This one is a surprise, even to me.
Item 15.2 on the Tuesday, April 19, 2016 city council agenda reads:
Discussion and action on the award of Solicitation No. 2016-513 Lease of Unmarked Police Vehicles to Acme Auto Leasing, LLC., for an initial term estimated award of $7,966,800. The award is to include a two (2) year optional amount of $5,311,200 for a total five (5) year award of $13,278,000.
That works out to more than 2.6 million dollars a year for unmarked vehicles. If you read the backup material you will see that they plan to get:
30 intermediate sedans, 2 door
30 intermediate sedans, 4 door
30 full size sedans, 4 door
30 full size pickups, 2 wheel drive, extended cab
30 full size pickups, 2 wheel drive, crew cab
30 full size pickups, 4 wheel drive, extended cab
30 full size pickups, 4 wheel drive, crew cab
10 passenger vans, mini
10 passenger vans, full size
That comes to 230 vehicles. According to their 2014 annual report the police department had 1,017 officers.
The money to pay for the vehicles appears to be coming from external grants. Other than about half a million dollars a year worth of confiscated funds that could be spent on something else, none of the money appears to be coming from our local pockets. Instead the money seems to be coming from our federal pockets.
I wonder who will pay for the gasoline?
Hopefully they won’t have Connecticut plates.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
That many unmarked vehicles for police use? Why? What possible use does our police department have for so many? And, leased? Don’t leasing companies limit the miles of use, and penalize (heavily) for any miles beyond their limit? I am confused.
LikeLike
If they apply for grants with the stated intent of using them for undercover work and they don’t really even have that many undercover officers, our city and police department might soon be investigated for fraud.
It’s easy to buy them with other people’s money. We will still have to pay to fuel and maintain them. Where will that money come from?
LikeLike
Looking over the bid documents I noticed a disconnect. On the Committee Score Sheet page the company that did not get the bid only scores 5 points of a possible 15 points for Reputation and Quality; yet it receives almost the max points, 14 of 15, for Past Performance. That seem strange to you? Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of Past Performance because to me that means the city had to have done business with them before. It also leaves me with that feeling that the scoring was biased. What say you?
LikeLike
This is standard for them. What you should know is that these so called commentates consist of only one person. So you take the next step.
LikeLike
Probably got a good deal on them from Houston dealer.
LikeLike