Davis County budget committee reviews fleet replacement fund proposal, flags need for written dealer agreement

DAVIS COUNTY, Sept. 30, 2024 — Davis County fleet manager John Formling urged the Budget Committee to adopt a dedicated fleet replacement fund and a formal fleet policy, saying the county’s aging vehicles are driving up repair costs and creating safety risks.

"Our fleet vehicles are getting older and higher miles," Formling said, noting the shop recently replaced two patrol engines and a transmission in separate vehicles for about $15,000 — roughly half the cost of a new Toyota RAV4. He said fleet averages about 97 work orders per month and presented 2019–2023 parts and repair data showing nearly $800,000 in parts and about $700,000 in repairs.

Formling recommended moving from the current decentralized model to a centralized allocation-fee system in which departments pay an annual fee that is pooled to buy and rotate vehicles on a scheduled lifecycle. He said the draft lifecycle is generally five years, with heavier up‑fit vehicles extended to seven years, and presented an initial 2024 program that would replace 39 vehicles this year. Using resale estimates and allocation fees, he reported a gross replacement figure of about $2.3 million minus approximately $104,000 in projected salvage proceeds to reach a net cost.

He also described an offer from Young Chevrolet under which the county would buy certain vehicles (for example, RAV4s at about $31,000) and the dealer would buy them back in two years at the same price, a structure that Formling said would materially reduce long‑term cost. "In 2 years, they'll pay us back for $31,000," Formling said, describing the dealer proposal as a way to use vehicles "for essentially free" for two years while allocation fees build the fund.

Several members of the committee welcomed the proposed savings but emphasized risk management. Chris Coe, auditor, said he recommends documenting any buyback arrangement in a formal written agreement to avoid later disputes or changed terms. "I think the next step I would recommend is coming into some sort of agreement, something written that explains what we're doing with Young," Coe said, noting past instances where expected buyback values changed.

Committee members also pressed staff on practical details: how salvage values were estimated (auction and GovDeals sales), whether vehicles with branded/salvage titles would be eligible for full buyback, and how the program would handle high‑mileage or heavily upfitted patrol vehicles. Formling said the draft policy includes motor‑pool provisions and that AssetWorks offers a vehicle check‑out module to support shared use and better utilization.

On fuel economy, Formling compared a typical Ford Explorer (about 19 mpg) to a RAV4 (about 40 mpg) and estimated roughly $1,075 in annual fuel savings per vehicle at the assessed mileage, which he said would multiply into substantial countywide savings when applied to dozens of vehicles. He also acknowledged that the program will require some upfront funding and suggested using one‑time county funds to kick‑start the replacement fund so allocation fees can begin circulating.

No formal vote was taken. The committee asked departments to return comments to Formling for consolidation and agreed to schedule a work session to review the draft policy and budget implications before any amendment or formal budget action. The committee adjourned without adopting policy or authorizing funding at this meeting.