They're At It Again!

Tricked out Kubota is back on the Consent Agenda July 15

The city is at it again! City Staff is pushing to buy that dreamy new tractor, and dump the old “Kubota MX5000 Tractor – Replacement of Parks Department Equipment #5330.”

“Summary: Staff seeks City Council approval for equipment procurement for the Parks Department. The Parks Department equipment #5330 is a 2005 Kubota MX5000 Tractor. It is recommended for replacement in 2025, as it has reached the end of its useful service life. Through the City’s membership in the Washington State Purchasing Cooperative, participating vendor Jennings Equipment Inc. of Puyallup, WA, was selected from the cooperative vendors list, Contract No. 28123.”

Note: The “purchasing cooperative” relates to RCW 39.26.060 which is an agreement to “purchase through contracts awarded through a competitive solicitation process.” I don’t find anywhere it says that cities are required to purchase exclusively from this cooperative. It does not seem to be mandatory. I’m NOT understanding why we are taking our business out of Clallam County and buying from Jennings Equipment in Puyallup, WA. The bid isn’t all that competitive. I’d sure like someone to explain all this to me, because it seems completely illogical. (Leitz Farms is our local Kubota dealer.)

Why aren’t our local businesses registered with WEBS? I can only find 54 on the WEBS website in all of Clallam County. (Come on EDC show them how to do this.)

The amount of the purchase for a Kubota L4060HST from the “cooperative” is $49,633.93, but MSRP for the base model (42HP) is listed at $37,390., while a (40HP) with a loader is listed at $44,636.

Looks like we’re going for the ultimate package “outstanding performance and maximum operator performance,” as the sales brochure says. Evidently, we are buying a Cadillac when a Kia would be sufficient.

I don’t see why we are buying a NEW Kubota tractor when the old one, the 20-year-old Kubota MX5000 has ONLY been used 1,610 hours. That amounts to ONLY 80.5 hours a YEAR, which is 6.7 hours a MONTH.

If it’s only used from April to August that would be 16.1 hours a month, or 4 hours a week. This is not a heavily used piece of machinery.

The city says, “innovations in tractor technology will allow staff to operate more safely and efficiently utilizing the replacement equipment.” So, what? If it is more efficient, then will this new equipment only be used 3 hours a week?

Then with ZERO documentation the city staff says, “It is necessary to replace #5330, as it has reached the end of its useful service life. Lifetime repair costs currently exceed $30,000.”

HOW? This appears to be a bold-faced lie.

First, Kubota in their warranty expects that all their equipment will have a useful life of 4,500 to 5,000 lifetime hours, and boast that many units are operational well into the 10k hour mark. (Small equipment usage is based on the number of hours it is used.)

In our City’s case, we have used the unit 2,900 hours LESS than the minimum EXPECTED by the manufacturer. We have only “used up” 35.56% of the expected use of the Kubota tractor. Does this make any sense? So why are we, ultimately, going to spend 3x more on equipment instead of using responsibly?

“It’s funner to spend money?” “Oooh, wheee new!” “Oh boy, aren’t we special?”

Kubota has a guarantee of two-years or 2000 hours for normal usage and extends the warranty to three-years or 3000 hours for key engine components. So, our unit didn’t even finish 80% of the warranty period, and certainly NOT in the first two years. (It took us 20 years.)

Kubota has a solid reputation. But, do we even need to buy THE BEST?

There is ample advice (common sense) to extend the life of a Kubota engine (actually all equipment): regular maintenance: frequent fuel filter and air filter replacement, and regular oil changes. Not leaving it in the weather and keeping it undercover is smart. Stabilizing fuel, and trickle charging batteries over winter, is always prudent. In fact, the top advice for everything mechanical is a rigorous oil change calendar. For diesel engines, not allowing the tank to run dry is another important thing to consider.

Equipment lasts longer when it’s looked after. (Duh.)

The City says this old Kubota we have laying around needs $30k in repairs. Really? What body orifice was this pulled from?

I looked up prices: a v2403 Overhaul rebuild kit costs between $400-500. These kits include gaskets, pistons, seals, rings, etc. A new water pump is $113.00. A fully re-manufactured crate engine is $5,650 ($2k core) and the estimate is 10-20 hours to install. Like everything, labor is the biggest ticket item. Labor to rebuild is an estimated 15-25 hours (even at $135.00 an hour would be well under $4k). Even if there isn’t someone with those skills on City staff, there are many people in the area who can do this small-engine work (and would probably welcome the contract).

I am hard pressed to make a full rebuild of this tractor to estimate more than $10k in the very worst scenario (badly used, rusted, worn, bolts frozen in place, stripped). I find it implausible that their estimate of $30k is reasonable or warranted for repair costs.

Does this include custom paint (flames and pin striping) and re-chroming the showing metal parts? I mean, yeah, you COULD put in an all alligator-skin interior and maybe get the price up to $30k. A tricked-out Parks and Rec Kubota, would be cool though. Way more cool that just buying the top-of-the-line, just because.

Which leads me to ask: How are we storing the expensive equipment? What is the service schedule? If this low hour used old Kubota is useless and “end of useful life” at 20-years, then are they going to similarly not care for a brand new one? Why not the bottom of the line? Why not another used Kubota, 20 years old with only 500 hours?

The document from Scott Curtin, Director of Public Works and Utilities, in his memo says: “The new unit will feature a 37hp clean-burning diesel engine that utilizes a diesel particulate filter.”

If equipment #5330 (disclosed in the same memo to be purchased in 2018 which would mean it was purchased used? ) is 20-years-old (built in 2005) it will, certainly, lack the Tier 4 emissions standards and not be originally equipped with a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). Depending on the engine configuration, it is possible to retrofit a DFP system. Has this been evaluated?

If the DPF is the ONLY reason for spending $49,633.93, it’s a poor one.

The usage hours of 4 hours a week during the five months of the year will make an infinitesimal difference even with a DFP to local air quality. It’s better to swap out a couple of old gas-powered whackers, for a couple of thousand bucks.

This should not be on the “Consent Agenda”. The part of the agenda where the council votes by not speaking up. The part of the agenda that is not examined in any way. Why is our council resorting to this kind of trickery?

The Kubota purchase request is fiscally unsound. It should not be approved by the City Council.

Return it to staff, to prepare a proper evaluation – including pictures, a mechanic’s evaluation of the problems, and a full list of the required repairs to take the existing Kubota MX5000 (#5330) back into service (if it is out). I’d certainly like to know how it is stored and see the maintenance records on this vehicle.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things $49,633.93 is peanuts in the eyes of the staff (and maybe our City Council). But is it necessary?

Here we are: our Mayor writes a letter to the state begging for money that we might lose from the Feds. Our sales tax revenue is down. Our lodging tax is down. Our economy is faltering. And the city keeps looking for new ways to increase their revenue (meaning from our pockets).

Shouldn’t the City Council’s focus be to tighten our fiscal belts? Staff shouldn’t get everything they want. This is a glaring example of how our city is a spendthrift.

(Spendthrift: spends money in an extravagant, irresponsible way.)