My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/22/2011 3:54:22 PM
Creation date
9/22/2011 3:44:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/27/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
perspective; he further opined that good governance required that this burden not <br />be deferred to the next generation or the responsibility of the next City Council. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the "kick the can down the road" approach to <br />financial responsibility was not working at a federal or state level, and that it <br />wouldn't work locally either. Member Vanderwall spoke in support of a "pay as <br />you go" approach was much more prudent. <br />Member Vanderwall provided a personal analogy with his townhome association <br />and lack of adequate capital funding; with the Board's Finance Committee <br />suggesting at 35% increase in monthly dues, 6 x's the current rate; and likened <br />this to that situation. Member Vanderwall opined t if another ten (10) years <br />went by before addressing this CIP need, it wo be more expensive; in <br />addition to the ongoing repairs and emerg <br />span. <br />Member Vanderwall recognized tha <br />essentially a hidden cost, since m <br />sees it when its working properly or <br />problem developed or it wasn't worki <br />pay more outX,ber projected rate avoidXotentially <br />dence <br />d added costs over that time <br />is prob c, since it is <br />is <br />is and und. and no one <br />vely; aid only be obvious when <br />community's excitement to <br />itiv s being recommended by this <br />avoid ier and more major issues <br />now, there was some idea of what you <br />if CIP needs continued, it created too <br />ell citizens they were going to need to <br />Fd that there was a good reason for this <br />infrastructure the City owned; and to <br />of the system. <br />that the only way this rate increase could be <br />challenge f the C' as spending too much repairing the infrastructure due to <br />lack of goo a t of that resource. Member Gjerdingen advised that his <br />only question careful the analysis had been and how accurate the <br />numbers. <br />Chair DeBenedet, based on his extensive background in Civil Engineering, his <br />review of plans and specifications for many infrastructure systems, and his first- <br />hand experience in working with his plumber father, and opined that the <br />infrastructure issues currently needing addressed were not a surprise to him. <br />Chair DeBenedet advised that installations and materials used in the 1960's would <br />no longer be used based on changes in the industry and technology improvements. <br />Chair DeBenedet noted that the City of Roseville was not the only community <br />Page 9 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.