Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Equipment Purchase topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Daggett County discusses cooperative purchase of vac truck with Manila and Dutch John

Daggett County Commission and RDA · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County commissioners and municipal partners debated sharing a vacuum truck to clean sewer lines and storm drains, discussed operator training and an MOU, and asked staff to do budget and procurement diligence before the next meeting.

Daggett County commissioners spent the longest portion of their July meeting weighing a cooperative purchase of a vacuum (VAC) truck that county staff and neighboring towns say would speed sewer and storm-drain maintenance but costs more than any single entity wants to carry alone.

The discussion began when Speaker 1 described an effort to “work cooperatively with the town of Manila and perhaps with Dutch John and their water and sewer system to acquire a vac truck,” saying the equipment would be “very beneficial, but pretty cost prohibitive for any 1 entity to handle on their own.” The commission reviewed capabilities, shared-use logistics, and possible funding pathways.

Speakers focused on practical questions: whether the truck can handle culverts and storm drains, operator training and accountability, and how to divide maintenance and fuel costs. Speaker 5, summarizing concerns about scale and cost, said “it's a lot of money. The town, I don't think, can afford it by themselves.” Commissioners discussed limiting operators to one or two trained staff to protect the vehicle and ensure proper maintenance.

Potential cost and timing were discussed but not finalized. During the meeting speakers attempted to reconcile differing price mentions; Speaker 5 and others referenced a figure in the neighborhood of $2,295 for part of the purchase discussion, but commissioners did not adopt a firm price and said final numbers would depend on refurbishment and procurement decisions. Speaker 2 pressed for procurement compliance and suggested an MOU that would clarify billing, operator responsibility and interagency invoicing.

Participants discussed possible funding sources including the county road fund (Fund 11 / road fund), SRS equipment funds, and a Community Impact Board (CIB) application if timing allowed. Speaker 2 said the enterprise (water/sewer) fund shows a large balance but cautioned it is inflated by reimbursements tied to ongoing construction and not fully available. Several speakers said they would check budget availability with Sean, Trevor and Butch and bring the item back for further discussion.

Next steps: commissioners directed staff to do procurement and budget diligence, contact the truck seller to confirm availability and refurbishment timelines, and consider an MOU or cost-share agreement. The item was left as an option for the next meeting’s agenda pending those checks.