More Regulation > More Billable Time > Mo Money
More Regulation > More Billable Time > Mo Money
Which puts a damper on the whole process, and robs property owners of bona fide rights (makes their property less valuable or more difficult to use). In the end reducing profitability hurts everyone involved in the process.
That thinking was exactly what the inspector said to me (waving generally in the direction of the houses) as I needlessly measured the elevation on the top of the water meter inside the box...as if there is an unlimited amount of money in the profit of a house.
Which puts a damper on the whole process
To be fair, I'm sitting in an office where my crews can easily reach 10 of the 25 wealthiest counties (2020 census median household income) in the country. So, my market is unique. But it's also a highly regulated area for development and the only thing slowing it down is lack of qualified professionals to do the work. If you gave me six crews, three solid techs, and two licensed surveyors today I could build enough business to have them fully utilized in 90 days.
I had a meeting last week with the Mid-Atlantic VP of a production homebuilder who moved into this area three years ago (they're in half a dozen eastern states). They are looking at 100 settlements this year and 400-500 in 2024.
Most municipalities require us to perform as-builts of water, sewer and storm systems and they must be on 83/88 datum. We get paid for the work but what is really going on is that they are forcing the developers to build their GIS for them.
what is really going on is that they are forcing the developers to build their GIS for them
The alternative is for the city to hire a lot of survey staff to go around and populate their GIS. Do you think that would be cheaper?
Whew. More reasons to stay where I am. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureacracy is insanity at its worst.
We get paid for the work but what is really going on is that they are forcing the developers to build their GIS for them.
That GIS is going to get built in any case. If a city or muni has to do it themselves, that cost is getting borne by the taxpayers. If they require the developer to do it, they will pass the cost on to the purchasers, and property values (and thus taxes on those properties) will be higher. It's getting paid for either way.
Doing it during the construction process is usually a lot more streamlined and less costly (and likely more accurate too) than a municipality going back out and tying in all those structures themselves, or contracting a totally different third-party outfit to go back out there after everything has been built.
Considering how useful it is to have utilities information at our fingertips during the planning, survey and design phases, I'd say that building and maintaining the GIS is well worth it.
I spent 30 years on the private side before crossing over to the dark side 3 years ago. On the private side projects come and projects go. On the public side the projects have no beginning and no end.
The as-built data gets used, daily. Mostly at the end of the service life. So we are commonly dealing with as-builts from the 1970's and spending a great deal on vacuum excavators. It will take a while for this data you are collecting today to pay off. But it will pay off.
The alternative is for the city to hire a lot of survey staff to go around and populate their GIS. Do you think that would be cheaper?
Why do the programmers at the GIS company get to decide that information that has never been used, and never will be used...well, it must be obtained?
Take the minimum needed. Just because we can, that doesn't mean we should and need to. And, that means that we should assess the real value vs cost of anything. Too often the purveyors spend other people's money simply because they can.
Considering how useful it is to have utilities information at our fingertips during the planning, survey and design phases, I'd say that building and maintaining the GIS is well worth it.
I agree for those purveyors that share the data...some think that a second 9-11 will occur if they share it...
I don't think it's required around here. I've only as-built anything a few times and they were always one-of requests.
The primary cities we work in vary with as-built requirements. SOme require surveyed GIS data, others just go collect the features themselves with other require the standard as-built drawings all water and sewer plans must have. The ole standard as-built drawings are the worst because they aren't as-builts in the sense the the features were actually as-built. It usually amounts to the inspector making redline notes on the working set about how things moved during construction and then the drafter making appropriate changes and calling them as-builts. It meet the letter of the law in regards to meeting the state agency requirements, but it's a far cry from an actual as-built.
Unfortunately most engineers don't know the difference, that's the way it's always been done.
It used to be just storm and sanitary sewer as-builts. In some municipalities, you might as well just to do a complete post-construction topo of the subdivision. Problem is that the builder has tons of cash tied up in escrow so they want you out there as soon as something is completed so you can get it located and turned into the inspector. If it passes, they get some money back.
Why do the programmers at the GIS company get to decide that information that has never been used, and never will be used..
GIS systems are user customized. If the software is asking for certain data, it is because the user has set it up that way.
I will admit that the tendency among GIS techs setting up these things - the ones I work with, at least - is to attempt to capture more detailed data than is likely to be used. I suggest that you take your complaints to the Engineering Manager and GIS Department Lead of your fair city.
I suggest that you take your complaints to the Engineering Manager and GIS Department Lead of your fair city.
That would be a full time job. I have projects that touch a dozen of purveyors with constantly more cumbersome as-built requirements, and I moved from a job where that number would have been been double. And, that is why I am bothering to discuss with you. I apologize if it seems like an attack, but you have the rare chance to have common sense applied to a municipalities process and requirements. Might be dangerous, because people might get used to it.
I believe it is flawed thinking for public servant to think that if something makes their job easier, cheaper, and faster that it is automatically a benefit worth the cost for the taxpayer/ratepayer.
