The Biden Administration along with a list of Chicago and Illinois officeholders proudly announced on November 3 that the federal government will lend Chicago $336 million to replace “up to” 30,000 lead water service lines. Those are just the lines connecting a home or other property to the main service line.
Under the terms of that loan, Chicago will match that $336 million with its own funds in the same amount, which it will borrow through a bond offering, according to reports in the Chicago Tribune and Axios.
That’s $672 million for 30,000 service lines, or over $22,500 per line for the city to pay.
Sheesh. Good work if you can get it.
And to cover the 400,000 service lines that need replacement, that means the cost to the city will be a stunning $9 billion, which is indeed the total cost the city says it faces.
The point here is not to question the importance of replacing lead pipes for drinking water. It’s whether the city is paying far more than it should.
How many more Chicagoans would have their lead pipes replaced sooner if the city wasn’t overpaying so badly?
Salute to one of our commenters, who goes by “Where’s Mine?,” who did the math and noticed this and brought it to our attention.
Why the cost should be so high is beyond me, but here’s that commenter’s explanation: “For the millionth time, City Water Dept crews replacing lead water lines on a T&M basis with no questions asked vs. competitively bid to private contractors has to be one of the greatest fly radar pork barrel projects in city history!! The payday $motherload$ for huge dem machine political contributors the Operating Engineers union.”
-Mark Glennon
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
The pipes are calling…..
Graft is baked into every public work project in Chicago; taxpayers stuck with the bill, year after year, decade after decade. Zero fiscal accountability by for Chicago expenditures appears to be governing rule of law here.
Local media dutifully publishes the identified cost, never dates to question price.
The Plumbers Union is giddy over these costs…especially since they were complicit in installing these lead lines.
My line in western Cook County was replaced at a cost of about $5,000 a few years back.
That would have been about my guess for the suburbs. Maybe a little more for the city, say $7K or so — less than a third of what the city is paying. If anybody else has experience with this please chime in.
FYI: Says here waterline replacement is $2k – $5k in Chicago
https://www.chicagoplumbingexperts.com/benefits-of-a-water-line-replacement-in-chicago/#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20a%20water,equipment%20that%20may%20be%20needed.
I think you have to look at what other big cities with union labor are spending for lead water service replacement and how they’re awarding contracts. I googled around, amazingly most of the articles are about Chicago. But here are a couple: Detroit’s competitively bidding lead water service replacement at projected $8k to $10k a replacement (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2023/05/12/detroit-to-restore-10000-water-service-lines-annually/70211637007/) NYC projected cost at $8.8k per lead water service replacement(https://nylcvef.org/citizens-toolkit/new-report-no-excuses-nyc-replace-lead-drinking-water-pipes-now/) I’m sure every cities situation is different? Maybe if City of Chicago has to tear up the streets and are running new water service all the way to main in street vrs just… Read more »
Does city have any contact agreement with Water Dept to replace lead water service lines? Maybe this is a stretch, but with passage of Amendment 1, do city Water Dept workers/union have a contractual lock on lead water service line replacement work? And the city can’t competively bid out this work?
I believe they are only replacing lead service line from “buffalo box” shutoff valve in parkway to directly inside property. In most cases replacement probably doesn’t involve digging up the street. Maybe removing a tree or section of sidewalk in some cases. For my house that’s about 15′. But other issues that come to mind: Has city ever bothered to explored how other cities are replacing lead service lines for cost effectiveness? Or just handed over to city Water Dept? I’m sure if city Water Dept crews are replacing lead service lines at $22,500 ea or whatever it wont include… Read more »
and most depressing nobody in press ever questions if 30,000 lead service lines are replaced at $22,500 ea or $8,000 ea?
There are 2,006 employees in Chicago’s Department of Water Management, according to the city’s data portal website. Let’s assume the department diverts all its efforts to solving the lead pipe crisis. After all, lead is TOXIC and this may be the city’s largest deferred maintenance project short of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Each project needs a foreman, a heavy equipment operator, 1-2 pipefitters, a couple laborers. Let’s assume five to a crew. Let’s assume 90% are on the street working daily (somebody needs to stay in the office and push paper). That suggests 1,800 employees are on the streets,… Read more »
Absolutely dead on. The city doesn’t have the labor capacity to do anything but delay and inspect the project. It must be competitive and awarded to multiple bidders with milestones on completion and financial milestones. All old cities have lead and it’s because it lasts forever. It’s easier to get your family tested annually which is we did knowing the mainline coming into the house from the beadbox was always lead. The house we entirely replaced the galvanized with copper. Financially I would question whether if is even feasible
Just like CHA and IHDA affordable housing costs, IDOT and CDOT paving costs, Metra and CTA repair costs– minimum 50% more than it should be and probably worse.
Take that figure and divide it by 3 and you will be closer to what it should actually cost. My experience as a municipal supervisor has proven time and again that prevailing wage laws will triple the cost of any project
As someone who has had to bid on government contracts for work, I can tell you that the requirements that the bureaucrats impose are so onerous compared to the private sector that it requires the bids be very high just to make any money.
Here’s how one firm does it who happens to be friendly with the powers to be. When the specs for the contract are drawn up you ask them to put in some onerous specs. Such as requiring that the plans be from a licensed engineer where normally that type of job wouldn’t require it. That’s a considerable expense for a small firm which they need to add to their bid. The larger firm doesn’t need to add that cost because they have one on staff.
This water line replacement would be excellent workfare for the illegals being tended to. Chicago needs more ditch diggers.
I’d be curious to see the breakdown of labor between the plumbers and operating engineers. Does it cost more to dig or change out pipes?