Connecticut Cities, Towns Get 1st Chance To Buy State Vehicles

I cant believe enfield is thinking of maybe buying vehicles from the state. If the state is gettting rid of it it is because it is High Mileage Junk. you will probably need to put more money into them then they are worth. I have one question though, why does Enfield need to buy "two" "Hybrid" SUVs anyways? A better question, why does Enfield need SUVs? maybe we would be better of to buy something a little less expensive and and a lot more fuel efficient. Hybrid SUVs are still far from real efficient like a Honda civic Hybrid. Are we purchasing these vehicles for "Status" purposes for our top dog employees. These type of vehicles arent much good for anything else. Enfield is Unbelievable, bad economy and hard economic times and you people are still wasting money.

I hope all in Enfield get a shot at driving the SUV's their town government is buying with their tax dollars. If Enfield is worried about buying a fleet of cars that are fuel efficient how about they ride some bikes.

Rell is doing a good job reducing the fleet and offering these older
vehicles to towns that may need them.

Tony wrote:

Rell is doing a good job reducing the fleet and offering these older
vehicles to towns that may need them.

These vehicles are usually junk have you ever been to a state auction? Most of these vehicles have way over 100,000 miles on them and are in disrepair or havent been maintained properly, thats why the state gets rid of them. Such a deal for the local towns from ole Jodi. With people like you thinking she is actually doing something good for the towns by selling them her junk, no wonder this state is in such a mess. If Rell wants to do something good for connecticuts towns, Give them more money for our unfunded mandates this state requires. Better yet repeal some of these unfunded mandates and Keep the junk high mileage state vehicles.

I've purchased a few surplus state vehicles over the years, and I've worked for a state agency that leased surplus vehicles rather than new, and in most cases, just about all of the vehicles in question have been great. If you know what to look for, and you stick to your program, there are excellent deals to be had. Anyone who says otherwise has either never purchased a surplus state vehicle, or has purchased one without knowing what to look for. Kudos to the Gov. for a win-win idea.

State cars are removed from front line customer service employees. Units with 15-20 employees serving clients all over the state have been dropped from three cars to one, or share a car with another unit that takes priority. While on most days the usage of the one car is up, which is good, for the most part, we don't hold face to face meetings and don't personally view the results of investing taxpayer money. As for mileage, yea, that's been cut too. "There will be no resulting increase in mileage reimbursement claims" was the mandate that came with our loss of cars. Please don't believe the hype, you the taxpayer are getting less for less.

Hype wrote:

State cars are removed from front line customer service employees. Units with 15-20 employees serving clients all over the state have been dropped from three cars to one, or share a car with another unit that takes priority. While on most days the usage of the one car is up, which is good, for the most part, we don't hold face to face meetings and don't personally view the results of investing taxpayer money. As for mileage, yea, that's been cut too. "There will be no resulting increase in mileage reimbursement claims" was the mandate that came with our loss of cars. Please don't believe the hype, you the taxpayer are getting less for less.

I think your saying that the fleet is being reduced in nummber so more vehicles will need to be disposed of to save money. That's great and if true I would think that many of these vehicles maintained for free to the driver in our state garages (not at a local Jiffy Lube) would be serviced on a regular basis and be in top notch condition. If they aren't then that poses a whole other issue, like why not if we have the resources (paid mechanics in state garages) to do it?

when cars go 10-15 yrs & 200,000 mi with reasonable maintainance, to sell them at 100,000 mi seems like the state is willing to absorb depreciation costs to feed a bloated budget

bud wrote:

when cars go 10-15 yrs & 200,000 mi with reasonable maintainance, to sell them at 100,000 mi seems like the state is willing to absorb depreciation costs to feed a bloated budget

22K for a used gas guzzling expedition is not a good deal for the towns.

why does enfield need an expedition? so the chief of janitors can save personal miles on thier car?

flawed logic wrote:

<quoted text>
22K for a used gas guzzling expedition is not a good deal for the towns.
why does enfield need an expedition? so the chief of janitors can save personal miles on thier car?

Exactly. We have more SUVs running around enfield with town and fire emoployees dring them. Why? Wouldnt a regular car much cheaper do?

Wouldn't the state save more money if it kept its hybrid state vehicles instead of reimbursing state employees $.55/gal for mileage????? Even lowering mileage reimbursement would be a better idea since the price of gas is so low right now......

I manage a town cemetery I would like to acquire anu surplus vehicle. Its so bad here we still dig our graves by hand. HELP