Dayton commission approves city manager recommendations, awards EV charging contracts; NATO Village barricades to be reimbursed

The Dayton City Commission approved the city manager’s recommendations at its April 2 meeting, authorizing contracts for electric-vehicle charging equipment and noting that fencing and barricade rentals for the NATO Village site will be reimbursed by a state award, city staff said.

The approvals cleared three purchasing items highlighted by city staff: a technology purchase grouped under purchase order A1 that includes software, batteries and radios; a contract award to Income Power Inc. for level‑3 (fast) chargers for $142,500 funded by an energy grant; and a contract award to Mechanical Services and Design Inc. for $194,670 to buy 25 level‑2 charging units paid through an AES Ohio rebate program.

City Manager described the NATO Village fencing and barricade rental as already funded by a March 10 action of the Ohio Controlling Board and said that the cost will be reimbursed to the city. “That funding has been approved with the $2,800,000 Controlling Board action on March 10 by the state of Ohio. So we will be reimbursed for that funding and so it will not be a City of Dayton general fund expense,” the City Manager said.

Commissioners asked a few clarifying questions during the agenda review. Commissioner Joelson said he was “excited about these new chargers” and asked staff to provide gasoline‑use figures during the next budget cycle to track shifts in fuel consumption as the fleet electrifies.

City staff said the level‑3 chargers from Income Power Inc. will be located at Ottawa Yards, where most of the city fleet is based. The 25 level‑2 chargers paid through the AES Ohio rebate program will be distributed between Ottawa Yards, the City Hall garage and the Safety Building, staff said. The purchase‑order A1 technology bundle was described as a comprehensive equipment purchase; no dollar amount for A1 was specified during the meeting.

The commission approved the city manager’s recommendations by voice vote during the meeting; the clerk called for “all in favor,” and members answered “aye.” City staff said the reimbursements and rebate funding mean those items will not be direct general‑fund expenditures.

Implementation steps noted at the meeting included scheduling installation at the identified sites and processing the state and utility reimbursements through the city’s finance office. No separate motions were recorded for each contract; the items were approved as part of the city manager’s package.