DPW walked the committee through vehicle maintenance expenses and long lead times for replacement parts, noting that some critical parts (for graders and other heavy equipment) can take months to arrive. Members highlighted a recent example of a lengthy parts shipment that sidelined equipment for months and said these service disruptions were one reason the department maintains backups and phases purchases rather than replacing every asset immediately.
On large equipment, a member summarized an estimated order‑of‑magnitude price for a new grader: "Maybe about 4 or 500,000 for that," (Committee member, SEG 3172–3173). Committee members discussed trade-offs between preserving an older loader by limiting its use and earmarking funds now to smooth future purchases. Staff agreed to produce a clearer lifecycle-cost spreadsheet (repairs vs. replacement) to support a voter-facing explanation of replacement timing and the proposed contributions to the equipment CRF.
The committee emphasized transparency to voters: if large purchases are deferred, members said the town should present evidence of cumulative maintenance costs that can exceed replacement in the long run.