Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midway council weighs buying vacuum truck vs. leasing, asks staff to study options
Summary
Midway City Council members discussed a $675,000 vacuum/back truck purchase proposal, service-life amortization and rental/partnering alternatives and directed staff to get usage and rental/partnering estimates before the tentative budget is adopted.
Midway City Council members and staff on May 6 discussed whether the city should buy a vacuum/back truck outright or continue renting/partnering for episodic needs.
Councilmembers heard a staff summary that a new truck would cost about $675,000 with a one-year warranty (four-year warranty option for about $10,000 more), roughly $1,300 per year insurance, and an expected service life of about 10 years. Staff estimated a 5–7 year trade-in value around $300,000 and said that to amortize a 10-year replacement would require adding about $67,500 per year into the vehicle replacement fund.
The council debated operational risk and alternatives. Several members suggested renting or leasing for a year to measure actual demand, pointing out weekend availability and the risk that rental fleets might be unavailable at the precise time of an emergency. Councilmembers also discussed partnering with nearby agencies, including Heber City and the sanitation district, to share a vehicle. One council member said Heber City appears to have two trucks and asked staff to check rental or sharing fees; another said the sanitation district does not own such a truck and currently hires Twin D (Big D) to do sewer cleaning.
Council members asked staff to gather usage statistics (how often the city needs this equipment), rental/lease prices, possible partner agencies and whether outside contractors (e.g., Twin D/Big D) would still be needed if the city bought the truck. Craig and Shane were identified in discussion as people who would follow up on the technical and budget questions. Councilmembers requested the information within about a week to inform the tentative 2026 budget schedule.
The discussion was explicit that no purchase decision was made; the council directed staff to investigate options and report back. No formal motion to purchase was made during the session.
Looking ahead, councilmembers asked staff to include the cost and replacement-fund implications in budget materials and to explore whether shared ownership with other agencies or a one-year rental/lease trial would be feasible.
Ending: Staff committed to follow up with rental quotes, partner interest and usage data to be returned before the tentative budget adoption schedule.
