Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erath County commissioners discuss replacing asphalt distributor truck; no purchase authorized
Summary
Commissioner discussion Oct. 21 focused on options to replace or outsource use of an asphalt distributor truck: a BuyBoard quote of $327,000, auction options, bids/quotes from manufacturers, and outsourcing spraying were raised; no motion to buy was taken.
Get email alerts on the Roads And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erath County Commissioners on Oct. 21 discussed options for replacing an asphalt distributor truck used by county road crews but did not authorize a purchase.
Commissioner Stevens raised the need for a new distributor truck, saying the county \"was in need of maybe purchasing a new distributor truck\" and reported a BuyBoard listing price of $327,000 for a unit he had recently seen. Stevens told the court he wanted someone with equipment knowledge to inspect a unit advertised at auction in Denton and suggested soliciting bids or quotes from manufacturers to compare costs.
Other commissioners and staff discussed alternatives: using precinct funds to share the purchase, selling two older distributor units, reconditioning an existing unit, or contracting with private companies that supply distributor services by the foot. Stevens cited Brown County as an example, saying that county pays contractors who spray asphalt per foot rather than owning the distributor.
A court member noted there is no obligation to buy by advertising an RFP and that the only immediate cost would be advertising. No motion to solicit formal bids or to purchase the vehicle was recorded. The court did not set a timeline, nor did it record a vote authorizing spending.
Why it matters: An asphalt distributor is specialized equipment used in road surfacing and maintenance; replacing such equipment can affect county road operations, precinct budgets and potential contracting costs.
Details raised during the discussion included whether the county could sell older units, the existence of at least one working distributor in the county, and the option to obtain quotes from manufacturers rather than buying on auction. No procurement action was finalized at the meeting.

