According to item 6-51 – 34409 Smart Car Replacement (#400-19) of the town’s 2019 capital budget it still owns and operates its 2008 “Smart” car:
The last time I saw it being trotted out was when the CAO’s office used it as a glorified shopping cart.
The car has proven to have several safety and maintenance issues. In the budget item we read:
It was purchased for Bylaw with the intent it would suit the business needs. From the onset it did not suit the business as they need a larger vehicle to fulfill the requirements of the job. Facilities gave Bylaw a truck in an effort to assist the department and has been utilizing the smart car in their operation, though it is not fulfilling the needs of the division as they have to plan for other facilities vehicles to assist them at the ACC when the smart car does not meet the job task requirements.
The smart car does not meet the fleet need for any department with the Town.
You can watch the item being discussed at the recent budget meeting here:
This acquisition was never considered from a usage or fleet perspective, it was forced on staff by the woefully inept 2006-2010 MorMac term of council, which Clrs Gallo and Gartner served on.
In speaking to the item Gaertner admits it was the wrong choice, but that it was purchased because that council wanted to send a message
What message exactly?
That the town of Aurora cares more about the symbolism behind sustainability than actual sustainability?
I didn’t see anyone on the 2010 term of council driving a Smart Car, or electric vehicles or even hybrid vehicles for that matter.
The message that was sent wasn’t one of leadership by example, but laughable hypocrisy.
7 years ago I made a presentation at the town’s 2012 budget meeting suggesting they sell the vehicle and put the proceeds towards a local outfit that could have greened their fleet. If they took my advise they would have recouped between $10,000 – $15,000.
Spoiler alert. they didn’t.
Now the vehicle, which has served no use for over a decade may fetch them less than $5,000.
And if that wasn’t enouggh of an example of #gettingthingsdumb instead of selling it off getting rid of it once and for all Clr. Humfreys wanted to know if there was any value in keeping it and decorating it.
Why not.
Let’s get a vehicle wrap and place it outside the front doors of Town Hall to remind everyone of the patronizing message that council wanted to send to residents. We’re obviously seen as toddlers that can’t possibly embrace environmental sustainability without seeing the town blow tens of thousands of dollars on shiny empty symbols.
Watts Trending 
My Q why was the Smart Car adequate fo Traffic Bylaw enforcement, employee too fat ? The rest is bullshit. I admire the effort to be “Green”. It was meant as a “ticketer” not a pick up or tow truck. Yes if they did not use it “sell” it. Bigger fish to fry kids
As per multiple staff reports it was never adequate for any role. The problems for use as bylaw were multifaceted. It has poor performance in snow, no storage, add to that poor safety (mentioned in my 2012 posts) and plagued with maintenance issues that were pricey to service.
I suspect if someone was to file a pricey F.O.I to collapse all the operating expenses of this vehicle and compared them to one of the pickups it would be double or worse.
Add the operating cost to the initial purchase and subtract the $4,000 they will be lucky to get for it and I bet this is a six figure oops. One among thousands that need to be pointed out.
My Q why was the Smart Car not adequate for Traffic Bylaw enforcement, employee too fat ? The rest is bullshit. I admire the effort to be “Green”. It was meant as a “ticketer” not a pick up or tow truck. Yes if they did not use it “sell” it. Bigger fish to fry kids