Normally the City encourages the outright purchase of equipment as opposed to lease, lease-purchase, rental, or rental-purchase agreements. In most situations, the outright purchase will prove to be the most economical if calculated over the useful life of the product. However, there may be certain situations that warrant further investigation of lease or rental options. These situations are summarized as follows:
(1) Short-term or seasonal needs for equipment may dictate that purchase is unreasonable. If the period of need for the equipment is substantially less than its anticipated useful life expectancy, then rental or lease options should be investigated and compared to the purchase cost less the anticipated resale value.
(2) In case of highly technical equipment, whose useful life cannot be accurately projected, and lease or rental options are offered through the manufacturer, the distributor or third parties may be investigated as a viable alternative to purchase. In such situations analytical comparisons of purchase, lease or rental options should be made to determine which represents the best interest of the City.
(3) Ancillary benefits of the lease or rental (maintenance costs, upgrades, vendor promotions, special marketing incentives) and situations where the net additional cost of lease or rental is less than the cost of money make that type of arrangement the more prudent investment.
When initiating a requisition for the lease, lease-purchase or long-term rental of equipment, the originating department should clearly explain the necessity or desirability of that type of arrangement. |
Departments should first attempt to find the necessary funds from internal resources. If no such internal options exist, evaluate existing payment options to determine the most effective course of action for the City. If it is determined that a loan option is cost effective, the department head should request approval through the City Manager. |
(Ord. 314 § 10, 2014)