Trustees to Talk Employee Vehicles
Village leaders will discuss the pros and cons of eliminating take-home village vehicles and vehicle allowances this evening. While the move could save money, some trustees believe it would be tantamount to a pay decrease for employees.
Should the village provide vehicles and driving expenses for its employees? Or would cutting those expenses help Montgomery save money, and provide more services?
Trustees will tackle that question tonight, in their first meeting of July. The village currently provides four vehicles – one for the public works director, one for the police chief, and two others for police sergeants. The village also pays a vehicle allowance to three other employees: the village manager, the finance director, and the community development director.
Village Manager Anne Marie Gaura gets $7,200 per year for vehicle expenses, according to her contract. The totals for the other employees, and the annual costs of maintaining the four employee vehicles, were not released Tuesday.
Finance Director Jeff Zoephel did release the results of a comparison study he conducted, looking at how the villages of North Aurora, Oswego and Sugar Grove handle the same issue. All the surveyed villages offer cars to their police chiefs and public works directors, he said, but from there the policies vary.
Oswego also offers take-home vehicles to its village administrator, its deputy police chief and its assistant public works director. The village gives no vehicle allowances to those using their own cars. North Aurora provides cars to a police lieutenant and the water supervisor, but also does not offer vehicle allowances. And Sugar Grove does grant its village administrator an allowance, but no other employees.
Two months ago, Trustee Andy Kaczmarek suggested eliminating all take-home village vehicles, or keeping them within the village limits. Doing so, he said, could save the village thousands.
On Tuesday, Kaczmarek said he would still like to see those perks eliminated, and the money saved funneled into capital improvements, including street repair.
But Trustee Matt Brolley said Tuesday that eliminating vehicles and vehicle allowances for existing employees would essentially be cutting their pay.
“I would need to hear a just reason for doing that,” Brolley said.
Brolley said he would like to see Kaczmarek’s two suggestions – eliminating the vehicles and allowances, and keeping those vehicles within village limits – treated as two separate issues. Some employees live outside Montgomery, and he said any solution to this issue “needs to be fair to everyone.”
Trustee Stan Bond said he does consider providing vehicles and allowances an area in which the village could save money, though he said he would not make up his mind until hearing all the facts during the meeting.
Bond said he understands and has no problem with members of the police department using village vehicles, since they may need to respond to emergencies at all hours of the day. But he said he doesn’t see the same logic applying to other positions.
Employees, he said, could drive their own cars to work, and then check out a village vehicle from an available pool of them to conduct their business.
Bond said he is “not anxious to disrupt the lives of people who made plans around the compensation packages they thought they had,” but added that the taxpayers want their trustees to look at trimming expenses such as this one.
The finance committee, which includes all six members of the Village Board, will meet tonight at 6:30 p.m. at Village Hall.
Greg Nelson
6:58 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Most people pay to get to work. The cars & Trucks stay in the Village other then where life safety is a factor is a vehicle required outside the limits. One factor needed to be added is there someone within the Village to go to in these emergencies. The only person that may require a car is Police...period! The Village Manager is not life safety, the public works director is not life safety...we have staff living here that can handle any emergency. These cuts would save 20,000 a year, that's a lot of cash people!
Josh Salisbury
4:58 pm on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
again 100 % correct the if you have business to conduct for the village you can check out a village vehicle then bring it back at the end of your work day this does not include our police dept as they respond to emergencies at any time and its a matter of life safety
Michelle Leedham
8:15 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
I would like to see what the cost, per year per employee, is for tax payers. I would assume nonpolice employees live close enough that they can drive their own vehicles. In this day and age when everyone is cutting in their homes, we expect public servants to do the same.
Andre Salles
8:26 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Michelle, that information is expected to be released at tonight's meeting. Check Patch tomorrow morning for a full report. Thanks!
Greg Nelson
8:34 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
One other note on keeping these CARS and TRUCKS here in the Village the cost savings will be more than the 20K. We save on Maintenance and Purchasing of new to replace. There may need to be days when a car must travel from the Village, but those require some type of standard to be set by the Trustees and not the Managers. I have seen these numbers people and they are not right! We should also be looking at requiring a Manager of any department to live within X miles to our Village. Why you ask, how the heck are these people going to know the real Village if they only work here and not live here.... what do you think?
Jim Goniwicha
9:51 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Greg you are 100 % correct.... We taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for people to use city vehicles or get paid money to drive themselves to work. PERIOD... I dont get paid a stipend to drive myself to work What makes them so special??
Josh Salisbury
4:55 pm on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
i agree 100% Greg for certain positions in the village you should have to live in the village
Jim Goniwicha
9:46 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
It is blatent WASTE... There is no reason for people at the village to have take home cars or car stipends.... FOR EXAMPLE the Village Manager makes an insanly high salary for a town this size. This is not Naperville or Schaumburg. She does not need a car stipend for what she makes that is just poor spending. PERIOD I can understand if it is a life safety issue ( PD ) otherwise that money can be used for more important things. If a village worker needs a vehicle for village duties drive their own car to the office check out a car, use it for village work ONLY, return it and get back in their own car. I have to use my car to goto work just like 99 percent of normal residents what makes village employees so special to have the tax payers pay for getting them to and from work?????? If that were the case pay us all to drive our own cars to work
Jim Goniwicha
9:52 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Maybe if they get rid of the Vehicle stipend we can get more police officers to better protect our village...
Greg Nelson
9:54 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Any Trustee voting to extend these perks will be boiled in oil at next election for sure!
Jim you and I and like so many are in agreement CUT the PERKS!
Erik Gustafson
10:09 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Gee, I have to respond to alarms at my office but it is part of my job and I only get $0.50 per mile for that. I would love to have a company car with gas, but I don't. A deeper issue here is who is overseeing the proper use of these vehicles? How do we know that these vehicles are not being used for personal runs to the store, etc? Who is auditing the mileage reimbursements of the village employees who get paid a vehicle allowance? Yes, I agree if you use your vehicle for work purposes, the village/company should pay you an allowance but this needs to come with strict oversight. Case and point; Credit card usage by the Country Club Hills Mayor and Chicago's city leaders. Nobody watches this stuff until the media looks into it. We need to pick up the proverbial rug to see what has been swept under it!
kpfarrer
12:57 pm on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
I am very opposed to Montgomery tax payers providing cars and auto expenses to employees other than the Police and perhaps a Public Works employee who may have to respond to emergencies. Being reimbursed for work related mileage or having a village vehicle available while on the clock is acceptable and makes sense.
Although removing these perks affects overall compensation, they are still perks. Tax payers are experiencing job losses, cuts in pay, benefits, bonuses, and higher prices. There is no reason village employees should be exempt from dealing with the current economy like the rest of us.
I object to the last round of inceases approved for the village non-union employees. I understand that the village trustees wanted to "be fair to everyone" and "treat everyone the same", but anything other than contractually required pay increases should not have been approved at this time. I'm sure everyone deserves a raise, but so do plenty of tax payers who aren't getting them, and haven't for a while. Taking that into consideration is fair.
john mchenry
1:00 pm on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson
john mchenry
1:02 pm on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."