Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Facilities Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Luis council approves $77,871 purchase of electric litter vacuum for parks
Summary
The San Luis City Council approved purchase of a MadVac LN50 electric all‑terrain litter vacuum for the Parks & Recreation department to support park and right‑of‑way cleanup; staff said the equipment offers quieter, emission‑free operation and single‑operator use.
Get email alerts on the Parks And Facilities Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Luis City Council on Sept. 24 approved the purchase of an electric all‑terrain litter vacuum for the Parks and Recreation Department for $77,871. Staff said the machine will speed cleanup at parks, event sites and public right‑of‑ways. Angelica Roldan, the city’s parks and recreation director, told the council the parks grounds budget for fiscal 2026 included $77,871 for the purchase and that staff had obtained a quote from Hacker Equipment Company under cooperative contract number 093021/EXP. Roldan said the MadVac LN50 electric all‑terrain litter vacuum is designed for public areas, can be operated by a single staff member and offers quieter, "0 emission operation," which staff said would allow faster turnaround after events and broader citywide cleanup support. Council members asked procedural and comparative questions during the presentation. One council member asked whether other cities in the county use the same equipment; Roldan said she was not certain which other jurisdictions have the machine but noted public works had tried to acquire similar equipment previously. Staff displayed a brochure image of the unit for council review. Following the presentation, a council motion to approve the vendor quote under the cooperative agreement was made and seconded; council members voiced aye and the mayor announced the motion carried. The purchase will be made through Hacker Equipment Company using the cooperative agreement referenced in the staff report and the city’s procurement code authority cited in the presentation. No individual roll‑call votes were read into the record, and the motion was recorded as "motion carries."

