Good afternoon.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to the August Public Works Meeting.

I am chair of the meeting of the committee, Barbara Burke.

City Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair person, Councilmember Burke.

Here.

Vice Chair, Councilmember Andrew Bowen.

Here.

Councilmember Clark.

Here.

And Councilmember Taylor.

Present committee members, we have six consent agenda items.

Are there any consent items that you all would like to have pulled?

Well, I would like to have C5 pulled.

And if we could get a motion to vote on the remainder of the consent items.

I'll move approval for the ballots.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

It has been approved and second.

Is there uh less vote?

Voice vote.

All in favor of approving the remainder of the consent agenda items, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

C five.

Mr.

Jeff Fansler, can you come and give us a quick briefing on C5?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Jeff Fansler, Director of Transportation.

Real briefly, this item before you, you may recall late last year, we brought this item about this NT DOT project, which will uh consider an AT grade intersection improvement where the railroad crosses Doris Street there adjacent to Old Walker Town Road.

And so if you've been out there familiar with the site, you know there's a significant grade difference in those streets causing a number of angle crashes.

And NCDOT has approached the city and wanted to do a spot improvement there to correct uh that intersection, which will result in the closure of that railroad crossing and subsequent improvements to uh Oak Ridge Drive uh just down the street to make that more efficient as well.

So this proven at large, we we briefed you at the at that December meeting, and then since then we have had a public engagement session in April uh and we received positive feedback.

There was some general inquiries about operations and how that would affect traffic, and we we handled those.

But in order for the project to move forward and materialize, NCDOT needs uh some commitments from this body and council to to at least understand that we need to close that street.

Okay.

Now certainly the project has to be designed.

We have to do formal right-of-way abandonment process.

That will be defined in the design category, but we need some uh direction from this committee and the council to allow the closure of Dora Street to allow for this at grade uh crossing removal.

That way we can formalize the intent of the project and NC DOT can march forward with the design.

So at large, this project will eliminate the at grade railroad cross crossing of Door Street, it will terminate Door Street at Old Walker Town Road, and then make improvements at Oak Ridge Drive and Old Walker Town Road to make the whole intersection uh a lot more safe uh as we as we navigate across the rail line.

So I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions?

Mr.

Fansler, thank you for that briefing.

Uh I have been there.

It is a steep, steep incline, and uh what you are proposing would make this uh much safer for travelers.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Committee members, uh can I get a motion to approve consent agenda uh item C5?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Um are we voting on your iPad?

Okay.

So we have a uh motion to approve a second, and we're voting on our eye pads.

Okay, it passes.

We're moving on to the general agenda.

Um we have Kelly Garvin uh presenting for G1 and um Mr.

King.

Do you need to tee this up for us?

I will I'm gonna ask the clerk to read item G1 and then I'm gonna introduce Kelly.

Item G1, resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement between the City of Winston Salem, the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation, the City of High Point, the City of Greensboro, and the City of Burlington for regional fare.

So good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Um this item, you may remember we've had a lot of conversations with this committee about some work we're doing with WISTA, especially around the fairing piece and going with our UMO or UMO platform that we briefed you on several months ago to try to try to get a better digital solution for mobile fairing there.

So that work is beginning to take place and move to fruition, and so what is before you today is an agreement with some other local transit providers that is really geared to make the UMO experience much easier um for our riders in the region.

And Kelly's gonna brief that's uh brief this item for you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Scarvin.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Good afternoon.

As uh Karen mentioned this item has to do with an agreement between our regional partners and ourselves on the dip the fair distribution within the region.

As you may remember, we've talked about UMO, and you guys uh you have the committee has approved for us to enter into an agreement with YUMOO.

And one of the reasons that we selected UMO was that it had a regional component to it because both uh part Greensboro Hype One and Burlington already utilize the UMO platform.

And so um by us also having the UMO platform, the writer would be able to travel amongst all the systems effortlessly without switching between one app or the other.

The other component to that is the payment piece.

And so what this agreement does is it allows the city and all the regional partners to be able to reduce you redistribute the fares appropriately where the rides actually happened.

Um we are proposing uh that uh the city manager signs this agreement upon signatures from all of our um other uh regional partners.

I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions, committee members?

Okay, council member Scipio Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Um so you did answer the question that you can use this app across the whole region.

Uh is the fare different from municipality to miss to municipality.

Yes, ma'am.

The fair is uh specific to each jurisdiction, so the agreement does not mess with our fair structure.

It just simply allows us to just be able to tap from one uh jurisdiction to the next.

Other than the uh connecting ride, I think is parked that takes us to other cities.

Um so you'll be able to use it there, and when you get to that other city, they'll be able to use it there.

So it's a real seamless transaction, cashless awesome.

Thank you.

I think that's important because we're gonna become more regional as jobs become available at the Pete Montriad Airport, and people will need to transit themselves there, so and around the region.

So it's a great move.

Is there a cost to us?

No, no cost to us.

Okay, thank you.

Whoa.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, Councilmember uh Andrew Bowman.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, so uh I'm the representative for the city with the with a part program, and uh we were given a presentation in May or June on on this partnership, and that is something that the PART uh program is is is looking forward to that we can uh have this partnership so that way people from Winston Salem can can move freely into Greensboro and High Point and around the triad um and that making this as an easy and as as you said, a seamless effort for for our our people and our residents to if they need to go to the uh the airport for anything, whether that's uh transportation or a job, uh, or they need to people need to come here, it makes it easier for that transportation piece.

So I'm definitely in favor.

Okay.

So um any other questions?

Well, I just want to say I love it.

Uh I love having an app for everything, and I love uh the seamless process, uh the digital payments.

So this is I think it's gonna be good and well received by all.

Thank you again, Miss Scarvin.

Thank you.

City Clerk, would you please read agenda item G2?

I think you got a we'll need to vote on that first item.

Sorry, that was not information at this time.

Um, can I get a motion to approve item G1?

I'd make a motion to approve G1.

Okay.

Second.

It has been uh moved and approved.

We're ready to vote on our IPAS.

Okay.

Thank you.

City Clerk, item G2, please.

Item G2, information on request by the village of Clemens to reinstate expired annexation agreement with the city of Winston-Salem.

So, madam, Madam Chair, I'll tee this one up.

Um for many years, we traditionally had annexation agreements with the the communities that surrounded Winston-Salem.

Those were very important in the early 2000s and early 2010s that helped to guide where annexations could take place.

So as development was happening, folks generally knew if they wanted to become part of municipality there, there was some guidance and direction on where they should annex into.

That was already settled.

2011, um, when the General Assembly changed the rules for the state around um involuntary annexation, though those agreements became less important.

Um we were approached by the village of Clemens.

I think they are interested in um renewing their annexation agreements with the city of Winston-Salem and Lewisville.

And so they asked us um for our um interest in renewing the agreement.

And so that's what's before you today.

This is an information item to brief council on this and and to get some general direction of whether or not there's interest in doing this.

And with us today is Karen Kessler, who leads our GIS team and planning and development services, and she's gonna brief this item for you.

Thank you, Mr.

King.

Welcome, Ms.

Kessler.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Good afternoon.

All right.

So uh just to sort of begin in case anyone is not aware of what these annexation agreements uh used to contain.

Prior to the 2010s, uh cities would have uh maintained historical agreements with surrounding municipalities to kind of clearly delineate where communities could and could not annex and expand their corporate limits.

In the 2010s, these became less relevant when legislation eliminated the ability for municipalities to involuntarily annex these unincorporated properties.

Since that time, most of these uh agreements have lapsed or become inactive.

However, recently the village of Clemens has expressed interest in reinstating or possibly updating their expired agreement with the city.

So uh this is just kind of a overview of the research that we did with all of the municipalities within Versythe County as well as the um the town of Midway.

As you can see, everything in red, they either did not have uh an agreement with us on file, or their agreement has since lapsed.

Except for Midway, they do have an active agreement through 2029.

However, it does not affect Forsyth County in any way, and it also does not have any type of boundary saying that we cannot annex in any certain direction.

This particular map is just an overview.

So everything that you're seeing uh in the different colored hatched areas.

So the grayscale areas, those are the current corporate limits for the different municipalities, and the hatched areas are areas where a specific jurisdiction has been in agreement in the past to not annex.

Uh the most important part for this for this council is the areas in red, which these are the areas that we have historically agreed in these past agreements that we would not annex.

This map just kind of condenses it down.

Basically, green is an area we can annex, red is an area where historically we have said we would not.

Which brings us to today with uh the village of Clemens.

So they have requested an update to their lapsed connection agreement uh to make new areas available for exclusive annexation into their municipal limits.

This is a zoomed in of the previous map with the village of Clemens.

The area in red is areas that the city previously agreed not to annex.

Areas in pink are areas where Clemens had agreed to previously not annex, so this would be areas available to the city of Winston-Salem should the property owner decide that they would want to annex because the initiation falls to the individual property owners following the legislation.

So just in summary, uh most of these annexation agreements, they have lapsed or become inactive or they do not otherwise affect Fersythe County.

The village of Clemens has requested to reinstate their agreement with the city.

Uh it is important to realize that should no agreement be in place, uh the property owner still has to initiate, they would just have a little bit more of a choice with which uh municipality they wanted to annex into as long as they met the statutory requirements.

And uh at this time uh we were still talking with the village of Clemens about where the line would possibly be, but should it follow uh the previous agreement, staff does not anticipate any issues.

And at this time, uh I'd like to open to any questions you may have for staff.

Thank you, Ms.

Kessler.

Any questions?

Okay.

Uh Councilmember uh Andrew Bowen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh thank you for this presentation.

I have a couple of questions.

Um do we have current agreements with other municipalities in Fort Syth County?

They are all lapsed.

You answer my second question.

Thank you.

Councilmember Scipio.

Yes, could you put the map that says what our previous agreement was for Clemens?

That one.

Um just for clarification.

The pink area says Clemens may not annex this into their municipality, and the red is Winston Salem would not annex this into their municipality.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

So if we have this agreement, can a property owner says, I really want to be in Winston-Salem and they're in the red area.

Can that does that void any agreement that we make with the City of Clemens?

Councilor Recipi, I think what would happen is if you had an involuntary annexation in one of the areas that was inconsistent with what could be agreed to, we we would tell that applicant that that is not where the annexation agreement has been agreed to, and ultimately I think we would have to tell the council that is not this is not in agreement in accord with what had been agreed to by the two municipalities and not to approve that annexation.

Even though the state gives those petitioners the right to have an involuntary or voluntary annexation.

They have the right to an involuntary annexation, but I think when we establish agreements like this, it gives direction on where you can involuntarily annex to.

And I see Jerry leaning towards the microphone, so I didn't know if he had something to chime in with the No, nothing additional at this point.

Okay.

So it seems like in the red area, that's where Clemens would say that if they want to have extend their boundaries, that's where they prefer it to be coming from.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am, that would be in the agreement area.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

So Councilmember Clark.

For the record, they haven't said what they want yet.

Uh we have been talking uh with Amy Flight uh as recently as today.

So uh my understanding is that it's going to be similar to the previous agreement.

Okay.

No further questions.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Kessler.

And this was an information item.

That's correct.

Um, Madam Chair, it it would be helpful for staff if if there's some discussion amongst the committee as whether there was interest in because I think we probably owe the village of Clemens a little bit of direction to say whether or not we're interested in pursuing this or not.

So some direction from the committee would be helpful.

Okay, committee members.

Um can I hear from you?

You're in agreement, Councilmember Taylor, Clark and I am as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Information item will move on to G three, our last item.

Uh City Clerk, would you please read it?

Item G3 resolution authorizing the purchase of Jilling 29 foot clean diesel buses for the Winston-Salem Transit Authority.

Mr.

Fansler, thank you.

Hello again, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

I appreciate just a few moments to talk about WISTA and our fleet needs.

You know, you've heard a lot of conversation, you know, in the past several months about our our initiatives to move uh WISTA forward on all fronts.

And so I appreciate the time to talk today about our fleet and the fleet needs.

Um item before you want to really expose a couple of things.

Number one, uh what our current vehicle uh facility needs are.

Today we have um 45 hybrid electric fixed route uh buses, and the hybrid electric is hybrid battery powered and a diesel motor.

Uh they operate on 28 fixed routes, and just uh for all things being equal, of those 45, today, uh as we speak today, 24 of those are beyond what FTA classifies as useful life.

And that classification indicates any vehicle, any fixed route bus that is over 500,000 miles and or uh 12 years old.

Uh so both of those, as you uh kind of can kind of play into that useful life factor.

And today 24 of our 45 uh fixed route fleet is beyond that threshold.

And that results in into some very interesting numbers.

To date on those 24 buses, we have spent over 14 million dollars in maintenance and and repair costs on those on those uh 24 buses.

Having said that, um, I want to also call attention to the fact that we were chipping away at this.

You may recall that we were successful in an FY24 discretionary grant through the Federal Transit Administration where we we received funding for five hybrid electric buses with the direct intent to continue replacing our fleet with the hybrid electric buses, and we were successful in that.

I'm happy to say we had staff right that grant internally, very strong application and was well received.

And that that's a step in demonstrating the right, you know, how we're moving forward to to to catch up on this backlog of replacement needs.

Additionally, staff has been working with our MPO, our transportation planning organization, to figure out how we can better fund a replacement.

Additionally, in the past several years, we've been working with the budget office through the budget season on developing a uh really a replacement schedule, and you adopted, I'm thankful for this, a capital plan that identifies a routine one million dollars for uh matching and leveraging city funds against other uh grant and discretionary funds that our department could go pursue.

And you adopted, I'm thankful for this, a capital plan that identifies a routine one million dollars for uh matching and leveraging city funds against other uh grant and discretionary funds that our department could go pursue.

Having said all that, we were successful working with the MPO in receiving 7.6 million dollars uh to combat our our aging fleet and and specifically for fleet replacement, right?

And so the matching fund requirement for that will, of course, have been identified and will be coming from the city's capital plan.

So the item before you today is to to one expose our our really our backlog of replacement schedule.

We on a recurring need basis, we would be replacing four buses a year.

That's about our burn rate for buses, and you can see when you get to 24 behind replacement schedule, we have several years where we've not been doing the great job at that.

So I want to highlight a few things because this item specifically requests to uh a little bit of deviation from our our initiatives for clean energy and specifically targeting our efforts to catch up.

And in doing so, we're asking to purchase 10 clean diesel buses.

29 foot, couple things there, obviously the drive train and power difference with the clean diesel.

Additionally, they're a little bit smaller, which identifies some efficiencies on routes.

We have tight turning issues, we have issues with delay of congestion.

That solves a lot of those issues with the tighter turning radius.

But I want to highlight four main things today that are in the item that I want to just cover real briefly that to kind of frame this item.

Number one is cost efficiency.

The the the and when I say that, I'm really talking about the initial purchase price.

For a clean diesel bus, that purchase price outfitted with the technology that we require for our system.

That's cameras, that's the passenger counters, that's the Wi-Fi on the bus, a number of different things on the bus.

This is about a $700,000 purchase for the 29-foot clean diesel.

Conversely, procuring an additional hybrid electric that was in our fleet today, the current purchase price outfit with the same tech is about 1.2 million dollars.

So, you know, it's in the ballpark of $500,000.

And there's some nuanced air shipping and different things.

We're not sure if some of the tariffs may cause issues and stuff like that, but in in in round terms, it is a $500,000 difference in initial purchase price.

So that's number one.

And I think number two, and it's important to know because I've already mentioned that we're 24 buses behind replacement schedule, and every day we're continuing to broaden that gap is delivery timeline.

The hybrid buses, there's a lot more involved uh in the parts that go into that bus.

And what we've been told from the manufacturers is that lead time is between 12 and 16 months.

That's a long time to order bus and wait when you have an aging fleet already.

And on the other side of the coin, we talk about the hybrid electric, they have a little bit quicker delivery schedule, and they've indicated that could be anywhere from uh you know eight to twelve months in that time rate.

Now, not a large difference, okay, but several months matters when every bus is that we're trying to replace is already outside of its useful life.

And that's a good segue into really, I think what may be the most important piece that I want to highlight today, and that's service reliability.

One of the things that I think we battle most frequently with our system is having a reliable option for our citizens to use in our community.

And what we found when when we polled the reports for these buses last year through June of FY25, was to perform 400 over 450 road calls.

And what is a road call?

Well, I'm glad you asked.

We classify a road call as basically that bus on route in revenue service is decommissioned.

That could be anything from a check engine light to some issue where it's a catastrophic failure that bus has to be decommissioned.

We're towing that that thing back to the garage, and we're deploying a whole nother bus 450 times in 12 months.

And so you can imagine that's over one a day.

You can imagine the impact that has to reliability and folks that need that service every day.

And there's a barrier there for what I consider a reliable service that we ask our team at WISTA to produce because of the equipment that we give them to do it with.

And so we're trying to battle that uh every day and having that reliable service.

So I wanted to just call real real attention to how unreliable these buses are, and what we're trying to demonstrate is a move towards something that's a little more moderate and easier to keep on the street.

And lastly, I want to just talk a little bit about environmental considerations, understand there's a there we're not comparing a diesel bus versus a hybrid electric bus.

We all recognize that there's efficiencies to gain from our environmental responsibility when you turn to uh the hybrid bus.

We were well well that and sensitive to that, most definitely.

Just to highlight a couple things, though, in terms of where we are today with current fleet, highlight a couple things.

Today, our buses get about three and a half miles per gallon, okay, and moving to a a fixed uh new a new clean diesel with the Allison transmission and the modern technology that that produces, we're going to be in the five miles per gallon range.

So even procuring a clean diesel today is a better fuel efficiency metric than we have today with a hybrid fleet, just the age of the buses.

We're talking 2010 buses, all right.

So there's challenges there.

Additionally, there's a 50% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions when compared to the similar diesel bus.

But just to just to kind of keep it at a understanding level, what what we're trying to really pitch today is the fact that we we understand that this is a deviation from our initiatives for clean transportation.

But we're trying to demonstrate is the fact that we have neglected the replacement needs over time and got us into this backlog, resulting in an unreliable service fleet today that we're trying to combat with this one time procurement.

Having said all that, I want to make one final comment that this is not a deviation from our long-term vision, which is to be replacing these at four board buses a year with the with a responsible uh procurement practice of of hybrid electric.

And and in demonstrating that commitment, uh I'm happy to say that we also, thanks to this approval from this body, we have applied again for the FY25 low-no program where that application we once again go back to the request for five um additional hybrid electric buses.

And so the item before you, after all that up and down, thank you for taking the ride with me.

Uh what I'm happy to say is that this is uh uh uh an ask to catch up on our fleet replacement needs, demonstrate that we're not trying to deviate from our initiatives, but to put a reliable service on the street.

And with that, I'll yield any questions.

Any questions for Mr.

Fansler?

Okay, council member.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Mr.

Fansler, thank you very much for this presentation.

Mr.

King, thanks for the heads up from last Thursday or Friday for this.

Uh I appreciate it.

Um you answered every single question that I had written down, so thank you for that.

Um I guess a no surprise kind of where I stand.

Um I I when I was uh first elected, um I requested to be on this committee for these reasons because sustainable energy is an important issue for me.

Um I after watching the I watched the general committee or the general government committee yesterday and um Mayor Pro Tim Adams talked about how she got a lot of uh feedback about the the um the amphitheater.

I got a lot of feedback about this.

Um so um I I thank you for the presentation.

Um I I accept if this moves forward, but I just I will be honest that I I will have the vote no on this now, just for my stance and and my my passion for this.

But I understand the need for it, um, but would love to see um I appreciated your your s your your comments about how we have a backlog for a reason.

Um, and I would love for us to moving forward to just get the ball rolling as as soon as we can.

So thank you, sir.

Thank you for those comments.

Councilmember Sipio.

Thank you.

I think um this on the surface, it makes good sense.

But it's cheaper, you get better mileage.

Uh perhaps it will reduce some of the maintenance cost over time.

Um, but I'm torn because I believe climate control is a real entity.

And every time we step back to a less sensitive way of trying to mitigate climate control, I think we are stepping back.

Um, and I'm not so certain that I I guess I want to I know that we have an aging fleet.

Sure.

Um, I wonder if there's a way we can have some of this money spent for the diesel and then have some for sustainable energy sources, a hybrid of some kind.

Does it have to be all or nothing?

And the 7.6 million, is it a grant?

And do we have matching, does it have a match with it?

And what is that split?

Their grant funds, they're direct attributable funds administered through our MPO, they do require a match.

And we've identified those match with the city's capital plan.

Do you know how much the match is?

So it's 20 percent of 7.6, and it's over a couple of years in the capital plan.

Okay, thank you.

And if, Madam Chair, if I may make just a couple of comments, because I I'm I'm I respectful and I appreciate that that comment about our our commitment to to sustainable uh fleet.

What I wanted to make sure that we're all aware too is that anything that we do, I mean, understanding that you know we're so far behind replacement schedule, and our average fuel efficiency today, you know, is pretty poor at just over three miles per gallon.

And and so the longer we kind of allow that to continue, is that exacerbates our need and then further exacerbates the reliability of our riders.

And I'll also say, you know, we we're still making some commitments on the paratransit side, and we're pursuing uh what it would look like for some fully electric uh vans on a smaller scale, non-CDL, to remove all types of barriers to allow better operator efficiency and to uh to to reduce that carbon footprint too.

So I think WISTA at large has opportunity to grow in this space.

I'm just trying to make the pitch to to help us catch up.

Councilmember Clark.

I'm not sure given the difference in bus prices that you aren't saving.

I'm doing it by miles per gallon by buying, you can almost get two of these buses for the price of one of the others.

And we are picking up a mile and a half, going from three to five and a half, whereas we bought all hybrids, we would have few business.

About half the number of buses replaced, which means you are running the old ones longer that only get three and a half miles.

So Councilmember Clark, it's a 40%.

Let me tell you the analogy I have to give.

Every time I buy a new car, and I don't get a new car about every 10 years, so this is a big event.

But every time I get a new car, I try to get better mileage than I did before.

Now, I don't have an electric car, but I have consistently, and the one I got now, I'm averaging over 30 miles to the gallon that city and highway combined.

So I am making progress.

And the last thing I can make, a bus doesn't save anything if it's broken and in the garage.

And the fact that they are breaking that much.

Again, we got to catch up and then we can continue.

But we are we are making progress with these purchases.

Madam Chair, if I may offer a comment.

Yes.

Staff didn't take bringing this item forward lightly.

Like we fully recognize there are competing values associated with this item.

And we debated that long and hard before we before we brought this forward.

So we certainly understand sort of the sustainability piece, but also the quality transportation piece.

I think what what cemented in our minds the need to bring this item forward is we have taught more about WISTA than probably most government topics over the past two or three years that I can think of.

We have raised taxes two years in a row to support the WISTA system in 1.9 cents this past year to help fund that system and keep it moving forward to provide public transportation to our residents.

I think what ultimately in our minds outweighs the sustainability challenge we've got with this is when you've got a system that's already primarily operating on 60-minute headways, and folks are using those 60-minute headways to get to the work, the daycare, the grocery store, the doctor, and you add this extra element of unreliability into the system.

So now that 60-minute headway turns into a 90-minute headway or 120-minute headway.

And it's almost like the airports in the winter time when you get a stretch of cold weather, it's hard to play catch up when you get that accordion effect of those those disruptions in the service.

That is something that is present that Jeff and Kelly and the folks who deal with WISTA on a daily basis battle.

And our community battles that same challenge every single day as Jeff told you.

So that is a little bit of the extra context that I think we debated very heavily and bringing this item forward, and I think the commitment to this being a one-time catch-up because of the cost differences and the other impacts that Councilmember Clark and Jeff both spoke to.

Also for some opportunities to kind of even out the load on the trans aid side.

We thought this was a reasonable request to bring forward, again, looking for those riders who are experiencing these challenges every day to try to try to combat that and get them out of that hole on a quicker basis.

Just a little extra context.

Thank you, Mr.

King, and thank you, Mr.

Fancler.

Uh, this is a lot of information.

I have uh several questions.

I think that my first question, I need a little more clarity about the funding of uh of uh the um buses, the 7.6 million matching funding.

I understand that, I think.

But what I want to know is what can we expect annually as far as funding to replace these uh buses that are aging out?

Yeah, so that that's hard to answer because annually we are going to be participating in the call for projects that the that the MPO puts on.

So we're competing with our other member agencies to compete for the same dollars that are administered to this planning region.

Okay, because we're the City of Winston Salem is one member agency, you know, amongst many others that compete for the same dollars that are passed from FHWA to this MPO region.

So that that's really subject to uh what other interests in the community are competing for the same dollars.

Should we be successful?

So that's hard to answer today.

What I can say is that we have successfully received $7.6 million as we applied competing with those other projects.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Um for the uh buses that are aging out.

Do we have any plan in place as far as trading these buses and uh making any money off the buses?

Each bus will be, of course, decommissioned, which there's some decommissioning protocol for that with the DMV and getting our tech off the bus.

But from that, we'll work with our purchasing department to properly uh sell those for sometimes for parts, but if they're still an operational other small providers could, of course, acquire those.

But it will follow our disposal process.

Okay, it would be good to have some idea as to how much we could make off each bus.

That would help us to determine uh what we could uh purchase as far as uh hybrid or diesel going forward.

Let me see.

I have another question.

The uh road service, you said uh calls for service uh have occurred like 450 times within the last 12 months.

Were you speaking uh specifically about the hybrid buses?

Madam Chair, all of our buses in the fixed route system are currently hybrid.

So in that system over 12 month period, it was 450 calls, so it would have been uh uh with a hybrid bus.

This is tough.

This is tough because we have really been talking about uh clean energy initiatives.

Uh we've been talking about uh better air quality in our city.

It's just tough.

Just a lot to consider.

Yes, Councilmember Clark.

I make a motion that we move it forward without recommendation.

Are we good with that committee members?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh I'm fine with it.

Let's vote.

Can I make a comment while we're voting?

If if staff could maybe get us some information on some of the questions the chair asked by whenever we meet Monday, whenever it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Two of us are able to vote.

So I voted for the council.

Magic.

Okay.

Uh so we'll move it forward to uh full council.

And it will come back in September, September 2nd.

So if there are any other questions, staff would appreciate those.

We'll try to get those answered and get those back out.

Thank you.

And so if you all have any additional questions, uh we can email Mr.

King or Mr.

Fancler and uh we'll have that information in September.

Are there any other questions or comments?

That concludes our agenda items.

And so with that, we are adjourned.