Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Fleet Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Le Mars council members debate city use of vacuum truck, cross-contamination and fleet needs
Summary
City staff and councilors discussed whether to continue contracting out vacuum/vactor services or rely on city equipment, raised cross-contamination and cost-recovery concerns, and reviewed vehicle tradeoffs and estimated payback timelines.
At a Le Mars City Council meeting, city staff and council participants discussed the use and ownership of a vacuum/vactor truck for sewer, water and maintenance work, weighing potential cost savings against cross-contamination and fleet-expansion concerns.
Speaker 4 (unidentified meeting participant) said, "I read the comments, from the minutes that Joe sent out. And the 1 thing that I did notice ... he's going to use this instead of hiring another contractor to come and do work." Speaker 7 (unidentified meeting participant) raised a public-health concern: "But, if we're sucking up human waste, and the next day they're out at a water main break using it." Speaker 1 (unidentified meeting participant) asked about operational capacity, "I guess my question is, you say you can do all this stuff yourself instead of farming it out. You got the time to do it?"
Speakers described the current pattern of contracting for vacuum services when crews need to remove grease and solids from wet wells and pits. One participant said contractor calls cost "a couple thousand bucks" per occurrence; another noted travel and drive time when contractors come from Sioux City or Cherokee. A city staff speaker summarized estimated costs and payback: the truck operations were discussed in hourly and per-call terms (the transcript records "the truck's $5.75 an hour" and a multi-year payback estimate of roughly "5, 6 years"), and the speaker said recent contract work could amount to several thousand dollars annually.
Council and staff also discussed equipment capability. One speaker said the existing smaller unit "doesn't have the power that we need to be able to **** from 20 feet down below," while others said a larger or different machine had allowed the city to repair water-main breaks more quickly. Staff described fixing two water-main breaks this year with the stronger unit, and noted that having city crews available to operate equipment can reduce response time compared with waiting for contractors.
At the same time, council members expressed reluctance to expand the city's fleet without careful consideration. One speaker said, "I really don't wanna keep increasing the city's fleet," and discussed tradeoffs such as mounting plows on other vehicles and temporarily retaining an older vehicle to meet seasonal needs.
No formal motion to buy or retire equipment was recorded in the transcript. The discussion produced several open questions for staff, including clarifying exact annual contractor costs, documenting usage patterns between departments, and identifying sanitation protocols to prevent cross-contamination when the same equipment is used for sanitary waste and potable-water-related repairs.
Speakers and staff recommended follow-up work: (1) provide a clearer accounting of contractor costs and drive-time expenses, (2) document the number and type of calls per year for vac/vactor services, and (3) establish cleaning procedures or restrictions if city crews will use the same truck for sanitary and potable-water work.
