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
Chair DeBenedet opined that this is one project needing recondition of all pipes in <br />the system that are clay or reinforced concrete sewer mains; and with more than <br />100 miles of pipe, it would take a minimum of twenty (20) years to accomplish <br />the task. <br />Mr. Schwartz estimated closer to thirty (30) years; but the City was only taking <br />the first twenty (20) years into consideration at this time. <br />Member Felice questioned the life expectancy of new materials and whether they <br />had been used long enough to know an accurate history on their lives. <br />different types of materials and their life <br />providing a vast difference in predicted 1 <br />historically proven at this time. <br />year range before completion of the <br />Chair DeBenedet opined f <br />backups that would increa <br />Chair DeBenedet noted th <br />3A provided a listing for all <br />with sewer lining material <br />; however, not <br />ve reached the 80- <br />-term CIP <br />ka�4es and infiltration or sewer <br />o major failures anticipated. <br />eement on life expectancy <br />�e ility of the service would <br />the capital replacement <br />cal issue with no public <br />'s infrastructure. <br />the Metropolitan Council was the <br />e, since lection of Sewer Availability Charges <br />their CIP program; however, their revenues had <br />with downturn in the economy and new buildings. <br />advised that they were shifting their CIP costs onto their <br />that, as sewer systems continue to age and leak more, that <br />overflow passed iiMo wastewater treatment plants; and as they couldn't treat it, <br />they were only able to partially treat that flow before it got to the river, creating <br />violations of environmental permitting requirements. Chair DeBenedet noted the <br />need to address that, as a society and from an environmental standpoint, before <br />that happened, and that could be accomplished by planning ahead. Chair <br />DeBenedet opined that the SAC charges were the best planning tool available, <br />allowing wastewater treatment plans to be installed to accommodate additional <br />capacity for new construction. However, if that new construction wasn't <br />happening, Chair DeBenedet noted that the treatment plan may have more useful <br />years, but lacked revenue to support its operations. <br />Page 6 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.