Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equipment Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss Caterpillar buyback program, no decision taken
Summary
Franklin County commissioners questioned terms of a Caterpillar equipment buyback program and discussed machine hours, warranty coverage and trade‑in timing. Caterpillar staff answered technical questions; no formal action was taken.
Franklin County commissioners questioned representatives from Caterpillar about the terms and applicability of a buyback program for county motor graders during the Jan. 29 meeting. Caterpillar representative Matt Schuster answered technical questions but commissioners took no formal action.
The discussion, requested after questions arose at a recent retreat, covered which motor graders remain eligible for a guaranteed buyback, how machine hours affect trade‑in value and how warranty and service coverage differ between leased and purchased equipment. Schuster said some 120‑series motor graders that had been scheduled for upgrade had their buyback eligibility expire when the county extended equipment use and warranties; two motor graders remain eligible under earlier terms.
On service and value, Schuster said higher hours significantly reduce resale value and identified a common inflection point for 120 models near 8,000 hours, where repair risk increases. He said 140‑series graders typically last longer, with heavier transmissions and components that commonly exceed 10,000 hours before major failures. Schuster described a practical “sweet spot” around five years and 7,500 hours for balancing longevity and trade‑in value.
Commissioners and Caterpillar staff also discussed purchase structures. Schuster said buying equipment outright does not prevent a trade‑in but may forfeit some of the broader service coverages and rapid parts support that county fleets receive when they participate in broader Caterpillar fleet programs; those service agreements can include expedited part delivery and on‑site service support.
Commissioner questions focused on whether the county could negotiate buyback terms for new purchases with seven‑year replacement cycles and whether a middle ground between five‑year and seven‑year terms exists; Schuster said those terms are negotiated at purchase and he would research specific past buyback figures for the county's 120s. Commissioners requested that county staff compile hours and condition data for their graders so the county and Caterpillar can model likely trade‑in values.
No motion or vote was recorded on equipment purchasing or replacement policies at the meeting.
The discussion noted that Franklin County is effectively grandfathered into an older buyback arrangement that is not being offered to new customers, making the county's existing arrangement comparatively favorable if eligibility remains. Commissioners said they will meet with Caterpillar staff to review machine hours and clarify options before any purchase decision.
No specific dollar amounts for future buybacks were agreed to, and county staff committed to follow up with Caterpillar on precise historical buyback numbers and on whether buyback language can be negotiated for future purchases.
