Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Fleet Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County discusses more realistic fleet charge-backs to keep maintenance in-house

Rock Island County Finance & Personnel Committee · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County Administrator Jim Grafton told the Finance & Personnel Committee the fleet charge-back system should reflect competitive labor and parts rates, avoid discouraging departments from using in-house service, and account for facility costs tied to a building now valued at $1.5 million.

County Administrator Jim Grafton laid out the rationale for a revised fleet charge-back approach during the Rock Island County Finance & Personnel Committee meeting on March 10.

"After we purchased the Building it is now worth $1.5M," Grafton said, arguing the county should set charge-backs that recover actual labor and parts costs while avoiding hourly rates so high that department heads send work to private vendors. He said excessive hourly charges would undermine preventive maintenance benefits: "By taking care of our vehicles in a preventative measure instead of fixing something when it breaks down we will extend the life of these vehicles and even if we extend the life of one vehicle that is at least 50 or 60 thousand dollars." The committee approved the proposed charge-back process by voice vote.

Grafton also emphasized the value of one-on-one accountability between mechanics and county vehicle users: private vendors, he said, cannot deliver the same personal oversight. Chair Dr. Luis Moreno and committee members discussed early-year implementation "bumps," with Grafton asking for patience and committee support as the county adjusts cost allocations. The motion to adopt the charge-back approach carried on a voice vote.

The discussion focused on balancing full cost recovery (including facility maintenance) with competitive rates that do not discourage internal service use. Committee members did not vote to change specific hourly rates during the meeting; they approved the charge-back process as presented and signaled ongoing monitoring of rates and service outcomes.