Utah S Public Safety Agencies Cannot Afford Free Equipment

Utah’s Public Safety Agencies Cannot Afford ‘Free’ Equipment

By: Cpl. Aaron Rosen, PIO

Saratoga Springs Police Department

3 August 2009

Earlier this springSaratoga Springs residents, Suzanne and Lynn Clawson, did what many others do: tackled home improvements. Lynn was geared-up with all of the tools of a master do-it-yourselfer. He was engaged in a basement tiling project. Lynn said he felt “faint”, and needed to “rest a moment”. Lynnhad just laid his final tile.

Lynn stood-up, wiped his brow, and then collapsed on the spot. Lynn suffered a massive heart attack. A neighbor, working with Lynn on the project, initiated CPR almost immediately. A frantic call to 911 was made by Suzanne.Patrol Officers were the first responders on scene.

Despite all efforts to save Lynn, he sadly passed-away from his sudden illness. The physicians, who treated Lynn, felt that an Automated External Defibrillator (AED), if deployed sooner, may have saved Lynn’s life- or maybe extended it longer. However, despite all efforts of CPR, his brain went without oxygen for too long.

The Saratoga Springs Police Department has four AED’s. None of them were in the responding officers’ patrol cars that day. Nor are they in the cars today. You ask, “why”? The answer is simple: the SSPD cannot afford to outfit them with the equipment necessary to retrofit them into working condition. You see, these AED’s were provided to the SSPD by ‘Uncle Sam’- free gratis, well, not really. There’s a catch! These are government surplus AED’s (previously used by the military). They are in very good condition; but they are not usable. All they need are new batteries and a set of new pads. The approximate cost to get them in like-new condition is only $400. Clearly, that’s a lot less money than purchasing new AED’s. That’s the good news. The bad news: they will cost much more than the $400 to put them into service. This, because Utah has drafted administrative policy to make it nearly impossible for many public safety agencies to afford the previously used governmental surplus property: A 3% to 20% “usage fee”, aka- “tax”, is being charged to any Utah Public Safety Agency who wishes to take advantage of this program.

Utah has always been known as the ‘State of thrift’. Many of us have a rich heritage, and familial or personal background in saving, service, and self-reliance. Sadly, Utah is apparently not into providing our public safety agencies the same means for acquiring surplus equipment. After ‘Uncle Sam’ cleans out his proverbial closet, which was full of useful public safety items, previously used by the military;

the State wants to make sure that we Utahns are charged a substantial fee for accessing the closet of “goodies”.

The United States military provides used equipment to public safety agencies for free. They give anything fromboots and flashlights, to vests and computers. They have shelving and desks. Of course, usedtactical shields, boats, cars, car phones, and more! So, what’s the catch? Well, actually there isn’t one as far as Uncle Sam is concerned.

The military provides all of this useful equipment to local agencies, provided they keep track of all used equipment, and it must be returned following its use. This is referred to as the ‘Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office’, or DRMO program. Yes, it’s government. Therefore it has an associated acronym. It’s also known as the ‘1033’ program. You guessed it! Military program; complete with program number.

There is, however, a “catch” here in Utah. You see, our local Utah government wants a piece of the ‘free pie’. The State of Utah’s Surplus Department has decided to assess a ‘surplus fee’ (tax) on all equipment acquired through this federal program. The fee is also not a nominal one either. Utah assesses an up-to twenty percent overall “usage” fee on all items taken from the DRMO program, currently administrated at Hill Air Force Base (HAFB). This fee applies to equipment utilized by all Utah public safety agencies, whether it is in working condition or not.

Saratoga Springs Police Chief Gary Hicken says this fee is unreasonable as it creates a barrier for Public Safety agencies trying to access this valuable resource system.Further, he also says that neighboring states (California, Nevada, Idaho, and others) are coming to HAFB and partaking of this free equipment, and they are not assessed any such fees. Their States do not charge any fee for usage of previously owned military equipment. As such, they come to Utah- by the truckload. However, Utah agencies are left empty-handed, simply because these agencies cannot afford the fees associated with this program. When Chief Hicken asked who administrates this program, and where the fee originates from; he was told, “it’s someone at the Governor’s office”.

The biggest concern, according to Hicken, is that smaller police (and fire) agencies could really benefit from used military equipment; especially during this tough budgetary season. “Why should we pay a fee for something that the feds have given us to use? We track it, inventory it, and keep an internal audit that we are responsible to provide the military. We drive to the base (HAFB), and pick-up the equipment ourselves. Why is the State getting involved in a process that completely doesn’t involve them?” Hicken said.

Chief Hicken went on to say, “I believe there would be a significant public outcry if people really knew that there was equipment that could be utilized by local law enforcement for free; but in the end, most agencies cannot afford the additional fees.” Hicken added, “Our residents have an expectation that we, as public servants, find any and all means to save them money, while employing measures to find the tools of our job at the most reasonable prices and sources.”

After a preliminary investigation, it was discovered that very few Utah agencies use the DRMO program at Hill, because of this very issue. According to a Program Administrator at HAFB’s DRMO Program, hementioned that he, “couldn’t remember the last time a Utah agency took advantage of this program”, and cost-saving measures. He recalled that the Hilldale Police Department took a few items, “maybe a couple of years ago.” Otherwise, it’s just been the neighboring states thatcome to take this stuff free-gratis.

According to the Director of soon-to-be Governor Gary Herbert’s Budgetary and Planning office, Phil Jeffrey; he states that these fees are “standard practice” and are used as a means to fund the UtahState Surplus office. Jeffrey said that the DRMO program is administrated in one, central location. That location happens to be within the UtahState Surplus department. Their officials annually are responsible for inventorying, reporting, auditing, and accounting for the DRMO program (among others). Obviously, this is almost non-existent, as no Utah agencies are utilizing the DRMO program!Mr. Jeffrey also said that these assessments help to fund the positions they’ve hired to do this work. And since there are no funds coming into the State, due to these “fees”- the question must be asked: HOW is a program, which is generating nearly zero revenue, continuing to pay for salaried State employees? Where is the money coming from to pay for these positions the State claims is being paid-for by these so-called “assessments”?

Mr. Jeffrey said that the DRMO program must be administrated by the State. The federal surplus program must have a state “coordinator” assigned to manage this program. This “manager” or “coordinator” is responsible for monitoring the DRMO program, statewide. He/she is responsible to the feds, should an internal audit need to occur. (As of today, the listed State of Utah Coordinator is Mr. Dan Martinez.) Mr. Jeffrey said that the federal government requires a “coordinator” to approve any and all items acquired by local agencies; otherwise there would be no state agency eligible to participate in the DRMO program(s).

Chief Hicken believes that this isn’t the case. Hicken says that the DRMO program administration requires that the local jurisdiction, by way of a signed memorandum of agreement MOA, is responsible for the accounting of acquired equipment and any subsequent audits performed by the federal government.A survey throughout the United Sates demonstrates the validity of this position. Most States have a one-person coordinator who merely signs-off the pass through of military equipment, but the individual agency is responsible to the FederalGovernment for all tracking, auditing and inventorying of DRMO property. The State need do nothing as far as the FederalGovernment is concerned beyond those requirements.Utah is adding to those requirements: basically creating a salaried position (that obviously can’t be currently funded), off of the backs of local agencies, and local tax payers.

Jeffrey said that without the State MOA on file, there would be no federal equipment issued; therefore, no state agency could acquire the equipment in the first place. He further said that most states use “general funds” budgets to fund their surplus programs.

Calls to the State Surplus office manager, Dan Martinez, were not returned. We were contacted by his Administrative Assistant, Lori Potter. Lori is tasked with supervising the tracking of the DRMO equipment for the State of Utah.

According to Ms. Potter, she said that their office has been appointed as ‘State Coordinator’ for the Federal DRMO, and 10-33 programs. Lori said that their office has been utilized “frequently” for this type of program, and no one else has had problems with paying the assessment fees.

Lori reiterated that the fees collected help to “pay” for the positions within their office; those positions that pay for tracking, monitoring, and acquiring the military surplus equipment. When asked if their office would physically drive to HAFB and pick-up the equipment, thereby relieving local agencies from driving to Ogden, renting trucks and other equipment, and of course, spending resources for over-time for local staff to do so? Ms. Potter said, “no”. When asked if the State surplus office would log, track, inventory, and monitor all acquired by the local jurisdiction, and then maintain the records from the local agency? Again, “no”. Lori stated that each agency is responsible for also keeping a record of the equipment. We explained to her that’s exactly our point. Why are we paying for nothing?

The State of Utah Surplus office does not physically acquire the DRMO equipment, nor will they. Their office does not personally track or monitor use of any acquired equipment (they only “approve” what you want; simply check-marking a box on a computer). Their office will not ‘stand-behind’ any subsequent audits of the local agency. Their office will also not return any equipment that needs to be returned to the HAFB. Therefore, it is our conclusion that that State of Utah Surplus office, though it may be viable for State surplus equipment; the office is lacking justification in appropriate use of public monies for these Federally administered programs.

State Surplus needs to revisit their policies, and revamp their billing procedures. The State of Utah needs to instruct their staff that this kind of strong-arming of local agencies will not be acceptable. Federal equipment that has some viability, and ‘life’ left in it, should be used by OUR local agencies, free of charge. It’s the localities that search for the equipment. It’s the local agencies that drive to HAFB; they lift, pack, carry, and transport this equipment. It’s the local agency that takes-on the burden of inventorying, tracking, and auditing the use of such equipment. The State of Utah only “approves” of its use. And now, they also enjoy the privilege of charging your local police/fire/rescue teams a TAX to use that equipment.

But really…who cares? I mean, why should anyone care if a small police agency can get useful equipment for pennies-on-the-dollar, and have the ability to save a life? I think Governor Herbert should ask Suzanne Clawson if this equipment would’ve been helpful to the patrol officers responding to her husband’s medical crisis.

You know- this may actually be important. We are encouraging everyone to contact their locally elected State Representative. Tell them that the practice of charging our own public service agencies to utilize Federal equipment is not only bad policy, but it must be immediately discontinued.