El Mirage reviews citywide vehicle replacement program; council asked to confirm benchmarks

El Mirage held a work session Tuesday, July 1, 2025, to review the city’s vehicle replacement procedures and ask the council for policy direction on how replacements should be prioritized and funded.

Public Works presenter Nick Russo told the council the program’s goals are safety, dependability and cost effectiveness and described a mix of qualitative and quantitative criteria staff uses to recommend replacements. “First and foremost is safety,” Russo said, adding that recommendations combine service-life judgments, departmental mission needs and a usage-based depreciation formula tied to miles driven.

The presentation matters because the city manages roughly 70 vehicles and pieces of equipment—excluding police and fire—and replacements drive capital planning and budget requests. Russo said the Fleet Division keeps maintenance and preventative records that inform replacement timing, but that recommendations are flexible and must return to council for purchase approval.

Russo said the city uses two baseline numeric eligibility markers—15 years of service or 150,000 miles—but cautioned those are starting points, not automatic triggers for replacement. He described a formula that applies the IRS mileage rate to average miles per year to estimate annual usage depreciation; using that method on two 2019 purchases produced vastly different useful lives: about 10 years for a Ford F-150 (purchase price $29,000) versus a multi-decade life for a $395,000 Vactor sewer truck because of its higher purchase price and different usage profile. “Not all vehicles are created equal when we’re evaluating them,” Russo said.

Russo told the council there are 13 vehicles currently recommended for replacement across the next five years: two in Streets (a street sweeper targeted for fiscal 2029 at $450,000 and a regular-duty pickup in FY28 estimated at $75,000), one City Hall SUV ($48,000 in FY29), three Parks pickup trucks (one this year at $75,000 to replace a 2006 F-350), two Facilities SUVs (a $45,000 midsize SUV this fiscal year and another in FY29), and five Water Division pickups spread across FY26–FY29. He also noted the city recently acquired a sweeper with major grant funding (the prior purchase cost the city $28,000 on a $370,000 unit) and staff expects optimism about a future grant match for an additional sweeper.

Council members asked for details on projected price inflation, mileage and maintenance history. Russo said staff used a roughly 3% annual inflation assumption for multi-year price estimates and that detailed mileage and maintenance cost reports could be provided after the work session. Council member Gentry requested per-vehicle mileage and maintenance histories; Russo said he would provide that information.

Staffing and vendor relationships were addressed. Russo identified Mark Johnson, Facilities and Fleet Supervisor, and Lorenzo, the fleet mechanic, as the two staff who manage diagnostics and vendor coordination; together, staff described their combined experience as more than 65 years. Disposal of retired vehicles is handled through Sierra Auction under an existing state contract, Russo said.

Council discussion touched on upfitting costs (upfits for utility work typically add $12,000–$16,000 to a pickup, Russo said), replacement-cycle tradeoffs and the role of departmental mission in prioritizing specialized equipment such as the Vactor, which staff said is treated like an emergency apparatus because lack of an in-house unit could require contractors and delay responses to sanitary-sewer events.

The work session concluded with staff and council taking the presentation under advisement; council later expressed support for continuing the current benchmark approach and asked staff to return detailed mileage and maintenance records to the council before individual purchase approvals.

Less-critical details included staff explaining cooperative state contracts and local dealer shopping to obtain fleet pricing, and a reminder that any recommended purchase must come back to council for formal approval before funds are spent.