APPRO-2023-26 : An Appropriation from Free Cash in the amount of $481,600 (Four Hundred Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Dollars) to capital stabilization fund.

Transcript (~1 h 14 min @ 31:28)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 31:24 Jen Grigoraitis: So moved. Second. So we have a motion to recess made by Councilor Melli, seconded by Councillor Eccles. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And we are recessed

▶ 32:06 Leila Migliorelli: Now back from recess. Um, and starting with appropriation 2023 dash 26, an appropriation from free cash in the amount of $481,600 to de designated Public Works accounts as set forth herein for the city share of the purchase of an electric trash truck and charging infrastructure. Tonight we have, um, Ms. Pro Ellis, Mr. Troop and Mayor Broder here with us to talk on this order. Get all that out here.

▶ 32:37 Paul Brodeur: Uh, I'm gonna, Uh, speak, speak briefly and then, uh, turn it over to the experts. Um, as you know, this order has been before you for, for a bit of time, and it is a product of two things. It is a product of the unfortunate need for a new trash truck. Um, we have sometimes put in a position to buy things that aren't so glamorous, like pumper trucks or whatever the case may be. Some stuff's better, some stuff, salt shed, whatever the case may be. Um, this is one of those cases folks where the need is there. So the question becomes, um, why this vehicle? Why electric and why I suppose at this time, um, you know, one of my guiding principles here is try not to ever leave money on the table. And as you all know, some of the, some of the tab we will incur for purchasing the truck and the necessary infrastructure, um, will be offset by, uh, a federal grant. There is a time limit on that federal grant. Um, and so we do have some time pressure before us. Not instant for sure, not instant pressure. Uh, but I wanna make sure folks understand we've been referring to it as the trash truck and that to a certain extent, um, is not accurate. It is trash truck plus. And the reason why I say that is because, um, Melrose has set forth, uh, net 0, 20 50, uh, goals. And we, we've done a lot of the low hanging fruit and now things are gonna get a little bit harder. This is a case where I don't think it's gonna be super hard because we have the opportunity to purchase the truck, but also to purchase essentially state-of-the-art currently, um, charging infrastructure and what that means now that we have an electric first

▶ 34:29 Paul Brodeur: that was not electric. Different different infrastructure problem there. Now that we have, uh, an electric first EV policy, and I wanna be clear, what that means is we evaluate EVs to see if it's a realistic purchase for us as we try to fulfill our net zero goals. Well, uh, in this case, you know, kind the bonus, if you will, is that charging infrastructure will allow us to add additional electric vehicles at the city yard as the replacement cycle goes without incurring that extra expense using, using a federal subsidy. So the value isn't just in the truck itself, it's the ability to electrify the fleet. Um, you do have a memo that I think, unfortunately you only received yesterday. It doesn't have a lot of new information. It does however, suggest if, um, you do not see fit to allocate those funds this evening, uh, which I hope have made clear. I hope you do. Um, then another option to preserve that opportunity would be to, uh, for one of you to make an amendment to move those funds to capital stabilization where they could then be reallocated, um, to make the vehicle purchase. Um, if you still are not satisfied today with the level of information, uh, you have about the need and the program and the infrastructure bonus, if you will, uh, with that, I don't know if you all have anything to add or if we're just gonna, um, or if you're just gonna take questions about the more technical aspects.

▶ 36:07 Speaker 6: Yeah, I think, um, you know, the, the only new information we have is that we did explore the opportunity to purchase a Mac and, um, Mac has told us that they are not currently providing quotes for a Class seven vehicle, which is what we were specifying. They, the only quote they could provide was for Class eight vehicle. And I know Cambridge has ordered, um, class eight refuse trucks from Mac at a cost of about $704,000. That was their quote, uh, per, per vehicle. And so that is pretty far outside of our range. Um, you know, we thought should we shift to replacing the larger truck right now and, and delay on the smaller truck, but that's just not, um, something that we find feasible at that price tag. It's fair

▶ 36:53 Paul Brodeur: That that's not an option under because of the grant timing?

▶ 36:57 Speaker 6: No, well at this time it's not an option. They said they could probably provide us a quote by the end of the year, but they also couldn't promise any particular timeframe. They didn't wanna lock in any, any promises for that. So they are, they have a Class seven vehicle in the works refuse vehicle, but, um, just weren't able to provide hard numbers on it right now.

▶ 37:21 Speaker 1: All right. Questions President Greg and Councilor Sonnel.

▶ 37:26 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you Madam Chair. Um, thank you all for being here tonight. I first just wanted to make a request of the clerk if we could add the memo from that we received yesterday into the packet. I'm not sure it was in IQ M two. Um, and then just to follow up, because my understanding is that, you know, there is a grant for part of the funding and that we have an extension on the grant until September of 2024. So can you just confirm what exactly that means in terms of, um, you know, what this body is considering and, and, um, whether or not there's money allocated, additional money allocated tonight? Does that Grants grant still remain an option for us?

▶ 38:01 Speaker 6: Sure. So the grant that we've received is for $268,000. We have now signed the grant paperwork based on your affirmative vote for the grant at the prior meeting. Um, so we have, we've kind of locked in that, um, that the grant will stay available to us and then we've requested an extension. And the extension we got is through September, 2024. However, that extension is supposed to be the date when we have the new truck and have decommissioned the old truck, which, you know, even if we ordered a truck extremely soon, that timeframe is still tight. I would say, you know, if within the next six months we have a truck on order and we can show that, I would imagine applying for another extension would be feasible. But I don't think that the grant, um, the d e p folks who are managing the grant would be amenable to, you know, I don't think if we get around to next September, 2024 and we still haven't purchased anything and we ask if we can just keep extending, they, I don't think they'll continue to extend the grant.

▶ 39:09 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. But there isn't like a definitive conversation we've had with them about, um, you know, if there isn't, if this doesn't pass tonight, I'm not saying it will or it won't, but it seems like the options are that it would either be put in capital stabilization for some undetermined amount of time until eight people vote to take it out, or would be possibly reconsidered by a new administration in a new council as free cash in February or March of next year. So would that, I guess are, are either, what is the timeline for those two options? Or is the latter one not a, not viable under the grant?

▶ 39:41 Speaker 6: If it, the latter one I would say would be a little tight, but certainly if there wasn't another opportunity for us to request the funds until then, we would still take that opportunity. Um, but my hope is that if the funds can't be allocated tonight, if they are put into capital stabilization, uh, we would come back when we have an exact vehicle that we wanna purchase. Um, we would use the extra time to finalize our discussions with the vendors we've been working with, identify exactly what vehicle we wanna purchase, get a final quote, and then come back with an exact number. And I'm hoping that that will also, um, include some value engineering in terms of if we, um, could come back with a lower number if it's not the full. Um, 4 81 I believe was our number 4 81 6. Um, we'd love to come back with a slightly lower number, um, if we can't get approval tonight.

▶ 40:34 Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair, councilor

▶ 40:37 Christopher Cinella: Ella, thank you. Thank you, uh, for being here. Forgive me if this question's come up in the last meeting or any other meetings, but, so we have the, um, negotiations starting or started for the trash contract for the city. Have discussions come up with having them take over the municipal stuff because they drive right by it. So,

▶ 40:59 Speaker 6: So it's, it's not that simple. So, um, the reality is that none of the three companies we're working with want to quote the city on manual trash pickup. So residential pickup is heading in an automated direction, trash and recycling regardless of, of anything else that's gonna head towards automated. Our, our municipal barrels can never be automated toters, they need to be something that is fixed in place that's not gonna blow over or get moved or whatnot. They, you know, our municipal barrels are just a different animal and they require manual pickup. So we have asked the companies to provide quotes for that manual pickup. I know one of the quotes was 68,000 a year. Um,

▶ 41:43 Speaker 9: They, they've quite frankly, the prices that they have submitted do not put the city in a good situation to entertain. Uh, further, it's far more economical for us to maintain public barrels and, uh, yard waste pickup.

▶ 42:00 Christopher Cinella: Even if we switched out to the automated four, those lot those, so

▶ 42:05 Speaker 6: We can't use though, if you, if you picture park barrels right, they're, they're not all right on the edge of the road. They're within the parks. They're, you know, at El Pond, they're at the Knoll, they're all over the place. So, um, there's not really a feasible situation where, where an automated truck is gonna be able to come and pick up that barrel from the same spot every week. Um, so we don't envision, and, and the companies have said as much too, none of us envision anything but manual pickup for these. And so the cost is significant because they have to have a separate truck and a separate crew to do that manual pickup. Um, so there's really not an economical way for them to do it. And at a cost of 60 some thousand per year, you know, within a few years we pay for the amount that we'd be putting toward the truck.

▶ 42:53 Speaker 3: And what do you think the life is of what we have right now? I mean, we, the engine was rebuilt Yeah. Two years

▶ 43:00 Speaker 6: Ago. Uh, do you remember when it was rebuilt in the time that we've both been?

▶ 43:04 Speaker 9: Yeah, I think in the, uh, at the last council meeting, we, we pretty much estimated that there's been about 30 to $40,000 just in repairs alone. And these are, uh, bandaid approaches just to try to get us through to the point that, uh, we can continue to deliver the services. I think the real overwhelming message that we wanna convey tonight is that both trucks are in need of replacement and this is a viable option, uh, just to allow us to continue to maintain the same level of services.

▶ 43:36 Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you Councilor Repe.

▶ 43:42 Mark Garipay: Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I really not, don't wanna rehash all my concerns about the electric vehicle. Um, class seven vehicles. There's just not a lot of history. Um, and so I look at this as two things. You want the infrastructure Yep. And you need the truck, right? So I think we need to take a hard look at looking at a regular diesel vehicle we

▶ 44:06 Speaker 10: have. Okay. Um,

▶ 44:09 Mark Garipay: how do we fund our vehicles right now?

▶ 44:12 Speaker 6: Free cash.

▶ 44:14 Speaker 10: Free cash. Okay. Um,

▶ 44:15 Mark Garipay: and we know that we're gonna be extremely tight on free cash Yes. Next year, but then probably for the next foreseeable future. Um,

▶ 44:25 Mark Garipay: what the value of the grant? Um, I'm just talking about free cash right now.

▶ 44:28 Paul Brodeur: Thank you. Yeah, well, you, you Pay for, you asked about paying for it and the grant would help pay for it. So it's not, in this case, it's not just free cash.

▶ 44:36 Mark Garipay: Okay. Um, I, I, I appreciate the shift, but of, of if this doesn't go through the, to move this to capital stabilization, but what if it goes to, uh, president Grigoraitis? Um, question if it goes into free cash and it comes out next year, we can still use it in February to if, if we're doing better financially as a community. I mean, we have promised free cash for, for the schools and we just found out again that we're another could be another million dollars in the whole. So

▶ 45:07 Speaker 6: I think, think February is tight for the grant, I think to, to expect them to hold it if we didn't even come before you until February didn't get approval, say until March. Mm-hmm. And then we're ordering a vehicle in March or April that's so far off from their grant timeline of having a vehicle in, in service by September. That I just think it's a hard sell with keeping that grant money viable

▶ 45:29 Paul Brodeur: In terms of the, yeah, any, any free cash order that is rejected, as you all know, means that money goes back into the free cash pool for next year. It's not as, as CFO Delarosa said, it's not a one for one, uh, trade off, but, so you will have the money, but you will also continue to have the need. And again, that is a judgment call you all will make. Just like you make a, a judgment call on any of our, you know, police cruisers, pumper trucks, salt sheds, all those things are, are judgment calls. And you'll do with it what you'll, but the need will continue to exist.

▶ 46:12 Speaker 6: And on a related note, with regard to the need, um, we've, we've just completed a fleet assessment with a consultant and our average fleet age in D P W, I wanna say it was 12 point something years for our truck specifically, if you remember.

▶ 46:28 Speaker 9: Yeah. With the replacement at about 18 years.

▶ 46:30 Speaker 6: So, um, we've identified that we need, at a minimum 500,000 per year to, to bring our fleet up to a, a reasonable level. We've ordered, as you know, because you all have approved these purchases, we've ordered recently a diesel roll-off truck. We got three new dump trucks that are also used for plowing. And we ordered two pickups, one of which was a Ford Lightning. So we, you know, in our recent purchases, we have determined that to meet our needs, we need the diesel, uh, trucks, not the EV equivalents in a lot of cases because of snow plowing or, or other needs. The refuse truck is the one truck that the National Grid program identified as being the most viable for an electric of the larger vehicles. And so we estimate we need half a million per year. And this year this was our request for vehicle purchases. So we didn't submit to the council any other, or, or to Patrick any other free cash request. So if we don't get anything through this either now or later through capital stabilization, that means we've missed an entire year of vehicle purchases to try to keep up to our minimum level of replacements.

▶ 47:48 Mark Garipay: Uh, um, in the memo we received yesterday, it, um, it says it would be shortsighted to allow this opportunity, uh, to more or less go by, which I, I think it,

▶ 48:00 Mark Garipay: it's shortsighted for us if we don't take, do a deep dive with the pressure and the stress on the amount of free cash for next year. Um, so I, I disagree with the mayor's, uh, sa um, position on that. I think it would be shortsighted for everyone around this council not to be, not to be thinking about that for next year. Um, whoever, whoever's gonna be here, you know, we gotta think, think for the future we're gonna have potentially tough decisions to make next year. So my vote has not changed and I will not be supporting, uh, an amendment or this, this order.

▶ 48:33 Speaker 5: I, I absolutely agree with that idea of prudence. And, um,

▶ 48:39 Paul Brodeur: again, I guess, or just there is, um, both of the folks to my left have given you, um, I think all the information about the vehicle and the situation and the funding and the, um, capital reinvestment cycle, um, that we're following. So we can certainly have different views about what is shortsighted my appear as what that statement meant. My reflection is again, continuing to not take opportunities to do the necessary but, um, not too exciting things in like the salt sheds and the pumper trucks and the roofs and things like that is just kicking the can down the road. But again, it's in your, it's in your capable hands. So thank you again for your consideration

▶ 49:28 Mark Garipay: And I appreciate all your work into it. I just, I just can't support, support this order as says thank you

▶ 49:35 Manjula Karamcheti: Councilor Carm Jady. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Thorpe, you may have already asked, answered my question, but I just wanna like ask it again just to make sure I'm understanding. Sort of, is this a nice to purchase or a need to purchase in terms of this vehicle? Am I hearing correctly that we need to replace our municipal truck regardless?

▶ 50:00 Speaker 9: Yeah, I, I can emphatically say that this is a need to replacement. I watch our guys every day and the, and the repairs that go into that truck. I, I personally don't think that we can afford that safety risk to put them in a vehicle of this condition year after year without a replacement.

▶ 50:16 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. So we need a truck. And then do you any of you at the table in terms of diesel versus electric, like the price differential? Yes.

▶ 50:27 Speaker 6: So we got quotes for an equivalent truck. Um, we got a quote for a diesel truck that was, I believe it was 2 98. Yes, 2 98. Um, our contribution to the, um, To the electric truck would be two 70. So $28,000 less for us to get the electric truck because of the grant component. The grant would be covering 221,400 of the EV purchase. So in the end we end up with a truck, we end up spending less money than we would on the diesel and we end up with a substantial contribution to the necessary charging infrastructure. Um, I'm not sure if everybody here was at the last meeting when we discussed this, but the issue with the charging infrastructure is that we don't have an electrical service that has the capacity to charge any of our electric vehicles. So right now we have two electric sedans and we alternate plugging them into one outlet, um, on the outside of the building. So what this will get us, the 481,600 that we're requesting will get the truck, including our match component matched with the grant and then it will also get us a brand new electrical service, a new transformer, and then the level three fast charger, um, to plug the trash truck into in a, in a configuration where we can add other ports in the future.

▶ 51:58 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. So truck to truck diesel are electric given that we have this grant, the cost differential, we're actually saving a couple bucks with the electric, correct? If I understand correctly? Yes. Okay. But then, and this is a truck we need, um, so then the other piece I'm just trying to understand cuz the grant covers 45% of the electric vehicle and the grant amount that we get is 268,000, but the request is for 481,000, which is way more than 55% of the truck. So that's the additional for the infrastructure of the charging. Correct. So that's why it's almost double what the truck

▶ 52:41 Speaker 6: Costs. Yeah, because it's a new service from the street, a new transformer and then the charging ports.

▶ 52:47 Manjula Karamcheti: And just in terms of it being in the D P W city yard, like is that sort of charging station only for municipal trucks and it'll be for D P W not for residents or anything like that? Yes. To be able to go to the city yard and use as well?

▶ 53:01 Speaker 6: It has to be because, you know, we would need to be sure that we could tr plug our trucks in there every night. Um, unfortunately a lot of the grants that are out right now for the charging infrastructure are only for public charging infrastructure. And so this is a rare opportunity for us to get some money toward a dedicated private, you know, city only.

▶ 53:21 Paul Brodeur: It's weirdly akin to, um, some years ago before, I think before all of our time, um, we used to run on credit cards for a lot of fueling and now there is essentially, you guys make sure I get the term, there's basically a gas station at the city yard Yes. That um, services municipal vehicles and kind of streamlines things all in one place. Um, it'd be akin to that I suppose.

▶ 53:49 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. Uh, thank you for answering all those questions. I think just similarly, the electric vehicle, the charging stations, it all seems like great stuff to do. It does sound like we need it, but I think as a body I continue to just be concerned about free cash as a whole and our now and our future and just how do we make sure that our schools have enough funding for using free cash funding for something that seems really cool and awesome and cutting edge and like forward in terms of thinking about the environment and climate and that kind of thing. And just sort of just struggling with that a little bit in terms of priorities. But I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. I thank you for providing the clarity of needing versus like a nice two thing. It's really helpful. Thank you so much. You're Welcome. Councilor Stewart.

▶ 54:51 Robb Stewart: Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here for today for nice hearing.

▶ 54:57 Robb Stewart: Um, Here's my concerns, sir. We're you, you, you sell a rosy picture, but it's an unproven technology. If it has a half-life of seven to 10 years on that battery, then what do we do? You know, we have a truck that gets ha has to get charged every four to six hours. We don't know that because it's unproven. Um, I just, I feel as though we're trying to make strategic funding decisions at a moment of crisis based on grants and I don't think that's the right thing to do in terms of making strategic decisions. When we are at a point where we're facing a three and a half million deficit on the school side that we're gonna be tapping on into our free cash to rectify that situation. This problem is not going to last for one year and go away. It's gonna be a continual problem. I feel like this is a bit of, um, a nice to have as consulate cochetti put it. Um, and I, I feel like when you talk about, you know, it's either we have terrible trucks that don't work or we have to go down this road or that, that puts us a little bit in a corner where we do have an alternative buy, just go buy a diesel truck, which is less money. So I can't support this at this point. It just, to me it doesn't make sense. Thank you Madam Chair. I would just say if you not to be a smart al about it, but the interesting thing about diesel is it's been, it's been around for an awful long time and we know the pluses and the significant minuses of it, or we really wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Right. This, we would continue to go on with the, with the existing tech. Appreciate that mayor. Yep. Thank you Madam Chair. Councilor Eccles.

▶ 56:41 Speaker 10: Thank you Madam Chair.

▶ 56:44 Jack Eccles: Um, many of my questions have been asked. One, one question I have is, um, where does the charging infrastructure kind of land on the list of priorities? Let's say we went with a diesel truck right now, where is the, where does that lie for urgency? You know, current state? So

▶ 57:00 Speaker 6: As soon as the Ford Lightning arrives, we now have three trucks that have nowhere, three vehicles at D P W that have nowhere to charge. Um, the, the situation that we have right now where we take the plug from one sedan and try to switch it back and forth from the outlet on the outside of the building. And then it also faults sometimes and you have to unplug it and plug the outlet, plug it back into the outlet. Um, that is somewhat sustainable for the two sedans because if I go out to drive my electric vehicle to go to a job site or something and it's not available, I just jump in my personal car and take that instead. It happens to me probably once a month where the charging infrastructure we have fails and I can't drive the electric car. Um, but as soon as the Ford Lightning arrives, that's supposed to be our operations general foreman's truck. And you know, for him to be in that same situation, he's not gonna jump in his own truck to, to go to job sites every day. So we need reliable charging infrastructure and we have a truck that's probably scheduled, it's being built right now, so it's probably scheduled to be here, uh, within the next six months. And so we really need a solution and without a new electrical service, we don't have that solution. So this, the, the real win here is that this allows us to get a whole new electrical service and transformer and then solves that issue as well as allowing us to get the electric trash truck.

▶ 58:34 Jack Eccles: Got it. Sounds like we probably need, regardless of what happens tonight, there probably needs to be an operational solution for that. Yes. Arrival anyway. Yes. Thanks,

▶ 58:46 Maya Jamaleddine: Vice chair, Jamal Dean, Thank you. Um, thank you for your patience and answering all our questions. Mr. Tu you mentioned that there is safety concern on your team members. Can you explain?

▶ 58:59 Speaker 9: Sure. So, uh, over the last two and a half to three years, uh, there has been a floor welled into the truck. Uh, the driver would've, uh, fallen through the bomb. So they've welded the floor, they've had hydraulic lines that have been replaced, and that's the crusher. Once the, the trash or the debris gets into the hopper of the truck to pull the truck up, uh, the, the debris up into the, the hopper itself. Uh, so without that, there's nothing controlling that, uh, mechanical arm. Uh, and then other, uh, just basic engine repairs, uh, a full rebuild of the engine brake lines, just critical critical maintenance or routine maintenance that gets done on a truck. And as, uh, Elena explains to you, uh, we're looking at about 18 years, uh, for about our average replacement and the municipal industry average is about half of that. So,

▶ 59:58 Maya Jamaleddine: Yeah, so I hear you. I'm, I'm just concerned about the safety issue. So you mentioned that maintenance, um, but what is the safety risk that our employees are taking?

▶ 1:00:11 Speaker 9: Yeah, so it's the real safety risk that they, uh, face every day is an aging vehicle that is constantly breaking down. So now that truck comes outta service, we repair it to the point that it's safe for them to drive. But if anything, were ever to fail.

▶ 1:00:29 Maya Jamaleddine: So this is very important because this is not safe issue. That's concern of not having the truck, you know, functioning but not personal, like employee human safety. I think

▶ 1:00:44 Speaker 6: Any, any vehicle that reaches this age presents safety concerns. We saw the exact same thing with the, um, street sweeper when we were here a couple years ago, advocating for a new street sweeper where the brakes let go and the street sweeper went backwards down Ferdinand Street and almost, and they hit somebody's wall in their driveway and managed to maneuver in such a way that you didn't hit anybody. But when you, when you're driving vehicles that are 20 plus years old as you would be in your own car, there are just, you know, more opportunities for something to break down and there to be some failure that presents a safety risk.

▶ 1:01:20 Paul Brodeur: So respectfully, what what did it for me was hearing that there was a big hole in the floor and that you had to, well, I mean that's Flintstone's error technology, right? When you put your feet down when you're doing those kind of repairs as opposed to Right. That's not normal maintenance. Correct. I would assume that it's a little bit of a different,

▶ 1:01:40 Maya Jamaleddine: So how many, uh, vehicle do we have over

▶ 1:01:46 Maya Jamaleddine: the lifetime limit that we like the average?

▶ 1:01:50 Speaker 9: Yeah, specifically, uh, I'm gonna respectfully wait until I see the final, uh, report from, uh, our consultant and that deliverable is, is imminent. Um, but, and we've done a good job of replacing the aging fleet, uh, with, with the, you know, the numbers that Elena previously just explained to you. Um, but with an average age at 11 or 12 years old, there are some vehicles, I can think of four specifically, that are, uh, late 1990s, early two thousands. So, uh, and these are trucks that we're counting on delivering services every day.

▶ 1:02:29 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. So if we are gonna call it safety issue, it's not only on this specific truck, it's gonna be more than one.

▶ 1:02:37 Speaker 1: Correct. Uh, and

▶ 1:02:41 Maya Jamaleddine: for me personally, I wanted to mention that a name that I'm fully in support of replacing those, uh, and the need of having, uh, you know, sustainable and, um, more efficient, uh, vehicles with the crisis that we are facing. Um, I need to prioritize and I feel our next generation and the students are probably now as, as a parent, I feel if I need to change my car, even if it was over the time, um, or put my kids in school, I have to prioritize at that time. But I am fully in support of and see the need and I'm sorry that your department is going through this. Um, uh, this is where we are in this situation. Thank you. Thank

▶ 1:03:33 Speaker 6: You. I think the benefit of the, the option to put the money into capital stabilization is that it doesn't eliminate the opportunity for us to come back with better information with maybe a lower cost. Maybe we find more rebate and grant opportunities and we can come back with a better number, um, by letting it go back into free cash for next year. I feel like it just eliminates all possibilities. And the $268,000 of outside money basically goes away. Um, so I hear all the concerns about the present situation, but would strongly encourage consideration of putting the money in capital stabilization because, you know, several months from now, if we come back with a proposal that's less money, that's maybe more palatable, then it's still an option. Mm-hmm. Whereas, um, and, and if instead the council decides you'd rather have that capital stabilization go toward a need at the schools, that can happen as well. But not putting it into capital stabilization really eliminates the possibility for us to take advantage of the grant.

▶ 1:04:45 Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:04:49 Ryan Williams: are these funds associated with this grant in competition with funds that could be earmarked for public schools?

▶ 1:05:01 Ryan Williams: The, Maybe let me rephrase this. If we don't pass this, does all this money go into the schools

▶ 1:05:06 Speaker 6: Tomorrow? No, it just goes back into free cash.

▶ 1:05:09 Ryan Williams: Okay. It goes back into free cash. Um, and then the council doesn't get to decide where that money goes. Right.

▶ 1:05:17 Speaker 6: Well, next year, in theory you do.

▶ 1:05:19 Ryan Williams: We get to decide whether your mayor proposes. Yes. We get to decide whether the mayor's ideas for

▶ 1:05:25 Speaker 6: Free cash Correct. Are valid. Correct. You don't get to pick and choose, or

▶ 1:05:27 Ryan Williams: We don't get to pick and choose where the money goes. We just get to say yes or no. Right. Because I would love to, to pick and choose. Maybe it would be a disaster. Right. But I would love to pick and choose, but I can't. Um, and so we're left with this question of, you know, we really need a new trash truck. It's a trash truck that crawls past our downtown area with Parklets and kids playing and parking their bikes past the Y M C A, past the common with, you know, dozens of different sports leagues playing, um, either at the Common or at the Noll or all these other locations that have, that have, uh, that have trash at the school buildings. Um, and we have to figure out whether it makes sense fiscally to buy an electric trash truck or whether we should just buy another diesel truck. So I want to just help me understand this and help me clarify this cuz I've heard a bunch of different conflicting things around the horseshoe tonight. Which truck is more expensive? Which truck costs the city more to buy out of pocket?

▶ 1:06:25 Speaker 6: The diesel costs the city more to buy out of pocket because of the grant.

▶ 1:06:30 Ryan Williams: Okay. And do you know what you're spending right now on diesel maintenance?

▶ 1:06:36 Speaker 6: So it's, it's a bit hard for us to quantify. I mean, we know we've spent about 30,000 on this truck Yeah. In recent years. But, you know, we don't have an exact figure.

▶ 1:06:45 Ryan Williams: So, you know, you just maybe five, 10 grand. I mean, you've gotta do oil changes, filter changes, fuel, you know, you know, hydraulic lines, all this stuff. Right. Um, and then have the, have, has anybody quantified for you or discussed the difference between diesel fuel and electricity in terms of a fuel cost?

▶ 1:07:02 Speaker 6: Um, we did at the last meeting present some numbers that National Grid had that were supposed to be, I don't know, somewhat of an average figure figure, but they were, it was for five trucks. Yeah. I still don't feel comfortable quoting any actual numbers on that. I think there's too much uncertainty in, um, you know, our electrical prices and how, and really the big question is how much electricity is it going to take to charge this vehicle? And I don't feel like we know that exact number.

▶ 1:07:32 Ryan Williams: Sure. Okay. Um, who's, I'm sorry. Who's building? Who would build the truck if you chose the lowest bidder right now?

▶ 1:07:40 Speaker 6: If we chose the lowest bidder? Well,

▶ 1:07:42 Speaker 8: If you chose your preferred bidder, who would build the truck?

▶ 1:07:45 Speaker 6: So we're, we're still kind of going around on, you know, we looked into the Mac. Yeah. We know that's not an option right now, but could become an option later this year. Um, we had Peterbilt, which was the higher price. Mm-hmm. We had three options from crane carrier that were, one was close to the Peterbilt price, roughly the same. And then they went down as much as 40,000 less depending on what, um, hopper on the vehicle. Um, but another discussion we're having right now internally is with the same Peterbilt cab in chassis, but with it a little shorter, we could possibly have this be a Class six vehicle, which is considered medium duty instead of class seven, in which case it could be driven by a non CDL driver. And so, you know, we're still tossing around what is our, our preferred option. But the price we've put in here is for the Peterbilt, um, with the, I believe it was the new way, um, copper, which matches the brand we have now.

▶ 1:08:48 Ryan Williams: And would the, would the other, so the one, the smaller one is smaller, the Six and would be cheaper. I'm a huge fan of small trucks by the way. Small.

▶ 1:08:56 Speaker 6: Yeah. So the question is if it could still, if it could still, uh, pick up the same amount. Okay. The amount of trash that we needed to pick up. Okay. In the smaller hopper, then we are very open to it. And our operations form seems to think that that's something we should now look at. Yeah.

▶ 1:09:10 Speaker 8: It's a good idea. Counsel,

▶ 1:09:10 Paul Brodeur: Can I ask you a clarifying question? Sure. So there's the, you you talked about essentially the purchase price, the upfront price. Yeah. The fuel price and repair is more of a life of vehicle. Yeah. Cost. Is that more what you're, what you're wondering about?

▶ 1:09:25 Ryan Williams: I'm thinking about kind of daily operation from a cash flow perspective. I am also interested in lifetime costs, but, but I'm thinking in terms of the right now moment that we're discussing this fiscal, you know, issues that we're having. Like, you know, when this thing lands, what pressure does it take off the public Works budget right away.

▶ 1:09:40 Speaker 6: Yeah. Lower cost to buy and lower cost to operate are fair to say, but we don't have exact numbers.

▶ 1:09:44 Ryan Williams: Yeah. And, um, Peterbilt, Mac and Crane are these new companies? No, they've been around a long time.

▶ 1:09:50 Speaker 6: All three are companies, um, who have built a lot of trucks for a lot years.

▶ 1:09:54 Ryan Williams: They've built a lot of trucks and uh, and they know what they're doing. And they probably aren't gonna sell New York City and Melrose, a bunch of crap garbage trucks that fail in the first three months and then walk away from the deal. Right.

▶ 1:10:04 Speaker 6: And also, uh, worth noting is that the, the whole um, copper assembly, that's the whole refuse body. Those are the same refuse bodies that are on the diesel trucks. Yeah. So everything that relates to the operation of actually picking up the trash and compacting the trash, that's the same tried and true technology that's been used.

▶ 1:10:29 Ryan Williams: Yeah. Yeah. And, um, does anybody, do you know how much air pollution the trash truck tends to produce?

▶ 1:10:36 Speaker 6: I don't know off

▶ 1:10:37 Ryan Williams: The a hundred metric tons of carbon dioxide. Not to mention all of the diesel particulate, which sometimes has sulfur and arsenic and all kinds of other bad stuff. I think about this all the time when I'm sitting at the parklet and a trash truck rolls by or any big truck, I think, you know, this is great, but it sucks that I have to sit here and breathe this smoke in or sit here with my kids and breathe this smoke in because these guys, they have to stop. They gotta go get the thing, they gotta bring it back. It's running the whole time. And then they gotta press the hopper and then it really cranks up and starts pushing out smoke. And that drives me crazy.

▶ 1:11:06 Speaker 6: Yeah. It's a lot of idling.

▶ 1:11:07 Ryan Williams: It's a lot of idling. So really I think the operative question for me is, do we make the investment now to upgrade the electric charging infrastructure? Because the question of whether we purchase a less expensive electric truck that has huge public health benefits is probably more reliable than a diesel truck. Um, and seems to be not just the wave of the future, but something that's happening right now in major cities with huge capacity and planning departments that make very smart decisions. Um, it's a no-brainer for me to support an electric trash truck. So the question is, do I think it's worth it in this moment in the city's budget to drop another 250 K on putting in electric charging infrastructure so that we can continue to move forward on our fleet, um, fication strategy? And to me the answer is yes. So I support this order. I think it makes sense. Um, I think it's a reasonable argument, um, to say that we have a lot of pressures on us right now, but certainly we've had pressures before. We replaced a plastic carpet at Fred Greenfield cost $600,000. We spend a ton of money on Memorial Hall and maybe none of us will ever live to see it completed. I hope we do. Um, so I think that, uh, for me this is a yes. I appreciate you guys thinking Probably about a month, so,

▶ 1:12:15 Paul Brodeur: Okay, good. Hopefully, well, I hope so. I hope so. Um, it's an Opportune time to plug the gala coming up in October. Tickets are available,

▶ 1:12:21 Ryan Williams: So there you go. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah. Yeah, I support this and I appreciate that this city is thinking about ways to improve public health, um, to lead on climate change, um, and to do so in a way that's fiscally responsible with, with grants. And yeah, I appreciate it also. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:12:38 Speaker 1: Um, since we've gone all the way around, councilor Repe,

▶ 1:12:42 Mark Garipay: Uh, thank you. Um, just going back to the lower cost, I question the, uh, the lower cost to maintain the vehicle. We don't know even what the reliability is. Um, the technology hasn't been out there on these type of vehicles, so I do, I do question that the low, it's a lower cost to operate it. Um, a diesel vehicle, let's face it, electric trucks are here, they're gonna be closed type of vehicles in the next 6, 7, 8 years are probably gonna be everywhere, but I don't think everyone's buying into 'em just yet. In the transportation world, which I've spent 30 years in so far, um, I, I think we are ca uh, we, we have the manpower, we have the, uh, expertise within our, uh, mechanics to, to maintain a diesel vehicle. Um, we still have 550,000 with the money we, uh, we're gonna approve that's going into capital stabilization. So we got a healthy capital stabilization fund right now. Um, and then just a quick, uh, two, two other quick questions. The used market has been coming down and you had mentioned that no one wants to labor's an issue. They all want to go automated all the communities. So if, if all the big companies want to go automated is their availability of good use equipment. I understand JRM uses the big, the big one, the big trucks. But is there anything out there that if this vehicle is that unsafe that we can find as a bandaid approach to get us through and then look at a, at a electric vehicle, 4, 5, 6, 7 years down the road when the technology's proven? Um,

▶ 1:14:32 Mark Garipay: if, if I think Mr. Troop, but if I was looking at Mr. Troop, if you could just answer that cuz he's, he's been doing the research on that. Um, but I would, I would think there's gonna be some availability used. Truck market has totally gone come down considerably in the last six months. Well, so as

▶ 1:14:47 Speaker 10: An all time spike,

▶ 1:14:47 Paul Brodeur: I'll turn it over to Jim as a general proposition, one of the attractions to electric transportation technology in general, and that it's certainly marketed in the, uh, consumer market is the much lower maintenance costs. You don't have to change the oil, you don't have to do a lot of the fluids or any of those kind of things. Your pistons don't wear out. Um, and that is, that is what feeds into the argument of lower, uh, lower maintenance costs over time, lower lifetime costs of vehicle. I'm not a fan as, you know, not a fan of the bad data approach, but I think Jim can probably shed some light on some of the other questions.

▶ 1:15:25 Speaker 9: Yeah. My, my only hesitancy in the used market in this type of environment or or trash vehicle is what it's been used for up until the point that they're selling it to a municipality. And uh, when I look at what the companies that are coming in and providing bids to us, they're looking at either a, retrofitting their existing fleet or retiring it. Nobody has made any indications that they are willing to sell it. Thus I'd probably be a little hesitant to buy something that they would use. I'm not saying that that's not a viable option, but from what I've heard, I think I would be reluctant in recommending something like that

▶ 1:16:02 Mark Garipay: To gonna be interesting to see how they retrofit 'em. Cause typically those are the cab over style.

▶ 1:16:06 Speaker 9: Yeah, the, the retrofit for the most part, I believe Mark, uh, on the, on the back side. Okay. Sorry counselor.

▶ 1:16:11 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Um, um, and then one other thing that just spurred another question. You said we have another vehicle coming in that we don't know how we're going to charge it.

▶ 1:16:22 Speaker 6: Well, we're going to plug it into an outlet just like we are with our other,

▶ 1:16:26 Mark Garipay: What was the plan when we purchased these

▶ 1:16:30 Speaker 6: To plug it into an outlet until we could get charging infrastructure.

▶ 1:16:34 Speaker 10: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 1:16:38 Speaker 6: We also have the, um, pole mounted charger that's right up the street that we could use.

▶ 1:16:44 Speaker 5: What class is that? Two, I think,

▶ 1:16:49 Speaker 1: Um, counselor Carm Shady.

▶ 1:16:51 Manjula Karamcheti: Um, I think Counselor GPE sort of was alluding to the piece of this puzzle that I was trying to extra extrapolate a little bit. And it really was the how many electric vehicles do we have already? And I think what I had heard you say, and it sounds like Counselor Garipay heard the whole thing is sort of this chicken and an egg issue we find ourselves in where we purchased or got the vehicles but didn't have a plan for how we would charge them. And so now we're looking to upgrade to be able to sustain and grow.

▶ 1:17:31 Speaker 11: And I'm just wondering about that kind of a

▶ 1:17:33 Speaker 6: Plan. So the two vehicles, the sedans that I was referencing, those were purchased before I started working here, which is 2015. So I believe those were 2014 purchases. And they were purchased with the intent that they would be parked in the city hall parking lot and the new charging stations at the time, they're not new anymore. In the city hall parking lot were the locations for those vehicles at the time. We used to leave when I started in 2015, I used to drive the other one, not the one I drive now. And I used to have to plug it in all the time because if it sat for too long uncharged, the accessory battery would die and then I wouldn't be able to, you just can't start the car. Um, the, the engine battery has plenty of charge, but the accessory battery dies. So I was having to leave my car plugged in all the time, or not all the time, but frequently in the city hall lot. And then the public started buying more and more electric cars and the demand for that charging station really went up. And then we also started charging, uh, it used to be free, now we charge for it and make a little money off of it. Um, but we were getting a lot of complaints when the city car was sitting there for too long. And so at some point we just decided to move those cars down to the city yard. So they were never intended. The two sedans were never intended to be for the city yard. And that's why there's not charging infrastructure. And then also Martha Grover had brought in probably three years ago, she brought in a company to put in a charging station similar to what we have in the city hall lot in front of the D P W. And that's when we learned that we didn't have the electrical capacity in our electrical service to be able to install one of those stations. So that's how we ended up where

▶ 1:19:16 Paul Brodeur: We are. And it's not so much, oh, sorry. It's not so much that there was, there was no plan. I think, and this has been a thing that's been going on over time is we have the capacity to service the assets we have, we can get better technology so that we can grow for sure. But there was no question, no reasonable question at the time that we could handle, um, the new electric pickup. And yeah, the technology changes and improves with the possibility of level three charging. That is kind of a dramatic upgrade. Meaning instead of plugging someone in something in, and this is a little bit beyond my pay grade, to be sure into the, into the one 10, which is what I think, you know, it's like plugging in your, your lamp. Whereas this, you're also gonna get a much quicker charge. So off of one charging station, you can do more vehicles, you can do more overnight vehicles and have a more of a fleet wide perspective. So if we do this, we do have that opportunity to expand strategically. Um, I would suggest that we should, I mean, if we're not going to invest in that capacity increase, we should probably start thinking about not looking at electric vehicles because we do at some point do get to a critical mass where we're gonna need the better, more efficient infrastructure.

▶ 1:20:45 Manjula Karamcheti: Right. So just to summarize, we need a truck. We have a grant to pay for the truck that makes it cheaper than diesel and we need to expand our infrastructure if we get the truck correct. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 1:21:05 Speaker 1: Okay. I'm President Greg. Thank you Madam Chair.

▶ 1:21:08 Jen Grigoraitis: I think some of my questions cause I, as we've added conversations about the, the truck and the how we're charging those things, I feel like this has become, it's, it's hard for me to disentangle which problem exactly it is we're trying to solve. And I know that because we're Melrose, we have more problems than we have the ability to solve. And I just wanna acknowledge that I don't question the need for us to invest in our infrastructure. I'm also looking at five of your department head colleagues who are also sitting here tonight coming before us with things that I know are also critical to their ability to deliver services. Um, and that we are constantly having to make decisions, you know, from which thing, from the endless buffet of needs we're gonna try to shore up. Um, so I do think electric vehicles are exciting. Um, I own two personally. I understand charging infrastructure. I just, I, I feel like we're trying to kind of solve multiple problems in what feels like a very convoluted way for me. Like, we bought a truck, we can charge it. This would be a better way to charge it. That truck's not gonna be here for another six months. We bought that truck a year ago. If we buy, if this passes tonight and you can go tomorrow and hit order on an electric trash truck, when does that get here?

▶ 1:22:18 Speaker 6: It depends which one we purchase. One vendor said they could have it to us within a few months because their, um, crane carrier said that they're making these in the hopes of selling them. So they're already in manufacturing. If we did the Peterbilt, I believe they'd be building it custom for us. And so I would say a year plus.

▶ 1:22:38 Jen Grigoraitis: A year plus. Okay. And then if, again, if this passed tonight and you could hit buy on the charging infrastructure, when is that actually usable in the ground?

▶ 1:22:47 Speaker 6: Voltri give us a

▶ 1:22:52 Speaker 9: Yeah, it's the most, for the most part, they've engineered the, that project already. Uh, so they would start getting, uh, working on that immediately. I believe that the deliverable is most, most likely eight months, if I remember correctly.

▶ 1:23:09 Jen Grigoraitis: Take Me a second. And to go back to the concerns about the viability of the existing truck, you feel that that truck could be on the road in service for possibly another year to a year and a half while we wait?

▶ 1:23:21 Speaker 6: Uh, it will be anyway. Yeah, we'll just keep that truck in service. We'll keep it limping along as long as we can until we have what we consider a good replacement. I mean, with our ev first policy and with the recommendations from National Grid that, that this truck is one that should be replaced with an ev it is difficult for us to say, we're not gonna do that. We're gonna purchase a diesel even if it costs more money. Um, you know, given the grant. So it, I'm not sure within our ev first policy within the parameters of that, how we would buy a diesel truck. So I would say we'd be more likely to keep truck 18 limping along for as long as we can until we can get an EV replacement.

▶ 1:24:04 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. And on and related to the EV first policy, so I know the actual truck is cheaper with the grant, but we can't charge the truck without the infrastructure. Correct. It's not just like, can it be faster and more efficient? It's that we literally don't have the capacity to do it. Um, I mean, I don't,

▶ 1:24:18 Speaker 7: is that,

▶ 1:24:20 Speaker 6: How does that factor into policy? It doesn't really take that into, doesn't factor account into that. Okay. It's, you know, if you can economically replace the truck with an EV equivalent, and if it makes sense operationally, which in this case we feel that it does, um, then you're supposed to go with the EV option.

▶ 1:24:37 Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thank you manager.

▶ 1:24:42 Speaker 1: Um, I have some questions if, unless there's somebody who's secondary question. Okay. Um,

▶ 1:24:50 Leila Migliorelli: are there any other grant opportunities for purchasing electric vehicles? Like, is this the main one? Are there other opportunities that come up or you see on the horizon? This

▶ 1:25:01 Speaker 6: Is the main one. The Deer grant is the main one for our application, but there are other opportunities for the charging infrastructure. And those are constantly evolving. We talk in here about the potential for some tax credits, um, that may or may not be a reality. National Grid has incentives that, you know, can go up depending on how we, how exactly we structure this. Um, so I think there are more opportunities for incentives and rebates on the charging infrastructure, um, which we would hope to take advantage of with this project to bring the price down. Um, and fewer that we've seen on the truck replacement.

▶ 1:25:46 Leila Migliorelli: So there's opportunity for the, so like right now the cost to, uh, the city portion with this grant, the city portion would be 211,000. You could see that going down potentially?

▶ 1:25:58 Speaker 6: Yes. Yeah. And we had gotten into that a little bit in the memo. Yeah. We, we went with the most conservative, we had to be sure that if we had an affirmative vote, we could walk away and fund the project. Right. And so we had to put in the worst case number, which is the two 11, because we know that Dira is paying for 40 46,600 and that National Grid said they have a hundred thousand dollars incentive, but they might have to subtract off what we get from the Deer Grant. So that's why we quoted that as 53,400 for a total savings of a hundred thousand. But National Grid also thought that that might not be the case. We might get the full a hundred thousand from them. Um, and then they mentioned the tax credits as well. So we hope that that number is less than 211,000. But,

▶ 1:26:48 Leila Migliorelli: And is that the, I feel like we've talked a lot about the truck in terms of the charging infrastructure, if you were to go and purchase infrastructure without this grant, so like right now that total cost is three 11, is that, are there other options, other cost options for that type of charging infrastructure? Or would you say that is the, like average or I don't, I don't know if this is a charging infrastructure that's needed for, to support a trash truck or if you, like you, you've identified a need for charging infrastructure for other vehicles. Is this the, like top of the line charging infrastructure?

▶ 1:27:24 Speaker 6: So this is level three fast charging, right? We did look at level two charging, but we were advised that the, um, the, you know, for if we're gonna move in this direction for any heavy duty vehicles and vehicles that are in service most of the day, that we should really be looking at the fast charging. Um, we could possibly get away with the level two charging for this trash truck, um, which would bring the cost down a little bit, but then we would've built out the infrastructure for level two. And then if the next purchase requires level three, you know, if we're trying to do something more 24 7 like snow plowing or something with electric, you know, we can't get there without swapping out that infrastructure

▶ 1:28:04 Leila Migliorelli: And that charging infrastructure. I know it's, it's for city use. Are there other city vehicles, not just DPW vehicles that would be able to charge? Um,

▶ 1:28:14 Speaker 6: I would imagine we would open it up if, if they ever needed it to the new Ford Lightning that's being purchased by the rec department. Okay. Um, and I'm not aware of any other electric vehicles.

▶ 1:28:26 Speaker 1: The police, police Electric, I was gonna say it's the chief failure there. Yes. So yeah. Um,

▶ 1:28:31 Speaker 6: There's, so the police department would be welcome to charge, but I think they have locations where they can charge.

▶ 1:28:35 Speaker 1: Okay. But they do, they have that quick charging capacity. Sorry to,

▶ 1:28:46 Speaker 1: So. Okay. It's, He's, he always has a Contract. Okay. Um,

▶ 1:28:55 Speaker 1: and then

▶ 1:28:59 Speaker 1: how many years is the trash contract?

▶ 1:29:03 Speaker 1: The trash contract? Yeah. Uh, we're looking at five years.

▶ 1:29:08 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. So the, as you said, I think I, if I did the math right, if you, you said about like 60,000 for, um, manual trash pickup if we wanted to outsource this completely. And then that would pay for itself in about eight years.

▶ 1:29:20 Speaker 6: Just for the city. Just for the city barrels. Okay. That's the price for the municipal barrels. So on the list of items that we, um, listed that we use Truckee 18 for. Mm-hmm. Um, so we do approximately a hundred barrels three times a week. Um, we do the seasonally on Sundays now too. We do metal goods pickup with this truck. We do the school dumpsters and we do the residential neighborhoods that the large trucks, the contractors trucks have trouble accessing. So that 68,000, 67,000 only would handle that first bullet of the hundred, uh, municipal barrels.

▶ 1:30:00 Leila Migliorelli: So what we're looking at is with like, I think you, for this chart was really helpful to see the total cost city portion. If you were to then purchase the diesel truck, it would be 298,000. If you wanted the EV service, it would be 311 thou, like, let's just take the trash truck out of it. So it's 609,000. Um, it sounds like we'll need the EV service at some point in time, but primarily like, are we really like in the hurri? Cause I was also just trying, I pulled up the net zero plan to try to see if there's any information there about other, um, municipal EV vehicles on the horizon. Um, I didn't, I didn't get all the way through it sitting here, but, um, I'm just wondering like if that EV service is not needed until we start to purchase this vehicle or other vehicles. Is that fair?

▶ 1:30:54 Speaker 6: I would say other vehicles most likely would be charged, you know, non D P W vehicles would more likely be charged wherever their resident department is. So if we got, you know, counsel on aging vans, there would have to be charging infrastructure at the coa. If, if, um, the inspection services department switches over to EVs mm-hmm. They'd have something here at the city hall lot or they'd plug into the chargers we have. Okay. Um, at the slot,

▶ 1:31:19 Paul Brodeur: I think Council Chetty put a, like put her finger right on the line. It is a bit of a chicken and an egg thing. Um, I used as an example of the pole mounted charges that we have throughout the city, or to a certain degree, I don't wanna say a leap of faith, but something that we, uh, as a community have really kind of taken pride in. Those are not subscribed to a hundred percent of the time. Part of the purpose of those charging stations, they're simple to use. Charging infrastructure for consumers is to create confidence in the market. Uh, think, all right, I'm gonna be able to charge this thing. I'm not, I don't have to worry about that. Um, what they call range envy or what's the

▶ 1:32:01 Speaker 8: Range anxiety?

▶ 1:32:01 Paul Brodeur: Range Anxiety, thank you. Um, so that's part because we, we can potentially get into a situation where, because the supply streams might not line up perfectly, we're gonna say, all right, we shouldn't buy an electric truck because we don't have the infrastructure to charge it as far as we can tell. And so therefore, maybe we should go, well, we don't really have any trucks to charge, so why would we bother getting this somewhat expensive to start up, if not for the grant infrastructure, if we don't have any trucks to charge. So, you know, at, at some point something's got, something's gotta give. And that's part of what, like the, the net 0 20 50 is premised on that. It is not laid out as, you know, we are gonna buy, uh, Ford Lightning three years from now. It's things like, well, we're gonna have an ev first policy, or we are going to consider, um, you know, in different types, heat sinks or, you know, electrification in our building permits or whatever, whatever the case may be, recognizing that it all kinda moves towards that bigger goal. But it's not really designed to be

▶ 1:33:18 Speaker 5: that granular for the most part.

▶ 1:33:21 Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, I'm, as my colleagues have voiced, um, it's difficult vote because I, I own an electric vehicle myself. I feel really strongly in, um, you know, lowering our emissions as a city. I think that

▶ 1:33:40 Leila Migliorelli: it's sort of like the, the big picture I didn't, I don't know that we receive, you know, these are the grants that we're applying for. This is maybe the, I don't know if you knew when you applied for the grant that it would require this much in free cash. I feel like that plan is just, I think someone else mentioned this too, it's like we have these chunks of free cash requests without sort of being able to prioritize 'em. That's sort of the nature of the game. But it is, it does make it hard when we're finding ourselves in a situation where we have these increasing costs on the school side. And not that I understand, I mean, I understand that if we put this money back into free cash, it's no guarantee that where it goes after that. Um, but it is, it's, um, it's unfortunate because I think that as a, you know, if we were looking forward and saying, you know, we're gonna invest in this, uh, ev um, charging station, we're gonna find grants for that. We're gonna find grants for a trash truck and other trucks, and just having a sense of how to map that out over time is helpful in making these decisions. Otherwise, they sort of feel like it's a little bit piecemeal. Um, so that's my thoughts on it now. Um, Councillor Williams raised his hand for a second, second Time,

▶ 1:34:49 Ryan Williams: I just wanted to point out that we should have an electric charging station because we all approved one. Actually it was Councilor Gar paid that, um, moved the motion in 2022, January 18th. Um, and it was a 240 volt charger for exclusive use of the police department. And it was like $12,000 from the state, $10,000 from the city, and it was supposed to be in fairly quickly. And that was over a year ago. So I haven't personally inspected it myself, but it should be there.

▶ 1:35:17 Speaker 1: It should be there. It should

▶ 1:35:18 Speaker 8: Be there. I don't know. You tell me.

▶ 1:35:21 Speaker 6: I believe that's the one that the police vehicle

▶ 1:35:23 Ryan Williams: Part correct. Plugs into. Correct. Yeah. It should be, should be. It came with the order to buy the Mach and all that stuff.

▶ 1:35:29 Speaker 1: Okay. Anyone else on discussion?

▶ 1:35:36 Speaker 1: What is the will of the committee

▶ 1:35:43 Speaker 1: President Greg?

▶ 1:35:44 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a motion to amend appropriation 2023 dash 26 to direct $481,600 to the Capital stabilization fund.

▶ 1:35:55 Speaker 7: Second,

▶ 1:35:57 Leila Migliorelli: Um, president Grigoraitis Motion to amend this order to direct the, um, money instead to, hold on, let me give, get this back up here again. Um, to amend appropriation 2023 dash 26, um, to have the order for $481,600 to go to Capital Stabilization, um, made by President Greg, seconded by Councilor Caram Shady on discussion,

▶ 1:36:29 Maya Jamaleddine: uh, vice chair, Jamal. Dean. Thank you. Um, can you provide more, uh,

▶ 1:36:34 Speaker 1: details on what,

▶ 1:36:39 Maya Jamaleddine: when, when this pass and it's amended, you know, like the, the amendment passes and it's not the mon the money is not going to free cash. Um,

▶ 1:37:00 Maya Jamaleddine: how it now, what, what's next? What is it that's gonna benefit with the, with you with the order?

▶ 1:37:07 Speaker 2: I don't know if, um,

▶ 1:37:08 Paul Brodeur: I, I got tiny sense. I am lost two things. I mean, so it doesn't, it doesn't revert to free cash. It goes into capital stabilization, and that means it can be allocated for any purpose, including the purchase, you know, including this purchase. Um, at any time after this date, um, the mayor would've to initiate an order to, to, as you know, to release anything out of any of the stabilization funds and then as the will of the council as to whether or not, um, that appropriation would be approved.

▶ 1:37:41 Maya Jamaleddine: So what is the difference why we wouldn't keep it in free cash?

▶ 1:37:46 Paul Brodeur: Because then you can't use it till at least February. Well, you can't, I shouldn't say it because you can't use it until, um, free cash is certified and then again, still up to the, to the mayor to allocate what he or she chooses to go to free cash, you know, to, to be that expenditure. Okay.

▶ 1:38:10 Maya Jamaleddine: So just to be clear, if it doesn't go to free cash, we get to vote on it. Uh, correct. Whether to go again to D P W or to school, we, it's not gonna be limiting us on where to allocate it.

▶ 1:38:26 Speaker 6: Yeah. It would come back just the same when we, when we purchased the street sweeper, that was a capital stabilization request and we had a similarly robust conversation. So yes, it would be up to the council again to decide Yes.

▶ 1:38:37 Maya Jamaleddine: But it would allow us to still use it this year and don't wait for next year.

▶ 1:38:41 Speaker 6: Exactly. The, the real benefit of it is that I think it keeps the grant open mm-hmm. To us for a little bit longer while we hone in on our exact costs. And we can come back with maybe even a better number that may be more palatable for the council.

▶ 1:38:55 Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Um, I have Councilor Stewart, councilor Crime Shady, and then Councilor Garvey. Councilor

▶ 1:39:03 Robb Stewart: Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and, uh, Madam Chair, I think this is, uh, a viable option. I will support this as, uh, I think it, it gives, uh, the folks in front of us the option to come back with, uh, something that might be more palatable to us. Um, but I will say this Madam Chair, that, um, my concern still stands is that it's a matter of priority every dollar accounts right now. And, you know, there's a lot of open questions about not only the, the EV strategy, but you know, the actual truck and Wet even talked about, everyone talked about the maintenance, but no one talked about the battery and the length of the battery. And, and, you know, if that's an unknown, that that could be something that could be significant in the future. Point being is, I, I think, uh, we need to see, uh, a plan that accommodates some of the other concerns that's greater than just this situation. I think to, uh, president Grigoraitis point, uh, we need to consider all of the departments, uh, in question here. Cuz there's a lot going on, not just school, but o other demands, uh, that are coming in through the city. And, um, I just, I do not want to see strategic policy driven by grants. I think that's a mistake. Um, you know, in, in great times, it's great. Let's, let's jump all over it in very concerning times. You need to be very careful about having strategy be driven by a grant of that size. So to me that that's something, but I completely support, uh, the opportunity here. You come back here and I'll support the, the money going to the Capitalization fund. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 1:40:49 Speaker 1: Councilor Chetty.

▶ 1:40:51 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just In regards to discussion, why I am supporting this amendment. I think as someone who I think unapologetically, I've said it before, wants to give the schools all the money right now, I also do feel that our guests have established that this is actually a need. We do need a truck, and if we are to buy a truck, the electric vehicle is the right option given the research, the recommendations, all of those pieces. So it does allow us the opportunity to keep the grant open. And I think sometimes our, you know, compromise is important and it seems like

▶ 1:41:35 Speaker 11: it makes sense as a compromise.

▶ 1:41:37 Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor gpe.

▶ 1:41:39 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Just, um, just wanna make sure people at home, um, this clarification, if we vote for this amendment, it gets, goes into the capital stabilization, which is only used for capital purchases equipment. Correct? Yeah. Um, and that will bring the total up to a million, 31,000 in that. Um, um, that's just more of a statement and clarification.

▶ 1:42:02 Speaker 1: Okay. Councilor Eccles,

▶ 1:42:05 Jack Eccles: I was actually gonna say something very similar. Um, but I am supportive of this in the sense that, um, I, yeah, I think it is an important distinction that, you know, we couldn't close an operating gap from this stabilization fund like we could if it went back to free cash. The reason it all supported, I think is that, you know, we need to spend money on fleet maintenance for D P W regardless, um, input it into capital and stabilization will give us some time to assess what we actually want to do. Um, so I plan on supporting it.

▶ 1:42:41 Speaker 1: Any other comments? Do you, you have another comment? President Grigoraitis? I have a comment. Yeah, sorry.

▶ 1:42:43 Jen Grigoraitis: Yeah, no, I just, I think just to, um, expand on what Council Garra has said, I mean, the capital stabilization account is for any capital cost in excess of $25,000. I can only imagine how many things on the C I P list, which touch every department in this city, um, are on there. So, whether or not if this amendment succeeds, this goes to a trash truck, I think is a separate conversation. But I do feel like it, I'm assuming it earns interest when it's sitting in a stabilization account. I hope it is. Um,

▶ 1:43:13 Speaker 5: That's a Ceo Okay. A CFO question. So, you know, in terms of like, it's not holding on, we're leaving it there, right? It's not, It's not a good investment, but it doesn't just say,

▶ 1:43:21 Jen Grigoraitis: Right. So at least we're holding onto our money and I feel like the needs in this community far exceed the million dollars that would be in that account. So that to me feels, um, like a viable option. Thank

▶ 1:43:32 Leila Migliorelli: You. Um, I will just echo my colleagues. I feel comfortable with this capitalized stabilization move. Um, because we have no shortage of infrastructure or equipment projects. Um, I agree with Councilor Stewart's statement about grants as a fundraiser myself, I know it gets into slippery water when we are chasing money to, to then try to backfill it, um, with a project that fits without looking strategically. So by putting this money into capital stabilization, especially with capital costs increasing so much, um, I think it is something viable that we can look at. Um, moving forward. It does give pause. I know we have the operating pressure on our budget next year, um, but I, we also have capital pressure. So, um, and it will help either Mayor Broder or the future mayor to decide and determine, um, what would be the best way to use this money going forward.

▶ 1:44:28 Leila Migliorelli: Any other comments on the motion ahead of us, which is amending the order to go to capitalist stabilization?

▶ 1:44:36 Speaker 1: Seeing none, Mr. Clerk,

▶ 1:44:38 Speaker 2: Vice chair Jamal Dean? Yes. Councilor Sin? Yes. Councilor Eccles? Yes. Councilor Repe? No. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Es? Yes. And Chair Elli? Yes. That's one. A eight? Yes.

▶ 1:45:00 Leila Migliorelli: Then that order passes. Um, and that, um, this is not on our agenda for the evening or the recommendation passes. Um, it's on our agenda for the evening, but will at the next full council meeting be brought up? Thank you for One time. Thank you. Um, and we have more to go. Thank you to our other department heads who have been sitting here. Um, we're moving next to appropriation 2023 dash 34 appropriation from free cash account zero one dash 32 401 in the amount of $66,309 and 58 cents to fire department overtime. 0 1 2 2 1 1 dash 5 1 3 0 0. Tonight we have Chief Collina here with us, um, to speak on this order. Yes. It's you