Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District weighs buying 15 compactors vs. continued leasing after aging fleet drives repairs
Summary
Staff presented a $29,775 per‑unit purchase quote for MAC stationary compactors and a lifecycle comparison to current leases; the committee asked staff to get maintenance and warranty costs and a replacement schedule to inform a buy vs. lease decision.
Get email alerts on the Capital Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Monroe County Waste Reduction District’s executive committee reviewed a procurement analysis for site compactors and directed staff to gather additional warranty and maintenance cost figures before making a decision.
Staff reported a vendor quote for a MAC 400‑yard stationary compactor at roughly $29,775 per unit and estimated 13–15 units could total about $446,625 for equipment alone, not including installation or electrical work. Committee members contrasted that capital cost with current monthly lease payments, which staff said range from about $300 to $600 per unit depending on the contract. A simple five‑year lease at $600 per month would cost about $36,000 for one unit over five years; staff noted maintenance coverage varies by lease.
Committee members expressed concern about lead times and service response, citing several sites with older compactors and an instance where a vintage unit took months to repair due to unavailable parts. The committee asked staff to obtain: (1) maintenance and extended‑warranty quotes for purchased units, (2) a replacement and lease‑expiry schedule for existing machines, and (3) procurement options (bid timing and statutory considerations) so the board can compare total cost of ownership versus lease over a multi‑year horizon.
The committee discussed procurement rules and whether leases constitute a service contract or an equipment lease under state statute; legal staff previously advised the district could argue a service classification but recommended caution because equipment‑lease rules may apply in some circumstances. Staff will prepare a comparison and schedule for the board.

