Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fleet Management Software topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendors pitch vehicle tracking and fleet-management system; supervisors direct staff to draft county policy
Summary
Representatives presented a cooperative fleet and asset-management system targeted to counties; supervisors signaled support, asked staff to draft a policy and discuss department-level participation and budgeting for a pilot and possible roll-out.
Representatives of a fleet- and activity-tracking vendor presented a county-focused vehicle and asset management platform and the Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors directed staff to work with the vendor on next steps and a draft policy for department participation.
David (vendor representative) told the board the product bundles GPS tracking, geofencing, preventive maintenance scheduling, and activity tagging tailored for county public works and fleet needs. He described functions the system can track'from road grading, rock pit loads and geofenced work areas to vehicle engine codes and PM schedules'and said the company operates a cooperative pricing model so per-unit costs decline as more agencies sign on.
Board members asked about data access, mobile access, inventory and integration with existing county camera or mapping systems. Supervisors raised privacy and access controls: several members said they did not want a 'big-brother' perception and requested that logins and alerts be limited to authorized personnel. The vendor said the system supports role-based permissions and configurable alerts.
Cost figures presented included a one-time setup estimate of $22,526.77 for the county and an annual subscription estimate of $17,166 for 66 units; the vendor said per-unit subscription costs fall as additional counties or units join the cooperative. The vendor also described installation support and a short on-site install window.
After discussion, supervisors agreed to pause awarding or signing a county-wide contract. The board asked staff and the vendor representative to draft a policy for department participation, pursue pilot or demo installations with secondary roads (the department with the largest fleet), and return with a recommended scope and cost allocation. Several supervisors indicated department heads should decide whether to participate and that funding should come from department budgets unless the board decides otherwise.
The board did not approve a county-wide mandatory rollout at the meeting. Supervisors asked county staff to consult with department heads, present a proposal that identifies participating vehicles, an implementation timeline, and budget implications, and to return with a draft policy for board consideration.
