To lease or not to lease city vehicles

Larry’s currently suggesting that the city of Birmingham lease vehicles to replace the current city fleet of 2,200, presumably saving the city money over the life of the 3 year lease agreements. He’s recommending that the city tap into its reserve fund (to the tune of about $2.9 million) to cover a portion of the costs associated.

If he hopes to be successful with this proposal, he needs for it to be approved soon, especially considering that signals are coming from the Big 3 U.S. auto makers that the lease ride may be ending (if not at least harder to pull off) directly through them from now on. Plus, there are some concerns from city councilors about tapping into the reserve fund for vehicles (which has probably increased after hearing that the $4 million shortfall that the BJCTA said existed was now actually closer to $7.4 million).

Tags: News

1 Dave(not that one, the other one) // Jul 30, 2008 at 9:31 am

I’ve not ever leased a vehicle, but i’m fairly certian that if you put over a certian amount of miles on them, there are substantial penalties. I believe there are also penalties if the car is in anyway distressed upon return. So if these cars are going to get a lot of use, then perhaps this is not a good idea.
2 Dystopos // Jul 30, 2008 at 10:00 am

Sounds like he’s got a leasing agent in mind that would be able to accommodate the city’s vehicular needs (You can’t just walk in and lease a garbage truck from Edwards Chevrolet).

The question is whether this is something that can be structured for competitive bids or if the source he has in mind is “uniquely qualified.”
3 Shadowhelm // Jul 30, 2008 at 10:32 am

Dystopos: I bet you are right. He probably does have a leasing agent in mind. Someone whom he has known for years and has made rich through misappropriated tax dollars. Larry takes care of his buddies.

I’d like to see just one proposal where Larry suggests saving money for future needs and not robbing one fund to shore up shortfalls in another. Just one.