R2005-50 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� ATTACHMENT "A" Report on the Cost of an In-house Sewer Televising Inspection Program The Department of Engineering & Infrastructure has evaluated the cost benefits to the City of implementing an in-house sewer televising inspection program. City Council at one of its recent meetings asked whether it would be more cost effective to perform this work in-house with City personnel in-lieu of contracting the work to a private company. The information obtained from this program is used by City staff to plan,budget and make sewer repairs. A study was done in 1997 by a staff inember of the former Department of Public Works after the start of the City's first annual inspection program that same year. The 1997 study was based on a lower level of service and quality than is currently being performed by the City's inspection company. This study concluded that it was not cost effective, at that time, for the City to do this work in-house given the length of sewer being inspected. The annual inspection program in its first few years ranged from about 50,000 to 100,000 feet of sewer being televised per year. About three years ago City staff decided that this amount should be increased to 200,000 to 300,000 feet per year. This decision was based on the need to expedite the collection of information on the condition of the City's existing sewer system for use in planning and budgeting sewer repairs. The funding for this increased inspection work has been programmed in the Sewer Fund approved by City Council as part of the budget process each year. The significant increase in footage now being inspected annually by the City provides reasonable cause to reevaluate the cost benefits of performing this work in-house. Our reevaluation involved determining the staffing, materials, vehicle and equipment necessary to implement an in-house program. The program was patterned largely after that of the company doing the City's inspection. This was done to provide a comparable level of service and quality to what the City currently obtains through its contracted services. In addition, it provided a good basis from which to estimate the needed staffing and equipment needs. As part of the reevaluation process staff made inquiries of 13 area communities to ask if they operated in-house sewer televising inspection programs. All 13 communities contacted have in- house inspection programs but to varying levels of service. This does give reason to question why other comparable cities have in-house programs when the City doesn't. City staff generally concluded that in our case we have a local company that can provide a high level of responsive service meeting our needs and expectations which is not the case in the other cities. If we did not have a local company, our costs would be higher to offset transportation costs from another outside locale. Field visits were made to Champaign, Urbana, Springfield, Bloomington and the Peoria Sanitary District to observe and ask questions about the staffing, equipment and operations for their programs. This was done to provide a comparison to the program staff prepared for the City's in-house program. In general, the program developed by staff is more detail oriented and includes more footage being inspected on an annual basis than in the other communities. This is largely attributed to the other communities having had programs in place for a longer period of 1 of 3