Dodge County executive committee rejects Enterprise fleet-management resolution after members question savings and data

Dodge County’s executive committee debated a proposal to contract with Enterprise Fleet Management and then voted against authorizing the engagement, saying the county needed clearer, department-level data and firmer cost projections before committing to the program.

County staff and an Enterprise representative laid out a proposal to centralize management of non‑CDL vehicles, saying the service would provide procurement scale, resale advantages and technology to track mileage and maintenance. An Enterprise representative described a typical management fee of about $50 per vehicle per month under Sourcewell pricing and said the company expected resale proceeds and lower maintenance to offset most of that fee over time. “If we can sell it for more money at a point of life, drive maintenance and fuel cost down, offset it with our management fee on the resale side,” the representative said.

Supervisors pressed for greater clarity. Multiple members said the materials in the packet used generalized vehicle cost assumptions and that departmental upfit costs, specific mileage patterns and the method used to calculate resale gains were not sufficiently documented. One supervisor said the proposal “might be worth paying for” but criticized the timing and the claim that the program would be budget‑neutral in year one. Another asked whether the county’s current use of Sourcewell had been maximized and requested precise comparisons.

Staff acknowledged gaps in the packet and offered to return with a memo and references from other counties that have used Enterprise or Sourcewell arrangements. County administration said participation could be phased — not all fleet assets need to be enrolled at once — and that the county could end participation if results were unsatisfactory.

Supervisor Guchenberger moved to adopt the resolution; the motion was seconded and put to a roll-call vote. The motion failed after the roll call produced more no than yes votes. Committee members who opposed the motion cited unclear financial projections and competing budget priorities; those who supported it cited operational efficiencies and reduced staff time for vehicle acquisition and disposition.

The committee did not direct staff to sign any agreement. Several members recommended returning with more detailed, department‑specific cost comparisons and references from other Wisconsin counties before taking further action. The committee’s discussion also flagged procurement issues (how Enterprise would be included in local procurement language) and liability/title questions; staff said insurance coverage and contract language would be clarified if the committee asked staff to pursue it further.

The executive committee will consider the topic again only if staff bring back the requested clarifications and comparative data.