Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Fleet topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves lease‑to‑purchase for six electric vehicles amid debate over grants and general‑fund use
Summary
Trustees approved a four‑year lease‑to‑purchase for six electric vehicles for district operations (annual payment ~$94,153), with staff promising to pursue grants for acquisition and charger installation; the motion passed 3–2 after members raised concerns about timing and general‑fund exposure.
The Oxnard Union High School District board voted 3–2 on May 6 to approve a lease‑to‑purchase agreement for six electric vehicles as an initial step toward fleet electrification.
Staff said the package — two electric pickup trucks, two SUVs with third‑row seating, one van and one four‑door sedan — would replace a portion of an aging fleet that includes roughly 10 vehicles more than 30 years old. District staff said replacing older vehicles would reduce ongoing maintenance and fuel costs, improve safety for staff transporting students, and support board goals on sustainability.
The estimated annual payment for the 48‑month agreement is about $94,153, funded from the general fund unless grants are secured. Staff said portable chargers would be provided initially and that permanent charging infrastructure would be pursued in a separate solar/charging program; staff also said they would aggressively pursue grant funding and EV incentives to offset costs and that some upfront license and tax fees would be billed on delivery.
Trustees asked whether acquisition should be contingent on grant awards, whether vendor partners or dealers could provide better pricing, and how much the district currently spends maintaining the oldest vehicles. Staff recommended proceeding because aging fleet vehicles were incurring high maintenance and safety concerns; the district also plans to surplus and auction older vehicles to recoup some funds.
After debate, the board approved the lease to purchase by a 3–2 vote, with dissenting trustees arguing the timing was poor given budget pressures and layoffs under consideration.
