Why is the city of SF selling a equipment that is in good working order?

by

While I applaud the city for getting top dollar for used equipment, I kind of wonder if this equipment is bringing in that much money, why are we selling it?

Two street sweepers once used to clean Sioux Falls routes just might be sweeping the streets of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, today. A third might be cleaning the avenues of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Buyers from Winnipeg and Riyadh purchased the used equipment online after Sioux Falls began using an Internet auction service in 2006. Since then, the city has sold nine pieces of specialized surplus equipment online with receipts totaling more than $275,000, said Scott Rust, city purchasing coordinator.

I think this commenter on the AL story says it best;

Do we no longer use street sweepers in Sioux Falls? I wonder why the street sweepers are good enough for Winnipeg or Riyadh but not good enough for Sioux Falls. Did we sell equipment that was paid for only to purchase expensive new equipment?

Oh, probably. Councilor Costello has brought it up in the council meetings that the city has too much ‘new’ equipment and vehicles. Of course, his words fell on deaf ears as usual.

Posted in: Sioux Falls

5 Thoughts on “Why is the city of SF selling a equipment that is in good working order?”

  1. Warren Phear on July 20, 2009 at 7:18 am said:

    DL.

    Thanks for your ever vigilant attempt to keep us informed of city functions. They need to be aired. But there are some things the city does right. Here is one of them.

    http://www.siouxfalls.org/green/waste_reduction

  2. l3wis on July 20, 2009 at 7:25 am said:

    Agreed. I have often felt the landfill is run very efficiently, I think we even make money from it.

  3. Warren Phear on July 20, 2009 at 9:45 am said:

    The Landfill makes enough to fund the Hazardous Waste and Electronic-Waste programs.

  4. Plaintiff Guy on July 22, 2009 at 12:43 am said:

    I’ve seen nothing but 2009 trucks, paving equipment, and graders. They’re usually parked for months at a time between new road barriers. Asst. PW director Kevin never does laundry and wears new taxpayer funded underwear every day. It’s not production, it’s how you look when you’re selling worthless services then paying exhorbitant prices for independent contractors advised by overpriced consultants.

  5. Plaintiff Guy on July 22, 2009 at 12:54 am said:

    Does anybody know who the Public Works director is? Didn’t he die in 2000 and we’ve been sending annual 100K checks to Switzerland?

Post Navigation