2011-09-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

suggested that the PWET Commission make a formal recommendation to the City Council that this funding remain in the 2012 budget to ensure that the CIP program be managed in the most cost-effective way for its taxpayers. Additional discussion included current procedures, dictated by available resources, for replacing and/or repairing infrastructure, replacing vehicles, or other asset controls; and recent changes in liability for the City based on information from its insurance carrier, related to sewer backups and how and when such infrastructure systems are put on a higher level of maintenance, clearly indicating that the City was aware of a problem with one of its assets and its inherent liability, indicating that it needed to get into the CIP replacement cycle to limit the City's liability. Mr. Schwartz noted that it was important to balance whether funds were best spent to pay damages to homeowners in such situations or on getting its infrastructure up to an appropriate level to avoid those unexpected and expensive situations. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was important to get a rating system in place for the remainder of the City's infrastructure and assets, similar to that found so effective with the PMP and management of roadways throughout the City at certain conditions and standards. Mr. Schwartz advised that, currently if a water main segment had experienced three (3) breaks within the last 10-15 years, it was added to the replacement list; and noted that storm sewers became obvious through visible sink hold; and sanitary sewers based on televising and evaluation those systems internally. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that approximately '/z of the $60,000.00 cost for the software was for its initial purchase, while the other '/z was for implementation, which included training. Further discussion included backup staff versus one staff person for training purpose in case of staff turnover; other cities who have purchased asset management software and their experiences (e.g. Minnetonka, Eagan, Edina); and consultants who are willing to make a presentation to the PWET Commission, usually for a fee. Chair DeBenedet asked what the PWET Commission could do to assist and support the Public Works Department in getting this program funded in 2012. Mr. Schwartz advised that, as part of the upcoming utility rate and public hearing, staff anticipated referencing meeting minutes of the PWET Commission regarding their recommendations related to the rate structure, and the CIP; and would include any discussion and/or recommendation of the Commission related to implementation of an asset management plan to ensure those resources are spent in the most cost-effective manner available. Chair DeBenedet turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Vanderwall. Page 11 of 12