The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5K Purchase Easement Jetting Machine O � PRlp� ti � V � 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 �jNtvESO� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 AGENDA #: 5K PREPARED BY: Katy Gehler, Public Works & Natural Resources Director PRESENTED BY: Katy Gehler AGENDA ITEM: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of an Easement Jetting Machine DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to seek City Council approval for the re- placement of the following the easement jetting machine (Unit #770). Hi StOry The City owns and maintains approximately 113 miles of sanitary sewer pipe to collect and transport waste from Prior Lake. This pipe can range in age and material from older "bell and spigot" vitrified clay pipe to more modern sealed joint plastic pipe. Due to the material and joint type, clay or concrete pipe is more susceptible to cracking, root intrusions, and obstructions which ultimately impact the flow capacity and longevity of the pipe. To maintain flow in the pipe and limit the liability for sewer backups, the city regularly jets and televises sewers. Reduction of backups also limits the po- tential for overflows and accidental releases of sewage both overland and into water bodies. Jetting can also act as a visual type of inspection of the pipe condition. Root intrusions and offsets can be felt with the jetting tip, while wash water will show gravel bedding or soils entering the pipe through cracks or holes. Repairs can then be completed before complete failure of the pipe occurs causing an emergency situation and potentially added liability to the city. The League of Minnesota Cities completed an analysis of sewer backup claims in 2008. The overview of the findings is below. The entire report is at- tached. �V81VIeW Sewer backup claims comprise a significant portion of liability costs for the League of Min- nesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The average cost per claim of a sewer backup has increased steadily since 2000. In order to better understand how cities might prevent sewer claims, LMCIT recently conducted an analysis of sewer backup claims. The claims data clearly indicate that the most common reason for sewer backups was an obstruction in the sewer line. It is also evident that issues related to maintenance and in- spection were the primary reason for city liability in sewer backup claims. In addition, we know that some of the most costly claims, though occurring with less frequency, are those related to lift station problems and design/consfruction issues. What the study data does not appear to reveal is any particular claim pattern or trend on an annual basis that provides insight into the reason for rising costs. It seems that regardless of the cause of the sewer backup or reason for city liability, the average cost of sewer backups has increased as a whole over the past several years. As indicated in the �ndings below, the primary reason for the cause of sewer backups as well as the associated liability are remarkably evident in the study results. LMCIT staff was somewhat surprised that the claims data painted such a clear picture. But even more sur- prising, perhaps, were the causes that did not rise to the top of the list: Weather related in- cidents like extraordinary rainfall or lift station failure due to weather events were not a ma- jor cause of sewer backups. And while aging infrastructure is an ongoing concern for cities throughout the state, physical condition of the sewer line was not quite as notable a cause of sewer backups as we anticipated. Here are the main findings: • By far, the most prevalent and expensive cause of sewer backups among paid claims was an obstruction in the line. • The second most prevalent and costly cause of sewer backups was lift station problems. • Backups caused by the design/construction of the system had the second larg- esf inedian cost per claim (damages). • Sewer backup claims with multiple claimants were a great deal more costiv than those with a single claimant. • Issues related to maintenance and inspection were the primary reason for city li- abilitv in sewer backup claims. • There was no difference in the cause of sewer backups for claims in which the city was liable (paid claims) and for claims in which the city was NOT liable (zero-pay claims). Much of the 113 miles of sanitary sewer is located in the City's Right-of-way which allows staff to readily access manholes for routine and emergency maintenance utilizing our large jet-vac truck. The truck has a reach of approx- imately 300' from any roadway. However, approximately 10.3 miles lies in side yard or backyard easement ar- eas that is not accessible with the large jetting truck. To provide some typical examples, Portions of the Vierling property contain such lines, there is sewer along the lakeside on the Bolger/Shepherd property and the same is true along Northwood Road to mention a few. What is similar about these sewer lines is they are most often located on grades and have limited access through easements on private property. Very few are served by bituminous trails or other access roads which is important considering the weight of the jet-vac truck. These lines also tend to be the old- er clay or concrete pipe that is more susceptible to cracking and offsets mak- ing ideal conditions for root growth and infiltration from the surrounding high ground water levels. The attached map shows the easement sewer locations. n To complete maintenance of these sewers, the city acquired an easement jet- ting machine in 1992. The machine attaches to the jetting truck and extends the reach of the lines 600'. In addition it is sized to access these narrow, land- scaped areas that are not accessible with a full size vehicle. Current Circumstances The Equipment Replacement Plan is a tool which provides funds which are likely to be needed for vehicle and equipment acquisitions and refurbishing. Annually the plan is reviewed and updated based on the current condition of the City's fleet and approved as part of the CIP and budgeting process. As per state statute, all purchases over $20,000 are brought to the Council for final purchase authorization. For 2013 there are four pieces of equipment that are scheduled to be replaced that require council approval: 1. 1999 Ford F350 w/ Plow (Unit #457) Authorized April 8, 2013 2. 1999 Ford F350 w/ Plow (Unit #543) Authorized April 8, 2013 3. 1999 Ford F350 w/ Plow (Unit #545) Authorized April 8, 2013 4. 1990 Serco Extend-a-Jet (Unit#770) Prior to the recommendation for replacement or addition of vehicles and equipment, the following criteria are analyzed to determine whether a vehi- cle/equipment should be replaced, how and with what type: 1. Vehicle and Equipment Refurbishing 2. Lease, Rental and Borrowing Options 3. Equipment Zero Value Operations 4. Alternative Fuels 5. Vehicle and Equipment Scheduling Procedures 6. Equipment Partnerships 7. Investigation of Used vs. New 8. Alternative Annual Cost Analysis Our analysis is attached. Based upon our analysis, the council is being asked to authorize replacement of the easement jetting machine. Conclusion Based on the City's detailed vehicle and equipment needs and financial analy- sis, staff is recommending the purchase of the following: 1. 2011 JAJ-600WH Easement Jetting Machine (Unit #770) ISSUES: The attached analysis considers each piece of equipment in the following cat- egories: 1. Refurbishing 2. Lease/RentalOptions 3. Zero Value Operations 4. Alternative Fuel Analysis 5. Equipment Utilization 6. Equipment Partnerships 7. Used Equipment Options 8. Alternative Annual Cost Analysis FINANCIAL The Equipment Replacement Plan programmed and the Revolving Equipment IMPACT: Fund Budgeted $49,862 for the replacement of the easement machine. The replacement cost for the proposed vehicles is $48,996.84 which is $865.16 less than budgeted. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a resolution authorizing the purchase of the proposed equipment and trade in the existing equipment as detailed in this report. 2. Table this agenda item for a specific reason. 3. Deny this agenda item for a specific reason and provide staff with direc- tion. RECOMMENDED Alternative No. 1 MOTION: � O � PRIp� ti � 4646 Dakota Street SE `�tNx�so'� Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 13-xxx A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRADE IN AND REPLACEMENT OF 1990 SRECO EXTEND-A-JET EMSP-6 (UNIT 770) AND PURCHASE OF ONE 2011 JAJ-600WH EASEMENT MACHINE FROM MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, Each year the City Council adopts �an Equipment Replacement Plan as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and WHEREAS, The 2013 Equipment Replacement Plan contemplates the replacement of Unit #770, the 1990 Sreco EMSP-6; and WHEREAS, The 2013 Equipment Replacement Plan programmed $49,862 for the replacement of this equipment; and WHEREAS, A detailed needs and financial analysis has been completed and was included in the agenda report; and WHEREAS, Quotes were received through the State Purchasing Program and from local vendors. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Staff is authorized to trade-in the 1990 Sreco EMSP-6 (Unit #770) 3. Staff is authorized to purchase one 2011 JAJ-600WH Easement Machine from Mac Queen for a cost not to exceed $48,996.84 4. Funds will be drawn from the Revolving Equipment Funtl account # 410-49450-580 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 22�d DAY OF April 2013. YES NO Hedber Hedber Keene Keene McGuire McGuire Morton Morton Souku Souku Frank Boyles, City Manager o� j,EAGUE oF CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES Risk Management Information SEWER BACKUP CLAIMS ANALYSIS: 2003 to 2006 Overview Sewer backup claims comprise a significant portion of liability costs for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The average cost per claim of a sewer backup has increased steadily since 2000. In order to better understand how cities might prevent sewer claims, LMCIT recently conducted an analysis of sewer backup claims. The claims data clearly indicate that the most common reason for sewer backups was an obstruction in the sewer line. It is also evident that issues related to maintenance and inspection were the primary reason for city liability in sewer backup claims. In addition, we know that some of the most costly claims, though occurring with less frequency, are those related to lift station problems and design/construction issues. What the study data does not appear to reveal is any particular claim pattern or trend on an annual basis that provides insight into the reason for rising costs. It seems that regardless of the cause of the sewer backup or reason for city liability, the average cost of sewer backups has increased as a whole over the past several years. As indicated in the findings below, the primary reason for the cause of sewer backups as well as the associated liability are remarkably evident in the study results. LMCIT staff was somewhat surprised that the claims data painted such a clear picture. But even more surprising, perhaps, were the causes that did not rise to the top of the list: Weather related incidents like extraordinary rainfall or lift station failure due to weather events were not a major cause of sewer backups. And while aging infrastructure is an ongoing concern for cities throughout the state, physical condition of the sewer line was not yuite as notable a cause of sewer backups as we anticipated. Here are the main findings: ■ By far, the most prevalent and expensive cause of sewer backups among paid claims was an obstruction in the line. ■ The second most prevalent and costly cause of sewer backups was lift station problems. ■ Backups caused by the design/construction of the system had the second largest median cost per claim (damages). ■ Sewer backup claims with multiple claimants were a great deal more costiv than those with a single claimant. ■ Issues related to maintenance and inspection were the primary reason for city liabilitv in sewer backup claims. ' The median is the middle of a distribution: half the scores are above the median and half are below the median. The median is less sensitive to extreme scores than the mean and this makes it a better measure than the mean for highly skewed distributions. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 27 ■ There was no difference in the cause of sewer backups for claims in which the city was liable (paid claims) and for claims in which the city was NOT liable (zero-pay claims). Background The Property/Casualty (P/C) projected ultimate losses for the years 2000 to 2005 are estimated to be $22 million a year on average. From 2000 to 2005, liability comprised nearly half of P/C loss costs—approximately 48 percent. Among liability claims, there Percent of Claimants and Incurred Loss Costs are six categories that by Type of Liability: 2000 to 2006 comprise a majority (80 to 85 ss.o�� ---- — - percent) of loss costs. These 30 °°�° types of claims include sewers, �s�o� � � land use, employment, police �� zo.o� - -- - liability, administrative errors ,so� --- ----- & omissions, and streets & , o o,� _—_ __ _ sidewalks. Incurred loss costs s.o � —_ ___ _ include the expenses (e.g., o.o�ro legal) and damages that are Sewer BU & Land Use Employment Police All Other Ar�min E& O sveets paid or reserved for the claim. NF (All) ■ Percent of Loss Costs 0 Percent of Claimants Average Cost Per Claim for Sewer BU Claims: 2000to 200� Approximately 13 percent of LMCIT's total liability loss bi2.000 - - costs are attributed to sewer s�o.000 backup claims. With the $s,000 �_- �" exception of 2005, loss costs : ,�,��.-----'"" � since 2000 have been $1,600 as,000 "" per claimant, on average. $a.000 __ - �� Average claim costs in 2005 �z,000 � were higher as a result of several multi-claimant claims b with large dollar losses. 00 '01 '02 '03 '04 'OS '06 'D7 Avg Cost Per Cleim °-°-- Trond Lin• Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 28 Costs associated with sewer Number of Claims by Accident Year and Claim Status: baCkUp C�11ri1S h1Ve b0eri zooa to zoos increasing steadily over the past 400 -- �----- �-- -- �� several years. The data does not 35o su est that the number of claims soo — -- __ gg 2so — -- --- per year increased substantially 200 over the study time frame. Nor � 50 � � has the percentage of claims �< , � 50 �� resulting in liability increased. o �� "�f The gaph to the left shows the 2003 2004 2005 2oos proportion of "closed, with ■ Closed, With Damages ❑ Closed, Without Damages � Open Claims damages" remained fairly constant from 2003 to 2006. Overall, approximately 40 percent of claims each year close with damages incurred. We believe there are a couple of likely reasons for the ongoing increase in damage costs. One probable reason is that an increasing number of homeowners use their basements as added living area. These "finished" basements are likely to contain items of higher value than those things we have seen stored in basements in year's past. Another possibility is that society in general is more aware of the potential health issues associated with mold in one's home. As the need for more rigorous cleaning and replacement of certain materials following a sewer backup increases, the costs associated with these activities will continue to increase as well. Research Design The purpose of this project was to gain a better understanding of how and why sewer backups occur, in order to inform loss control efforts to limit the number and cost of claims. LMCIT staff reviewed more than 1,200 sewer backup claim files dated from 2003 to 2006. All sewer back-up claim files from this time period were reviewed, regardless of the outcome of the claim. Of the claim files reviewed, costs were incurred in 602 of the claims (i.e., paid claims for which the city was determined to be liable) and no cost was incurred for 637 claims (i.e., zero-pay claims for which the city was determined to NOT be liable). Two key pieces of information were collected from the sewer backup claim files: the rip marX cause of the sewer backup as documented in the claim file (e.g., root growth, lift station issues, system design/construction issues, etc.); and the rip marX reason the city was liable as documented in the claim file (e.g., inadequate maintenance/records, city response, known system deficiencies, etc.). This information was obtained from the online claim description and/or the paper claim files. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 29 Findings 1. By far, the most prevalent and expensive cause of sewer backups among paid claims tivas an obstruction in the l ine. Percent of Claims and Costs by Primary Cause of the Sewer BU for Paid Claims: S1Xty-t}1P00 ]�el'Cellt zoos to zaos (63.3%) of paid sewer �o.o . __ _az..�.__._______�.� backups from 2003 to so.o 2006 were caused by an so.o -- obstruction in the line. 40A -- -- ; �� ; -- so.o �°�� ---- � The different types of zo.o obstructions that caused �o.o �� ' sewer backups included Obstrudion in the lines Liit station pro6lem Designlconsiruction of F�traordinary rainfall Other rOOtS� foreign objects, ihe system concrete and sand, etc. o Percent of Claims � Percent of Costs 2. The second most prevalent and costly caa�se of sewer backups tivas lift station problems. Sewer backups caused by lift station problems occurred with considerably less frequency and were less costly overall compared to backups due to obstructions. Median claim costs (damages only) for backups caused by lift station problems, however, were the most expensive at nearly $6,000 per claim. Furthermore, median claim costs for lift station backups were nearly three times as expensive as those caused by obstructions ($2,312 per claim). Lift station problems were the cause of sewer backups in 15.3% of the paid claims. The total incurred cost for backups caused by lift station problems was $l.l million (18.8%). There were several different sub-sets of lift station problems captured in our study including weather related problems, equipment failures, and other lift station problems. Lift station problems attributed to equipment failure was the largest sub-category. Specifically, equipment failure at a lift station was the specified cause for 80% of backups in the lift station category. 3. Backups caused by the design/construction of the system had the second largest median cost per claim (damages). Backups caused by the design/construction of the sewer system occurred with the least frequency. However, the median claim cost (damages only) for backups of this nature was the second greatest at nearly $4,000 per claim. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 30 4. Setiver backup claims with multiple ciczimants were a great deal more costiv than those with a single claimant. Median Cost Per Claim By Cause of Back-Up and Type of Claim: The pr11111Cy TT1e�lSUCe USeC� f01' zoos �o Zoos this sewer backup study was s2oo,o00 — - --- — — - — -- — the claim. The claim $,so,000 represents either a single $,so,000 claimant or a group of $,ao,000 � �;, claimants represented by a $,zo,000 —� "` - � single claim. A claimant is an $,00,000 -—--- «' individual who has filed a Sao,000 ------- � � �� claim against the city. $so,000 '� Although the majority of the $ao,000 data collected for this study $�o,000 � �� was claim-based, we did $o Obstruction LiftStatlon DesigN &traordlnary Other Total �,Xll��j'e a'dh"]'dQe C�S't5' bV Construction Rainfall Y b .7 comparing single claimant m Single-Claimant Claim � Multi-Claimant Claim claims to multiple claimant claims in the primary cause categories. The data indicates that overall, multiple-claimant claims are considerably more expensive than single-claimant claims regardless of what caused the backup. Taking this one step further, the findings tell us sewer backups from lift station issues or design/construction of the system result in very costly claims. If we consider that, in general, claims related to lift stations and system design/construction are likely to impact a number of people and therefore result in multiple claimants, it seems logical that median claim costs for lift station and system design/construction claims are some of the highest. In addition, median claim costs for the extraordinary rainfall category are extremely large due to several severe storm events which triggered four sewer back-up claims with multiple claimants who experienced significant amounts of damage. 5. Issues related to maintenartce and inspection were the primary reason for city liabili in sewer backup claims. Problems associated with the maintenance and inspection of sewer lines were the primary reason for city liability in 55.3% of paid claims. Total costs incurred due to maintenance and inspection issues were $2.4 million (40.7%). While staff certainly anticipated maintenance and inspection would be found among the top reasons for city liability, the extent to which maintenance and inspection issues played out in the data was unexpected. City liability due to lift station issues was of note, but again, not at the level we predicted. One of the issues staff watched closely throughout the study included liability related to city response to a sewer backup. We found that liability associated with this category was minimal. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 31 6. There was no d�erence in the cause of sewer backups for claims in which the ciry was liable (paid claims) and for claims in tivhich the city was NOT liable (zero pay claims). Sewer backups in Minnesota appear to be attributable to the same types of "causes" regardless of whether the city was found to be liable for the backup. That is, we found little difference in the cause of backups regardless of whether the claim had incurred costs. Zero-pay claims, ar those for which the city was determined not to be liable far the backup, were also primarily caused by an obstruction in the line. Nearly 67% of backups for which the city was not liable and no damages were paid can be attributed to an obstruction in the line, compared to 66% of paid claims. The above piece of information is perhaps the most confounding in the entire study. It begs the question, "Why were cities liable in some cases and not in others?" The most likely answer is that even though the sewer backup occurred, the city in question probably had reasonable policies and procedures in place and followed them leading up to and after the backup. As such, the city was not liable because it had the proper documentation and procedures in place and actually followed them. Plan of Action We now know the primary reason for sewer backups and for city liability related to sewer backups for claims filed from 2003-2006. LMCIT staff believes that losses can be better controlled in both of these areas by developing training and materials that will enable cities to: 1) establish the policies and procedures needed for adequate maintenance and inspection of the city's sanitary sewer system; and 2) to properly document actions such as maintenance, inspection and communication to limit city liability. Unfortunately, improved maintenance and inspection policies and procedures are unlikely to reduce the number of claims resulting from lift station problems and design/construction issues. To address this area of claims it will be necessary to work with cities from an operations perspective. Next steps might involve conferring with city engineers and public works directors to identify what cities are doing now and determine what they could do differently to prevent backups as well as limit liability in this area. For additional information, please contact Tracie Chamberlin, LMCIT Loss Control Manager, at 651-281-1210 or tchamberlin a,lmc•or� or Mandy Clemenson, RiskDataAnalyst, at 651-281-1272 or mclemensonn,lmc.org. Mandy Clemenson 03/08 Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 32 �� `' � �� ' � °. � � � � �� .,� � �,, � � � °� �� , r m��e� - . � � _ _ , � � � �� : � � - _ � � � � , ,, ' � � � � f � - `, �� ,,: � � _ r, \\ � u e �. I_ � ,_ . � ., y��E � ; � . v. ss � ��a , �, r s - e � �� - �, f c� y ... ..� . e `F . �. �� ' L� > r & �� _ .- .. . � i F� � - 8 � � � v n . r . _ �' 2 : t ❑ �,� ' ti � � � b ❑_� � c ... �� ,,. � � ' �� ,- , d_ ,� �r � , _ s a�yeo . ; �< e � - � a � = s�o, � . �, � � � � _ - - — � _ F � . > _ � . Aoa,s �a �, _ � d m, : � � � -, � o � , - �, � ° � „ � � y� . � , d o, � � ❑ - � � � , 3_ , � d y ; m � . „ F. . ,,..� � . � _ � � � _ � .,, . �� .,. � - ., a,.e�,se �,a � �- � . a� d a�_s= � � ,�w ` � E _ � � :� � � , - _� - e 6��A �� i= _ � � � _ s = �� a �. � G o � .. # P e�Pn `' "NV ^ .. � . 31r�a�- � �� ~ N.. .� �I n � = � n 3 y � � 2 = 3 i n. I i. , , . � c; y a ' �' c �� a : •�, � � � � _ ; _ , � e ' s � „ __ t x s ` ' z ` �" , � . _._ F � a. c �j - ..�.,.�. � ' . o � iow�� . ° �. �J 0 e t �f s ._ " �� o m q � � c°` 5f ° •• `� �: . y �. b a� . .. u i` A u� _ � "i�] ° P „ � a�' � �1 � � � . , ,� g —� � � � „E,_ �� . � w� � � � : � u __J �i � 't � � ; �, y �, � �. . . "' e j � .. � . . \ € c�� `", - � ; � F s ;.� � } : ; , ; ��,.,. ,_ — , � ; � - � � � � � � � ' � w — E o �' M ~ O .�. c ...... � _� N I � � W E a � m 6 J 3 ��/a �' � � ; L � a ? '� m d o °� � aW� � ��ao- � C O � W -' H c m � Z � N ; a ' c N �� a Q � � � p � � c � � � � � � � � � Q ` � ` > {0 F- ° N ` C /��kF x lL 0 � p 11J d p � /� �Q � Q y� W J LL C.� J � ° U � }' s. J � � � I / �� U � .,,.. .. ... ' ✓ � �21) � � o � � PRio� . � � EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ANALYSIS v � 4646 Dakota Street SE #77O EASEMENT MACHINE Prior Lake, MN 55372 'ttj NNESp� P �'�"'�.� � ' � � '� , 1 `—�.,� t� �a � �"�'�� , : t � ¢�� , � ,�' _ .,, �� ,, f .� � $ c_� it.�w...�._. r'� �. . ' � '� � a„� .t, ,�� -�� fi�: �� . � � � :: � �� r � �a�:�l�� _ �:,�, ,., � �%�� a� t� , fl/ � . �� i �� P � ;. i� � ..o X`� �' � r�� , � x 3� � , � { � , ., o �.., .. ,� 70 n � � € i *'�*�., „ ; � . � , ��: � . �� '� �� / � w. - � � � ' � ; �r. � � , � �, ..� ,! .�- . p . . : s .�, , ._,. „�.e. ��s � „ � g � � a � i �� : �' � ' ,.�y �'r�r Sr t �. ` � �� ; � %3 i i � � � t �� ! S�tt3yj )� � .'R �� ,r, � � d �� .� � g ��'�� a � � s + j = '�i f �� S ' �� ,`�' Y ' ;��.'`��:,. � rk ��iD"� sa��s c. ��y �+'�. '`!%' �� j �� ' �� d � ' � f �� , ' . � //w��/� s+" � 3':�. :�:r�4�,1� .' Unit #770 is utilized by utility staff to extend the functionality of the jetting truck for maintaining the operational integrity of the sewer system. The jetting truck has a useful reach of about 300'. There are about 10.3 miles of sewer in the city that is located in backyard easements along the lake or in low areas that cannot be jetted using the large jetting truck. The easement machine allows for access to these areas that are typically landscaped and more susceptible to damage by certain equipment.. The existing 1990 Sreco EMSP Easement Machine is 23 years old and has accumulated 1300 hours. Due to its age, the machine has developed several mechanical issues including the hydraulic drive and steering systems. Outside of the mechanical repairs needed, the machine has proven to have some operational and safety deficiencies which has significantly limited its use. 1. High center of gravity — The machine is a wheeled style that has a high center of gravity. This machine has been prone to rolling on the moderate slopes it must navigate to access the sewers. 2. Hydraulic overflows — The location of the hydraulic fluid input and tank allow spillage of fluid from the machine on certain slopes. 3. Steering — The unit cannot be easily maneuvered and has been prone to damaging sodded areas. 4. Rough terrain — Some of the terrain that must be accessed is rough or sandy areas. The wheels do not allow easy access to this terrain. Due to the challenges with the current style of machine, staff investigated a track style machine to compare to the wheeled unit. The track machine offers the following benefits: 1. Center of gravity — The center of gravity is lower with the track machine. In addition the tracks can adjust from 34" wide to 46" wide allowing greater stability on steeper slopes. Page 1 of 4 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ANALYSIS #77O EASEMENT MACHINE 2. Skid Style Steering – The skid style steering allows the tracks to be controlled independently for greater ease of operation and maneuverability. 3. Ground Pressure – The unit has crawler type rubber tracks which disperse the load of the machine across a greater area lowering the overall ground pressure significantly reducing the potential for damage to homeowner yards. 4. Rough Terrain – The tracks can operate on rough and soft terrain. 5. Pressure Release – The unit is equipped with a water pressure gauge and relief valve at the operator station to prevent damage to the hose and provide operator safety. 6. Auto Levelwind – The unit is equipped with a levelwind that allows for adjustment of the hose during operation to most efficiently access the manhole and provides for operator safety when winding the hose. • ' .-;,-� d;� • o •. i�� '�.;: � J aJ-FOOR7-I R'm•k Horse Easement JIac6lne . _ WORK-HORSE _ _ � e»� .`� ,f .. �'` , �� , � F � F �.. '� �, :. � •...-- , . � � � � , � a4 '� ,� `�''��. E'—� � � , t '�, r.� � . , � 34" ; � " '� � � i �._. �', `�:�' � � , ,- ( / / � 1 � 5 i t l � R �h ` �� ` ��S � F }� � Y t i Y � � � :t . � , 400 � , _ 1' � 30° _� � + ' " � b -rhe 9 inch �`ide tracks estend h} from 3� inches to 461nches. -This increases the degree of angle or slope f►•om 17 degrees to 3U degrees. (See dra«'in� abo��e) -Tl�ls allo«s the unit to enter a 36 inch gate to reach a back ��urd easement and g1�•es 46 " the added staUlllh� to access easements in rough terrain ai�eas. In accordance with the City's purchasing policy, bids were solicited through the State of Minnesota Purchasing Program. Quotes were received from Flexible Pipe Tool Company representing Sreco and MacQueen Equipment representing Sewer Equipment Company of America. The bids/quotes were as follows: Flexible Tool MacQueen Vendor Pipe (State Bid) State Bid Model Sreco EMSP-6 JAJ-600 Wheeled Track Price $39,577.00 $64,374.00 Trade-in $2,000.00 $3,500.00 Sub-total $37,577.00 $60,875.00 Tax $2,583.42 $4,185.16 Total $40,160.42 $65,060.16 Page 2 of 4 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ANALYSIS #77O EASEMENT MACHINE A detailed eight step analysis is completed for the purchase of all replacement or new equipment. The analysis below summarizes the results of this process. I. Refurbishinq Analvsis: The 1990 Sreco EMSP-6 (Unit #770) needs $24,400.00 in repairs to be retained and operational for its intended use. Currently this unit is 23 years old and has accumulated 1300 hours. To refurbish and extend the life expectancy of this unit is not cost effective. Summary of Needed Repairs for the Existin 1990 Sreco EMSP-6 Needed Repairs Grand Total Re airs/Parts Replace Hydraulic Drive and Steering System $11,875.00 Mechanical Repairs $1,700.00 Replace wheels and outriggers $1,625.00 Replace Hoses $1,700.00 Subtotal for Parts $16,900.00 Labor $7,500.00 Total $24,400.00 II. Lease/Rental Options: The easement jetter is a highly specialized piece of equipment with limited use. Due to the low usage, staff explored rental and contracted services options. The City has about 18,000 I.f. of sanitary sewer in easement areas that should be jetted each year. This work could be accomplished in about 80 hours of work time. Contracted Services — Staff explored the use of contracted services. Rates ranged from $1.35-$1.45 per linear foot of sewer. This equates to about $24,300 annually. Rental - These machine are very rare, therefore we were not able to find a vendor with a rental unit in Minnesota. It also should be noted that this machine is used in emergency situations throughout the year. If contracted services or rental were utilized, we would have limited access to a machine during potential backups and overflows when time is of the essence. III. Zero Value Operation: This piece of equipment is beyond its life expectancy for its intended purpose and needs significant repairs to remain safely in use. Initial repairs have been estimated at $24,400. In addition, the unit is dated and will continue to have operational safety issues. At this time, the City will receive a trade-in value of $3,500.00. IV. Alternative Fuel Analvsis: This piece of equipment operates on a 20 HP gas engine. V. Equipment Utilization: This piece of equipment has a highly specialized use forjetting sewers. However, staff also uses the jetting equipment to address sedimentation in storm sewers and thaw frozen culverts and pipes during the spring melt to alleviate flooding. Likewise, this piece of equipment can be used in easement areas and other off road locations for similar uses. If the track machine is purchased, staff will be able to access easement areas in both summer and winter conditions. Page 3 of 4 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ANALYSIS #77O EASEMENT MACHINE VI. Equipment Partnership: The city contacted the cities of Savage and Shakopee and the SMSC to explore potential collaborations. All entities responded that they have more limited easement jetting needs and are able to address this maintenance with the equipment they currently own, therefore do not see an opportunity for a joint venture at this time. Staff will continue to explore equipment partnerships with our regional partners. VII. Used Equipment Options: Staff explored used equipment options. MacQueen Equipment has a JAJ-600WH (track style) demonstration unit available for sale. The unit would come with the same full one-year warranty as a new machine. The full cost comparison is shown below. Flexible Tool MacQueen MacQueen Vendor Pipe (State Bid) �Demo Unitj State Bid Model Sreco EMSP-6 JAJ-600WH JAJ-600WH Wheeled Track Track Price $39,577.00 $64,374.00 $49,345.00 Trade-in $2,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Sub-total $37,577.00 $60,875.00 $45,845.00 Tax $2,583.42 $4,185.16 $3,151.84 Total $40,160.42 $65,060.16 $48,996.84 VIII. Alternative Annual Cost Analvsis Based on the options analyzed, the lowest annual cost option is to purchase an easement machine. While the tracked machine is more expensive per year than the wheeled machine, we believe that the year around flexibility it affords, coupled with the safety created by lower center of gravity, improved traction and wider wheel base represent a safety piece of equipment for city use in the next decade. Present Initial Cost Value Annual Annual Includes Future Life Maintenance Interest Cost Trade Trade (Years) Cost Rate % A/P Operation New - Track Machine $48,996.84 $3,000.00 20 $426.34 2% 0.0612 $3,241.35 New — Wheeled $40,160.42 $3,000.00 20 $426.34 2% 0.0612 $2,700.56 Refurbish $24,400.00 $3,000.00 5 $426.34 2% 0.2212 $5,160.02 Rental NOT AVAILABLE Contracted Service 18,000 I.f. of sanitary sewer per year @$1.35 $24,300.00 RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, the lowest annual cost option that meets the City's needs is to replace the existing 1990 Sreco EMSP-6 Easement Jetting Machine. The demo track machine from MacQueen Equipment is being recommended as it significantly increases the safety for operators of the equipment as well as provides increased functionality allowing for greater usage. MacQueen submitted a quote for the demonstration unit of $48,996.84. Staff is recommending this vendor. The 2013 Equipment Plan budgeted $49,862 for this purchase. Page 4 of 4