Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custodial Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee County facilities committee debates custodial staffing, new vacuums and carpet-cleaning plan
Summary
Committee members discussed buying vacuums and scrubbers, setting annual funds for professional carpet extraction, and whether to hire an additional custodian to maintain new courthouse carpeting.
The Lee County Facilities and Maintenance Committee discussed staffing and equipment needs on the county’s custodial team, including immediate purchases of vacuums and longer-term plans for carpet extraction and cleaning schedules. Committee members and facilities staff framed the issue around sustaining recent upgrades such as new carpeting on the Fourth Floor and ongoing heavy cleaning needs across multiple large buildings.
At the meeting, committee members described existing custodial equipment as aged and insufficient for the county’s roughly 77,000 square feet of carpeted space. Becky, a committee staff member, said the county has a carpet replacement fund and noted, “We got $75,000 a year for carpeting replacement,” and that the committee had discussed using part of that money for ongoing cleaning and maintenance.
Staff presented cost and procurement options: a commercially rated vacuum was listed at about $4,500 with a 36-month lease option around $150 per month; a carpet extractor/scrubber was discussed in the roughly $10,000 range; and staff showed a higher‑end autonomous vacuum prototype priced in committee discussion at about $13,000. Members weighed buying equipment now versus leasing and discussed rotating existing machines between buildings to extend useful life.
Committee members also raised the question of adding custodial staff. The group noted two custodians currently maintain the largest building and that workload and the new floor coverings make continued reliance on old equipment impractical. Members urged planning for recurring cleaning expenses; staff suggested budgeting roughly $10,000 a year for professional deep cleaning to protect the county’s investment in new carpet.
Participants discussed options for in-house versus contracted deep cleaning. Several members said the scale of extraction needed — and constraints on when work can be scheduled around court hours — make quarterly contracted deep cleaning a practical near-term approach while the county upgrades its equipment.
The committee ended regular business and adjourned after a motion from Dean Fruit, seconded by Mike Pearson. The motion passed on a voice vote by the members present.
