Elmhurst creates central fleet fund to consolidate vehicle maintenance and replacement costs

Elmhurst aldermen reviewed and approved a new central fleet internal service fund in the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, consolidating citywide vehicle maintenance and capital replacement spending into a single account.

The new fund moves maintenance, fuel and vehicle‑replacement contributions out of individual department budgets into one central account. Director Coyle told the committee the fund “centralizes all of the fleet maintenance costs and all of the fleet replacement costs,” and that departments will contribute for both maintenance and capital on a pro rata basis determined by fleet value and maintenance share.

City officials said the change is designed to smooth volatile year‑to‑year vehicle costs and create a predictable replacement schedule over time. Coyle said staff modelled a five‑year forecast to determine annual contributions and to avoid a cost‑prohibitive up‑front funding requirement. “We wanna take a million dollars and we wanna contribute every year … so that when we get to year 10, we have … a million dollars in the bank to replace that fire truck. In a perfect world, that’s how a fleet fund would operate,” Coyle said, adding that Elmhurst is starting smaller and will refine allocations annually.

How costs were reallocated: maintenance contributions were computed from lifetime maintenance costs and allocated as a percentage to each department. Capital replacement contributions were set as a total dollar amount the committee agreed the fund needed in its early years; that total was then divided pro rata among departments by fleet value rather than on a vehicle‑by‑vehicle basis. Coyle said the finance committee recommended an “excess contribution” from the capital fund of about $4,000,002.25 in the budget book and an additional $3,752,000 allocated across departments for capital replacement in the first phase of the fund’s operating plan.

Officials described practical impacts and next steps. Departments that previously had no explicit maintenance contributions but that operate vehicles were added to the contribution schedule. The first five‑year forecast projects a modest negative balance by year five in the model staff presented; Coyle said staff will monitor the fund annually and adjust contributions based on realized costs and savings. Alderman Irby pressed for visibility into how the contributions would fund large purchases (for example an RV mobile incident command vehicle priced in the low millions); staff responded that the fund’s initial design does not guarantee a vehicle‑by‑vehicle sinking fund but is intended to provide sufficient pooled resources in the near term and be refined over time.

Council members asked for more analysis: several aldermen requested a clear list of what was cut elsewhere to accommodate the new fund contributions and asked staff to provide a breakdown of departmental contributions and the capital replacement schedule. Coyle agreed to annual review and further detail, and finance staff said they would update the model as actuals replace estimates.

The budget presentation and questions also noted operational details (fuel, parts and IT allocations) were moved into the fleet fund; those costs will be allocated to departments under the same maintenance‑share methodology. City staff said existing operating practices for maintenance will not change—only the accounting location—and that fuel, diesel and related commodities for the fleet are now budgeted inside the central fleet fund.

The committee discussion closed with agreement to monitor the fund, provide requested breakout documents to aldermen, and revisit allocations during future budget cycles.