Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor tells commissioners poor road upkeep shifts repair costs to ranchers; judge asks consultant to review Road & Bridge budget
Summary
A presentation on June 24 highlighted county road deterioration and contractor Lance Jarratt told commissioners that damage from heavy vehicles increases repair costs for ranchers; Judge Henington invited consultant Travis Dimler to help review the Road & Bridge budget and options for vehicle leasing were discussed.
County contractors and the Brewster County Commissioners Court on June 24 focused attention on rural road maintenance and the financial burden that poor upkeep places on local property owners.
Travis Dimler presented suggestions on county road maintenance and Judge Greg P. Henington asked Dimler to consult on the Road and Bridge budget. Lance Jarratt, owner of Jarratt Dirt Work, told the court that heavier vehicles cause damage that ultimately is paid for by ranchers: "the actual cost of damage to heavier vehicles ... gets tacked onto the ranchers due to the terrible upkeep of county roads," he said in his presentation to the court.
The discussion touched on fleet management options. Judge Henington raised leasing county vehicles as an alternative to outright purchase to help the Sheriff's Office manage upkeep and service costs; the topic recurred when Road & Bridge superintendent matters were presented later in the agenda. Commissioner Ruben Ortega presented the Road & Bridge report on behalf of Superintendent Johnny Salcido; no formal procurement motion was passed on new maintenance vehicles at this meeting, though several related budget items and administrative updates were adopted elsewhere on the agenda.
Contractors and commissioners framed the issue as both a maintenance-priority and a budgetary challenge for a largely rural county where heavy, commercial, and ranching traffic accelerate wear on unpaved and paved roads. The court invited follow-up consultation and budget review rather than adopting a purchasing or lease contract at this session.
The court approved several administrative motions later in the meeting (budget corrections, MSAG updates, and personnel-benefit items) that could affect resource allocation; further decisions on vehicle procurement or a formal road-maintenance plan will require follow-ups and potential budget amendments.
