybe you should read what people post, prior to you making “off the wall” comments such as “officers are responsible for maintenance of the car”, clearly the writer was talking about keeping an eye and monitoring what the car needs to remain in operating order, not to fix the cars themselves!!!. Good grief!!!
Try this. For the sake of comparison, it costs $1000 a year to maintain a pool car that runs 24/7. If you have 15 pool cars, the maintenance would cost $15,000.
With me so far?
A “take home car” is run 66% less, and by doing so should require 66% less maintenance. That means that the cost of maintaining one of these cars falls to $333.33.
If you have 30 “take home cars,” the maintenance of these cars will cost you $9,999.90.
I wasn’t a math major, but that almost looks like a 33% savings.
I’m wondering – if this is based on three shifts (since you said 66% less use), if you have 15 pool cars, why would you instead need 30 take home cars? Wouldn’t you need 45? And the total mileage on the job should remain the same, but wouldn’t there also be additional to-and-from work mileage? Total mileage increasing = additional total maintence costs.
Using your example, it’s a push…you can maintain three take home vehicles for the cost of one fleet vehicle.
Plus the cost of the cars being driving to-and-from work. Also, wouldn’t there be an increased cost for insuring and registering/tagging three times as many vehicles?
More word problems. I flunked algebra twice, but I’ll give it a go…
Officer A drives his vehicle 25 miles to work (after all, let’s go with the worst case). He drives 40 miles during an 8 hour tour, and drives 25 miles home.
That’s 90 miles in a day. For 10 days in a two week period for a total of 900 miles.
Officer A drives a pool car 40 miles on his shift. Officer B drives the same car 40 miles. Officer C drives the same car 40 miles. That’s 120 miles in the same 24 hour period. This car is driven EVERY day, not just 40 hours a week. That is 1680 miles every two weeks. Savings?
PS- Government vehicle registration fees are waived, and the municipality self insures..
Uh, Dell, multiply your 900 times three to get 2700 total miles for the three officers in three cars vs. your 1680 miles for three officers in one car. Savings?
OK, the average service life of a police car is 100,000 to 120,000 miles. At the “pool rate,” you’re replacing that car every two and a half years.
The average “take home” vehicle is on a 6-7 year replacement schedule. So you’re buying two and a half “pool cars” for every take home car.
Add on tires, brakes, monthly LOF for the “pool car,” I think the numbers are still in my favor.
Me hurt brain. Me go now.
Hooter- you seem a little slow on the up take so let me try a little personal math with you. If you were a quality cop out looking for a new opportunity for you and your family and Aberdeen offered the only package where a take home car was not given; would that influence you?
Hooter & Dave,
I think there’s a solution: take the cars, lose about 15 well trained-well qualified-well educated officers (since the other agencies have take home car program) and give raises of about $9,000 to each officer!
The department’s current policy is to and from work, court, training unless you live in town. I think that says something for being conscious and responsible on the City’s part. The other agencies have no restrictions other than the typical 20-25 air miles.
I agree Jerry. The take home car is a perk that the officer earns, and is the first taken away if he or she screws up. I believe that the take home car has been a huge benefit to the city. Ruth questions the policy because, like everything else, she never took the time to understand it.
I think that Aberdeen’s politics should become ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS!
I’m going to start forwarding my bills to Ruth since all I have to do is pay for groceries. Between the increase in health care no cost of living increase what is an employee to do but look else where for employment the City of Aberdeen used to be a good place to work, but now its all on who you know and bartering system. All she wants to do is take the benefits away from the employees why should we stay, when we have no support from someone like this who is elected into office. It just causes animosity every election and with the council. Hard worker for hire!
Well said Concerned. In order to attract and retain good quality people working for the city we can not allow Council people like Elliott to balance the budget on your backs. The citizens of Aberdeen want quality service 24/7 and they need to be told by their elected officials that this cost for service is not a static number and that there are families and school clothes and retirement dreams attached to the production of those services and not just reelection rederic from pandering politicians.
Dell,
Well said! Oh, and Hooter…I’m also a resident and a business owner.
I am sooo tired of citizens using “logic” to try and remove the take home car policy. Please, before you run your mouth about what you “think” should be done, read the studies. They are actually conducted by people who know something about the subject. People should not have to repeat the same statistics every election about the same thing. It is getting old and the officers are getting tired of it real quick. Aberdeen has many officers waiting to retire and we need to get something in place so that when they do, we have a plan to draw more good officers and keep the ones we have. There are officers who are truly invested in this city and do not deserve to have citizens questioning their every move. How about we question why DPW just spent MILLIONS on equipment in the last 2 months? Or perhaps we should question why the HR employee cannot answer basic questions about the health care policy SHE CHOSE? Maybe we want to go onto the subject of the city manager having a take home car intended for the police department? The police take home car policy is the least of our worries.
Whoa!!! Just a minute! The DPW (AWWTP & the Shop) is just as needed as the police department. One is no better than the other. They both serve vital roles in the City. The police “try” to calm the public and maintain some kind of order with unruly derelicts. The DPW maintain the infrastructure that most citizens take for granted. Drinking water, waste water, repairs in the middle of the cold winter nights so the citizens will have these amenities when they wake up each and every day. Most of us know by watching the Council meetings that there is no love loss between the Dir. of Public Works and the Police Chief, but that’s between them. As a home owner and taxpayer in this City I can see both side of the take home policy. Let the police take their cars “HOME” and not to their moonlighting jobs. If the DPW needs new vehicles and they spend “millions” (your word) on equipment, then let them so they have the right equipment to perform their job as well.
Both the Police and DPW are professional at what they do in Aberdeen. They don’t need to roll back to the old phrases of “doughnut eaters” and “shovel leaners”! Also, as I recall, two of Aberden’s Police Officers can respect both sides of the story.
Let me clarify I have absolutely nothing against DPW. Where my blame rests is on the mayor who favors DPW. It can plainly be seen in his administration that he does for those he likes. He doesn’t like chief so he shafted the PD. He likes Matt Lapinsky so DPW got money given to them. I never said they didn’t deserve it, because they do a good job, but the first department in the city to ever get questioned is the PD. Why do the other departments not get questioned?
Does the Mayor favor Lapinsky as much as Lapinsky favors Hartman?
There was no answer given. as too why.the city manager is or was driveing a police car.
Of course there wasn’t. The City Manager is to be supplied with a City car, by contract. The fact that he is driving a police car seems a bit weird. He could be driving just about anything, including one confiscated by the drug task force, oops he and the
Mayor gutted the task force.
Wait, the city manager was given a police car as a take home car? If it was/is a marked car (or even one with emergency equipment installed) that’s opening Aberdeen up to a lot of liability issues…not to mention the fact a police car is a rolling target and having someone driving around in one who isn’t a fully trained a qualified officer is a big safety concern.
DW; The car is an unmarked car. None of the emergency equipment has been installed. It’s just like it comes from Ford.
I heard the task force was under fire. I have high hopes our new Mayor will support our police department as much as possible.
Aside from the obvious officer retention aspect of a take home car policy, I fail to see where significant savings could be realized from ending this policy.
Maybe I am wrong, but both vehicle life and maintenance cycles are determined more by miles driven than the age of the car.
So, regardless of how many cars the department has, the same number of miles will be driven collectively, save the relatively few miles home and back for the officers (most live fairly close from what I have read).
So if you go from 45 cars being driven 8 hours per day to 15 cars driven 24 per day, you would need to maintain each car three times as often and replace them 3 times as fast…right?
So, the only ‘real’ savings would be the average of 20-30 miles per work day per officer for commute. Without doing the math on that I am guessing it adds up to a dollar or two per citizen per year….well worth it to be competitive with other agencies and retain good officers.
Not to mention if cars are being utilized by more than one officer, I would suspect productivity would be impacted, as I imagine there are more than a few occasions when a call is not ‘over’ exactly when shift ends, so an officer may end up idle waiting for the designated pool car to be ready for his shift when the previous officer finishes up his work. Or worse yet, officers hurry to wrap up a call in order to be back in time to turn over the vehicle.
That said, there are far more compelling arguments for the benefits, I just never understood the perceived savings envisioned from changing the policy.
Some of the saving incurred with a take home car are simple things like the car is maintained better which reduces maintenance costs to the city. If the car “belongs” to a particular officer and something starts going wrong with it they are much more likely to get it taken care of when it’s a relatively inexpensive fix. On the other hand if it’s a pool car it’s more likely that the officer will simply sign out a different car and just avoid the cars with problems. Eventually what happens is what would’ve been a fairly simple and inexpensive fix turns into something much more expensive. Over the life of a patrol car those saving can add up to significant amounts.
I have an idea Aberdeen taxpayer against take home cars: you go become police, risk life and limb for minimal pay to keep citizens such as yourself safe, deal with scum bags and death and people at their worst times in life and then see how you feel about a tool such as yourself complaining about an officer having the perk of a take home car in a job with not so many perks; I don’t see you complaining about anything relevant such as DPWs tree trimming budget though. You should stay focused on your 9-5, Monday through Friday (by the way police work crazy hours and holidays/weekends if you forgot about that as well) and direct your stupidity to more important city issues like getting rid of the waste of space that Ruth is, Put a sock in it.
Look I get the fact that the take home cars are a “perk” and recruiting tool for the police. But why wouldn’t there be a savings going from 45 cars down to 10? After all there are only like 4-5 officers working each shift anyway.
But you just keep on throwing insults my way instead of supplying credible information and/or actual information from studies.
And why don’t I become a police officer and risk my life or work shift work? Because I don’t have to, I have education and experience in another field that allows me to support my family.
I have talked with other residents in my area and we all basically feel the same way about the take home cars. Yea, great for recruiting and retention but bad for the budget. Why don’t you try decent pay and retirement like other Cities?
Hooter,
The budget is being misappropriated in many ways and take homes are probably the least of the budget issues so why not find something to complain about? Go ahead and take them away, you will lose officers, nobody will come and we will see how your “education” helps you when the garbage in this city decides to set up shop in your neighborhood. You are smug and uninformed, you have no idea what it takes to run things and your stupidity is making me sick to my stomach. Take home cars will remain in place no matter how much you whine about it, sooo deal with it.
Where are the misappropriations? Where are your credible facts?
Please inform us, we would like some facts, havent’ heard or seen one yet.
How about $26,000 to replace 2 year year old office furniture because someone would not sit in the same chair that Fred did. That was $26,000, that could have been used for DWP equipment, police equipment, parks and recs, but was instead used for an ego trip. If that isn’t a misappropriation and a flat out waste I don’t know what is. It was your money and my money but it was wasted as if it was Bennett’s and only Bennett’s money.
Hooter,
Here are your studies, now please shut off.
http://www.fop.net/programs/research/takehomecars.pdf
http://www.policedriving.com/article48.htm
http://www.gtpd.org/lexington.html
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090711/EDIT07/307119942/1021/EDIT
http://www.gotriad.com/content/2009/06/26/article/ask_a_reporter_studies_find_benefits_in_sheriff_s_car_policy
There are numerous reports available showing the benefits of take home cars over pool cars, not that it matters because you will just continue to have your negative opinion about it. But as the previous poster stated: Take home cars will stay in place regardless of how much you and your neighbors complain because taking away the cars would more than likely cause a mass exodus of officers who are already being shafted at the moment, and then you’ll see what kind of chaos would result in this city. Unfortunately people like you need to have an “eye opening” experience before you see what you are taking for granted.
Wow, more insults. Possibly one of our most professional officers maybe? I hope not. You seem to miss the whole concept of what I was talking about. And again, no credible information or and/or information from formal studies on the matter.
And the reason I spoke of MY opinion concerning the take home cars is because it was brought up on this thread; and that is the purpose of this web site. If all you want to read are opinions like your own, then read a news article and not a blog. And if you wish to shed light on other budget issues as you mentioned, please do so. As a taxpayer, I would be interested in ALL budget issues not just take home cars.
Where is everyones real name on here. I understand blogging can be anonymous, but if we are going to insult each other on here, man up and put your names on here. Taking away the take home cars have been proven in studies to cost more money then having pool cars. Also it demolarlizes a Department that has been shown no respect by a Mayor or most in City Hall. We would have a loss of probably about 30% of our officers, and thats if they don’t leave already. Hooter, I think you take this service for granted. What do you do and what are your job perks? This is small job perk for a Department that is underspaid according to industry standard. And its not even considered a perk if is standard. Again, this City has not had the right questions asked to them, and that is how are they going to increase revenue to operate profitalby and doing it in way that doesn’t put it on the backs of the current residents. If they can’t figure it out, they shouldn’t be in the position they are in, they then have no business knowledge!!!! It’s could turning a profit.
Lance Hersh
This was included in one of YOUR studies…..
“The total cost to purchase, equip and prepare a vehicle for patrol service was $33,875. Based on staffing levels in 1996, the department would require a 130-car assigned vehicle fleet compared to a 44-car pooled fleet. Over eight years, the assigned vehicle fleet capital and financing costs would total $6.5 million compared to $3.8 million for the pool fleet.
Since more cars are needed for the assigned vehicle program, even though they are replaced less often, the total principal and interest expense was 71% more. However, on a per vehicle basis, the associated costs of an assigned vehicle averaged less ($44,600) than a pool vehicle ($47,800).”
And…
“In summary, shifting from a complete pool vehicle fleet program to a complete assigned vehicle one is costly. The additional net cost and budgetary impact on the public safety department results from the increased capital and financing cost of procuring (three times) more cars.”
Your study, not mine. Anymore “professional” officers want to join in? When do we get to the part where you ask my name and address and threaten to harrass me and my family?
Hooter don’t let the insults get to you. I think you are on to something. Your concept could save the city a great deal of money. Putting a price tag on public safety is long overdue. My husband and I are texting right now on how to expand your concept and save even more money. Like guns for instance. Why does everyone need one? And even if they need one, why let them take them home? They never shoot anybody anyway so why not “pool guns”?
Thanks for your posts.
Does the fact that Hooter used facts to refute your position intimidate you? Is that why you resorted to a nonsense post instead of pointing out how or why he is wrong?
Granted, it’s not 1996, it’s 13 years later but the study concluded with: “However, on a per vehicle basis, the associated costs of an assigned vehicle averaged less ($44,600) than a pool vehicle ($47,800).” So this is a savings of $3200 in favor of assigned vehicles????
Yes it means that there was a savings of $3200 over a 10 year period per vehicle. That’s a wopping $320 per year. The article also went on to say that any savings could very well be eliminated by a single car accident.
And again, I’m not resposible for the age of the study. It was provided by the other side of the discussion.
To properly discuss this situation we would need to know a lot more information than what we have now. To include actual figures from the police department and it’s budget. I don’t think we will ever get to see those figures.
I am not anti-police as some would make me out to be. I am however a citizen who would want to look at ALL avenues for savings and I believe that fat can be trimmed from ANY budget.
Wrong…..Feeless’s response was tongue in cheek!
I think you’re onto something there Feeless. At one point in time a Marine General suggested that it made economic sense for the Corps to have one airplane and let all the pilots fly it. WE could cut back to one snow plow, one pick up truck, one garbage truck, etc. My God the savings could be astronomical! Why just think we could get to a point where we only fill one pot hole.
That’s sound’s like a winner Dave. I suggested we put six officers to a car.
Sem-Per-Fi
Gentleman (and or Ladies),
Really, there is no need for this back and fourth insulting or who’s right or who’s wrong.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It’s obvious no one agrees on everything another has to say.
Please, put this subject to rest. There are far bigger issues.
Hooter, YES the take home car program is a PERK and BENEFIT that cost less than what you may believe. It’s about the only perk and benefit these officers have in each of the three municipalities.
Respectfully,
Jason
feeless-
I sincerely hope you were joking about the “pool guns.” Have you not heard on the news how many Balt. city/county officers get followed home and shot outside their house? Don’t be naive that it could happen here. Oh, and yes people have been shot in Aberdeen. Just a few years ago an officer had to shoot someone becuase they reached for what appeared to be a gun. Later to find out the person wanted to be shot by the cops. Or, how about the time an officer had to shoot at a car because they tried to literally run him over? Could you be any less thankless to the officers who work to make sure you have a safe place to live? That is beyond “trying to save money” that is absurd and horrible.
Sandi- My point is that the last line item in a budget that we should cut is public safety. If you read Ruth’s answers above you get the feeling that the the portion of the general fund that is dedicated to public safety is like her own little piggy bank and she has no idea how we will suffer if we cut expenses to the PD that result in the loss of good officers. Where she needs to be a real watchdog and steadfast keeper of spending is in her constant attempts at funding unbudgeted projects after the budget gets balanced. Attempting a budget amendment for her pet projects without identifying an additional revenue stream is like the old saying,” I still have checks so I must have money”. She always looks for money in two places; city employee wages in general and the police department budget specificly. And I believe she targets these areas because the vast majority of city employees do not live or vote in Aberdeen.
Change of subject: How many tax paying homes are there in Aberdeen? Heard there were 4200 (or so) and of those 30% were fixed income retirees. Not a huge tax income stream, so where will/does the rest of the revenue flow from to pay for the water thing and Ripken stadium. This may or may not be true but I was also told the city will pay 20 million over a decade on the stadium or default and only pay 1 million. Is this true and if so would a default be a bad idea? Also please if you repond and ask where I got my info please respond with the correct figures if you have them. Also the a real enemy of Aberdeen is Sen Jacobs cowing to her cronies in blocking a city room tax. Any of us who have traveled and been to a decent city and hotel are used to paying a room tax and a city tax. So what does she know that makes her smarter on this issue. As long as she is in office Aberdeen will remain two gates from APG to Bel Air.
Didn’t the City have the hotel tax at one time? Why didn’t they keep it or why was it taken away?
NO. The city never had any authority to levy hotel taxes. The County did and traded it in for another favor they needed in Annapolis.
If they had it was shortsighted to let it go. Aberdeen would gain revenue to pay for its streets, public works and goverment services that will be utilized by the large number (increasing with BRAC)of temporary travellers staying in the hotels located there and rightfully so. However Jacobs needs to be retired by the voters and unfortuantley Helton is an even worse choice to replace her.
I like that idea.as if the officer did’nt have enough trouble. we will pool the gun’s. let’s pool the car’s. let’s put six officers to a car. can save a lot of money.
Don’t think theres gun’s on the street? take a walk on the wild side the criminal has them when you don’t.
Speaking of guns on the street…I know it wasn’t in Aberdeen, but over the weekend the HCSO recovered 3 handguns off one subject in Edgewood.
It seem’s every other discussion.is the police department. there doing the best they can with what they have. the real discussion should be why Bennett was allowed to toss out office furniture that S,Fred sat on.
Now that is wasted tax payers Money.
Get him out vote Mike Hiob
The discussion on this thread is about Elliott’s re-election position. And the fact that she wants to get rid of the take home cars is part of her position. That’s why it is a topic here.
My position is that it is worth lookiing into. As is everything that can save us taxpayers money. Just because it’s a baby of the police department doesn’t mean it should be off limits. Other police are taking days off w/o pay and even taking pay cuts. Times are tough all over and all avenues of savings should be free game. Be it office furniture or take home cars or DPW trucks or pet projects or new uniforms.
Oh, and I will vote Mike Hoib.
Hooter,
Do you really think you are being insulted because of your opinion? Maybe it’s because you are so educated that you are intimidating the forum with your genius level intelligence? Maybe you’re upset that with all your education you think you are entitled to more than a lowly police and can’t fathom why you have to pay to put gas in your Prius to drive to work and law enforcement nationwide gets take home cars?
I”m not going to comment on the take home issue anymore, they aren’t going anywhere so it’s pointless. The real issues are getting Hiob in, ousting Ruth and trying to move this city in the right direction because we have fallen behind the pack…
Exatly how involved are the police on this website?
There are very few officers that write on the Dagger. I know alot read it, but to my knowledge not a whole lot of them get involved.
I think it’s safe too say. the Dagger pick’s up a couple of aberdeen officer’s from time to time. they seem to stay in the lime light with the NAACP.no better place to pick up the gossip in real time.
Uh Oh Ruth is at it again.Trying to disolve our police Department (Aberdeen)that would be a TRAGEDY. she is very out spoken about it but the people can vote her out.
I guess no trespassing and no soliciting doesn’t matter to Ruth when she wants to leave her election literature stuck in my door. Curbing my anger at the disrespect to my property, privacy, and landowner rights, I read over the paper and it’s the same (what politician doesn’t want lower taxes) but offers no solutions or plans on how to achieve the “promises”. My bird thanks you Ruth, a little added target practice for the bottom of the cage.
RWinger Ruth Does make it clear How she would reduce the deficit. do away with the Aberdeen Police Department. I would suggest if that would occur. the citizen’s may be required to arm them self’s.
So Sandi: Can you elaborate on how Ruth Elliott feels about the employees of the City. My son-in-law tells me you had a “great” conversation with her after the Council meeting Monday night?
Well…our conversation (if you can call it that since she packed up her stuff and was “talking” to me as she was leaving) consisted of her saying that she didn’t care if the officers left and if they did leave they would come back. Oh yea, and she said I misquoted her when I said that we have to buy groceries because in the article she said “maybe groceries” so basically she was mad because I said we do buy groceries and not maybe…ummm something is seriously wrong when you complain about someone making your false statement sound a little better.
Hey Hooter- for an “educated man” you did miss one important factor from the study you decided to quote.
“In summary, shifting from a complete pool vehicle fleet program to a complete assigned vehicle one is costly. The additional net cost and budgetary impact on the public safety department results from the increased capital and financing cost of procuring (three times) more cars.”
The study found that it was costly to convert from a fleet program to an assigned one. Since the PD allready has an assigned vehicle program that was implemented slowly many years ago, the extra costs discussed in that study are not relevant to this case and made your point invalid. Just an observation.
On a side note I would like to hear about any conversations had with Ms. Elliott after Monday nights council meeting. Last meeting before the election I’m sure something had to have happened. When is it televised?
THursday night
I’am inclined to believe. ms Elliott has seen her last term as a council member. her credibility. is in serious doubt.