Legislation Details

File #: 2026-2067   
Type: Agenda Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 8/20/2026 In control: City Council
On agenda: 10/20/2026 Final action:
Title: Additional expenditures for the purchase of four fire apparatus units for Ocala Fire Rescue from Matheny Motor Truck Co. in the amount of $190,936
Attachments: 1. Matheny Light Rescue Invoice, 2. PR# 10 - F550 RESCUE QTY 3 - UPDATEDb, 3. Matheny Pumper Invoice, 4. PR# 11 - Typhoon Pumper - Updated, 5. FSA FSA23-VER17.0 Fire Apparatus Item 13, 6. FSA FSA23-VER17.0 Pumper Level One Item 99, 7. 2025-0067 - FY25 OFR CIP Trucks, 8. 148758 Pre-Payment Invoice City of Ocala 2-7-25, 9. Pre-Payment Invoice - City of Ocala Light Rescues (3) 6-20-25
Related files: 2025-0067
Date Action ByMotionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.
Submitted By: Christina Guy
presenter
Presentation By: John King
end
Department: Fleet
/
FORMAL TITLE:
title
Additional expenditures for the purchase of four fire apparatus units for Ocala Fire Rescue from Matheny Motor Truck Co. in the amount of $190,936
end
/
OCALA’S RELEVANT STRATEGIC GOALS:
Operational Excellence
/
PROOF OF PUBLICATION:
N/A
/
body
BACKGROUND:
Fleet staff identified the need to acquire three light rescue vehicles and one pumper engine to support the operational and emergency response needs of the Ocala Fire Rescue Department (OFR). These vehicles are necessary to maintain an effective emergency response fleet and to provide reliable transportation and equipment capacity for personnel responding to emergencies.
On November 19, 2024, Council approved buying these four vehicles from Matheny Motor Truck Company for $1,960,044. The City used an existing statewide purchasing contract through the Florida Sheriffs Association (Agreement No. FSA23-VEF17.0).
Matheny offered a prepayment discount if the City paid for the vehicles upfront. The Finance Department compared the discount price offered with the interest the City would earn by keeping the money until delivery and projected that by paying upfront the City would realize net savings of approximately $3,000. Staff planned to pay upfront.
The City placed the orders on December 10, 2024, and received invoices dated February 7, 2025, and June 20, 2025. Because of a miscommunication among staff about the City’s prepayment policy, the invoices were not paid upfront, and the City did not receive the prepayment discount.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
When the vehicles were delivered, the final invoices did not include the prepayment discount. As a result, the City owes $190,936 more than Council originally approved.
The City does not lose money overall. Because the money stayed in City accounts instead of being paid upfront, it earned about $135,063 in interest over the past 22 months. In additi...

Click here for full text