Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supervisors debate $218,000 proposal to add 20,000 gallons of fuel storage

5530072 · June 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff presented a proposal to add two 10,000-gallon dual-wall tanks and dispensing infrastructure at a cost of about $218,000. Supervisors discussed potential savings from bulk purchases, payback period and ongoing maintenance and labor costs; no purchase decision was made.

County staff presented options to reestablish bulk fuel storage for county vehicles, proposing two 10,000-gallon tanks with dispensing systems and concrete work at an estimated cost of $218,000.

Staff outlined potential savings from buying fuel in larger bulk shipments — estimates ranged from about $0.20 to $0.50 per gallon savings depending on market swings — and noted the county currently buys smaller tanker loads or contracted volumes. The county retains a 5,000-gallon vault (split tanks) at one location but would expand storage capacity to 20,000 gallons under the plan.

Discussion among supervisors and staff centered on the payback period and additional labor and transportation costs required to move fuel to satellite locations. One supervisor estimated a multi‑year payback: about four to five years at optimistic savings assumptions and perhaps six to seven years when labor and transport are included.

Staff flagged additional upfront costs including dual-wall tanks, concrete foundations, piping and required inspection and permitting. Concerns were also raised about maintenance, insurance effects and the county’s exposure if fuel prices fall after a large purchase.

Board members asked staff to continue evaluating options that might include buy-in from other county users or portable trailer systems used in agricultural settings. No formal procurement action was taken at the meeting.