My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/27/2011 9:39:58 AM
Creation date
10/27/2011 9:39:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/27/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Member Vanderwall clarified that the intent was for a comprehensive and <br /> standard asset management system and cost-sharing of such a system across the <br /> board for all City assets, above and below ground. <br /> Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that with the Parks Master Plan Phase I <br /> Implementation being initiatives, the timing was right to build a history for those <br /> assets and their replacement, including their initial cost, maintenance and other <br /> items right from the start; with many management programs having a very broad <br /> perspective that included rolling stock(vehicles and equipment), facilities, <br /> infrastructure, park assets, trees, signs, etc.; most of which were GIS-based and <br /> allowing for easy and understandable presentations graphically from the data. <br /> Further discussion included asset management service providers who manage <br /> assets for a fee and in varying degrees versus in-house management by City staff, <br /> pros and cons of having information available in-house or off-site, including <br /> control of that information based on local access policies outside the building <br /> versus web-based; availability of the data by maintenance personnel in the field <br /> via internet connectivity; and initial cost of the software programs at <br /> approximately $60,000.00 for installation; with additional ongoing costs for <br /> vendor support for the software. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that the initial cost seemed minimal when compared <br /> with the ability to manage $3 million in CIP expenditures per year over the next <br /> 20-30 years. <br /> At the request of Chair DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz opined that it would be <br /> challenging, without supplementing additional staffing, for the City's existing in- <br /> house staff to adequately handle additional responsibilities that would be required <br /> with the asset management software, especially initial input of the data; and <br /> recommending that more than one staff person be trained. <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that the Public Works Department's 2008 Strategic Plan <br /> had identified the need for an additional engineer on staff, with this year <br /> identified as the year to implement that additional staffing; however, he noted that <br /> that original intent had been revised through the contract with the City of <br /> Maplewood for sharing one of their engineers part-time. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, if the City Council fully implemented and funded its <br /> CIP proposal, it would be imperative to fill that position in order to implement <br /> and develop those projects. <br /> Chair DeBenedet advised that his intent in exposing the PWET Commissioners to <br /> this issue was to encourage its support and recommendation to the City Council to <br /> make sure the City took seriously implementation of an asset management <br /> program and to provide consistent in-house staffing to establish background and <br /> historical information as a base line and for moving forward. Chair DeBenedet <br /> Page 10 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.