Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Algoma committee fails to recommend $107,000 sewer crawler camera after split vote
Summary
A motion to recommend purchase of a $107,000 crawler sewer camera failed 5–3 after staff described capabilities and a projected five-year payback while some members voiced budget-timing concerns.
Get email alerts on the Sewer Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A motion to recommend that Algoma’s council approve purchasing a crawler sewer camera—designed for larger sanitary and storm mains—failed on a 5–3 vote after committee members questioned the timing and cost.
Public works staff told the committee the crawler camera, priced at about $107,000–$108,000, can inspect large mains and produce GIS-linked records, and estimated it would "pay itself back in approximately 5 years" by replacing contracted televising that costs roughly $20,000 a year. Staff also noted software updates and mapping features that would help locate laterals, sagging pipe and water levels more precisely.
The staff presentation described how current televising is often contracted at roughly $1,500 for 150 feet and that the city spent as much as $35,000–$40,000 in prior years on outside televising. Staff said approximately $40,000 of the purchase could come from the wastewater treatment fund (ratepayer-funded and restricted to sewer work) with the remainder coming from other budget lines; committee members asked for a clearer historical breakout of televising expenses.
Some members expressed concern about committing money now, citing $4 million in planned capital projects over the next three years. One committee member argued the device would reduce long-term cost and improve recordkeeping, while others said the timing and competing year-end needs made a large purchase difficult to justify.
Motion by Casey; second by Lee. The clerk read the roll-call votes as recorded in the meeting transcript; the motion failed by a vote of 5 to 3. Public works had recommended the purchase by a 3–1 vote at its committee meeting (with two members absent).
The committee did not adopt the recommendation, and staff said the issue could be revisited after further budget review and if members choose to bring a purchase request back to a future meeting.

