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

Atascosa County awards 2026 fuel, hauling and road-material contracts; numerous line-item bidders accepted

January 01, 2026 | Atascosa County, Texas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Atascosa County awards 2026 fuel, hauling and road-material contracts; numerous line-item bidders accepted
County procurement staff and the county auditor presented the results of the 2026 fuel, hauling and road-material bids and recommended awards for a long list of line items.

Fuel: Auditor’s staff reported only one fuel bid (Golden West). The summary sheet shown to commissioners listed unleaded gasoline at a total price of $2.029 per gallon (including state tax and profit margin) and diesel at $2.539 per gallon. The court approved the fuel bid after a motion by Commissioner Gillespie; votes were recorded as three in favor and one abstention.

Hauling: Several vendors submitted hauling bids (Aggregate Movers, Out of Scope of Material, RE Investment and Ventures, Richard Esser and others). The bids included per-ton rates that varied by distance bands (e.g., Aggregate Movers: $4/ton for 1–15 miles up to $25.50/ton for 76–100 miles) and hourly rates for milling machines. The court approved acceptance of the hauling vendors as presented.

Road materials: Commissioners reviewed and voted on many material categories (pit run base; grade 3 and 4 aggregate; recycled asphalt; crushed limestone in several sizes; topping rock numbers 3–5; cold mix asphalt type D; trap rock numbers 3–5; reclaimed millings). Where multiple vendors submitted, the court often approved multiple vendors for each line item to preserve locality and hauling considerations; several motions recorded Commissioner Riley as abstaining on multiple approvals. One bid from San Antonio Aggregate for crushed limestone was rejected because it had been altered (the bidder crossed out wording and wrote “concrete”), which the auditor said did not match the requested bid form.

County staff reiterated best-practice reminders: choose the cheapest vendor for the specific yard/location after factoring hauling costs and secure written confirmation if a low-cost vendor cannot supply product. Staff said they will hold a pre-bid meeting next year to account for recent statutory changes that raised the bid threshold to $100,000. The court carried motions on the multiple line-item awards with the typical recorded vote pattern of three yes and one abstention for several items.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Texas articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI