Bay County Road Commission urges new heated storage and wash facility to protect fleet, asks commissioners to consider bond financing

At the Sept. 9 Bay County Board of Commissioners meeting, Jim Lillo, representing the Bay County Road Commission, told commissioners the commission needs a new heated storage and equipment-wash facility to protect increasingly large and expensive trucks and heavy equipment.

Lillo said a large portion of the fleet is currently stored outdoors or in buildings that lack fire suppression, insulation and sufficient interior clearance; he described trucks parked “10 inches” front-to-back in the main garage and said that modern vehicles are wider and longer than the bays were built to accommodate. “There’s a definite need to get them inside,” Lillo said during a presentation that included photos, a site plan and cost estimates.

The presentation focused on safety, asset protection and lifecycle cost savings. Lillo said the commission has 90% design plans from a design-build team and described a primary building about 100 by 300 feet, a secondary heated lean-to and an automated truck wash, producing roughly 44,000 square feet of enclosed space with heated concrete floors, ventilation and fire suppression. He described pile foundations because of poor soils and estimated construction at roughly $10 million to $12 million, saying a final engineer’s estimate was expected by the end of the month.

Why it matters: The commission says routine washing, storage indoors and heated floors would reduce corrosion and maintenance costs and extend vehicle life. Lillo cited case studies and an example of similar regional facilities (Gladwin County, Grand Traverse) where indoor wash and storage improved fleet condition and reduced downtime. County staff and at least two commissioners asked how the facility would be financed and whether bond payments would degrade road maintenance funding.

Details presented and discussion - Storage and safety: Lillo showed photos and described Buildings 2, 3 and several small outbuildings as undersized, lacking fire suppression and in some cases in poor condition; he proposed demolishing several small structures (Buildings 6, 7, 8 on his map) to improve traffic flow on the site and to make room for the new building. He said the current truck arrangement creates trip hazards and limited access for inspectors and mechanics. - Fleet size and asset values: Lillo presented replacement-cost figures from his packet but several large numeric figures in the spoken transcript appear inconsistent; his packet lists replacement-cost totals for licensed vehicles and for other heavy equipment. He said the commission is tracking roughly millions of dollars in assets that are currently exposed to weather and that moving them indoors would reduce lifecycle costs. - Building program: The plan described a main pre-engineered steel truck garage (about 30,000 sq. ft.), a 40-by-300-foot lean-to for smaller vehicles and a 25-by-80-foot automated wash bay, plus locker/office space and secure badge access. Lillo emphasized in-floor heat, insulated concrete floors, ventilation and fire suppression systems; he said the design would store 23 trucks plus several large machines (graders, excavators) and allow drive-through washing. - Cost and financing: Lillo and staff reviewed financing options. He said the road commission cannot issue bonds itself and had checked for grants and low-interest public-building loan programs without success. Local banks offered loans but with balloon or variable-payment structures after a few years, he said. He presented examples of county bond terms and payment scenarios (12-year, 15-year and 20-year illustrations) and noted the county’s favorable bond rating would likely yield the best financing terms if the county were to issue debt for the project. Commissioners pressed on whether debt service could be accommodated without reducing road and bridge work; Lillo and staff said the commission would prioritize the debt payment in its budget and expected to maintain planned road and bridge programs. - Anticipated savings and lifecycle benefits: Lillo cited a HydroChem case study and an exchange with commissioners that suggested more frequent, controlled washing and indoor storage can extend useful lifespans by multiple years and reduce annual maintenance costs; one commissioner offered a back-of-envelope calculation that suggested washing and storage savings could help offset debt service over time.

Action and next steps The board voted to receive the road commission report. Commissioners and road commission staff invited board members to tour the facility. Lillo said he expected a final engineers’ estimate by the end of the month and that the road commission would return with financing details if it pursues county bonding.

Ending The presentation closed with commissioners thanking the road commission for providing the additional detail requested earlier in the year; the board took no further action other than to receive the report and approved by voice vote.