Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fleet Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor pitches fleet‑leasing plan to Duchesne County, cites multi‑year savings and first‑year cash benefit
Summary
A fleet‑management vendor proposed a flexible leasing and lifecycle program for about 129 county vehicles, estimating roughly $1.5 million in conservative 10‑year savings and illustrating a model first‑year surplus of about $462,000 if 24 vehicles were replaced in year one; commissioners pressed the vendor on maintenance, local dealer participation and procurement safeguards.
A vendor representative presented a fleet‑management and leasing proposal to the Duchesne County Commission, describing a flexible, phased approach that would replace older county vehicles on a planned lifecycle and manage acquisition, remarketing and optional maintenance.
The vendor representative said the company buys vehicles factory‑direct or through dealers at government invoice pricing, provides a vehicle‑level dashboard and consolidated billing for maintenance, and aims to optimize replacement timing to maximize resale and minimize heavy repairs. "When we put the analysis together over the course of 10 years, it looks like conservatively about $1,500,000 in estimated savings," the vendor representative said.
As an illustration, the vendor modeled replacing 24 vehicles in year one. Under that scenario the representative said annual payments for those replacements would be about $212,000 while resale proceeds from sold vehicles would net about $222,000, producing an immediate positive cash effect in the example. The presenter also projected lower maintenance and fuel expenses for newer vehicles.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about how the county’s existing vehicles would be handled, how sheriff’s vehicles and specialized chassis would be treated, and how local dealers and upfitters could remain part of the process. One commissioner cited past experience with a similar arrangement where maintenance coordination proved difficult for law‑enforcement fleets and asked for references and contract safeguards.
The vendor described options for maintenance: counties may retain in‑house maintenance, include maintenance as part of the payment package (local shops bill the vendor, which consolidates billing), or use negotiated roadside assistance. The vendor also noted Sourcewell membership as an available procurement pathway and offered to provide template agreements, local references and client contacts for further due diligence.
Commissioners asked for a phased pilot approach and requested contract templates, department‑by‑department maintenance and cost reports, and references from similar counties. No procurement commitment or vote was taken; staff and the vendor agreed to follow up with additional materials and a proposed timeline for implementation discussions.
Next steps the vendor offered included sample agreements, a list of reference contacts (including other county clients), and a follow‑up meeting to review detailed vehicle‑level data and contract language.
