Laserfiche WebLink
and that had been narrowed down to 3-5 who's preliminary implementation costs <br /> would be affordable for a city the size of Roseville and would be able to be <br /> implemented at current staffing levels. With the City's current GIS system, it <br /> could be used to query basic data, but in terms of generating work orders and <br /> attaching it to asset management, and long-term funding plans, using five (5) core <br /> questions for asset management. Mr. Schwartz advised that determining other <br /> users in the metropolitan area who shared similar issues, or could perhaps be <br /> approached for a joint venture, similar to the current IT and Telephone JPA's was <br /> another important consideration to further reduce costs. <br /> Discussion included whether energy savings for a specific building was built into <br /> such a management program, with Mr. Schwartz advising that this would be more <br /> of an operational type of software, with this one specific to management based on <br /> information tied to particular assets; difficulty in addressing underground assets <br /> versus those that can be seen; advantages of sewer lining technologies and their <br /> projected life of sixty (60) years versus installing a new line; and reviewing <br /> underground systems as a whole for comparison purpose and philosophical <br /> considerations. <br /> Additional discussion included costs for staffing to input data and facilitate <br /> reports; training included in a software program; and significant dollars for <br /> proposed rate increases for utility customers to facilitate CIP needs for the City's <br /> infrastructure over the next 20-30 years. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the City currently performs approximately three (3) miles <br /> of sanitary sewer line replacement and/or lining annually, as well as <br /> approximately one (1) mile of water lines; in addition to addressing emergency <br /> breaks or other problems from the aging infrastructure. However, Mr. Schwartz <br /> noted that those CIP costs are not currently fully funded at current utility rates, <br /> with deficit spending from reserves, but not sustainable for the long-term. Mr. <br /> Schwartz advised that the current 2011 funding level for CIP is $860,000; but <br /> funding at a $3 million level was needed to accomplish CIP costs over that 20-30 <br /> year cycle. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that implementing an asset management system was the <br /> smart way to select projects for this $3 million annual expenditure, with that <br /> system including funding for the software itself, adequate staffing allocations, and <br /> training. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the City's paper record system had worked so far; <br /> including tracking repairs and maintenance; however, he opined that it was <br /> becoming more difficult and that it was imperative the funding level get to a level <br /> to ensure replacement of critical assets over the next 20-30 years to provide more <br /> predictable tracking tools and life cycle cost calculations than the current paper <br /> system. <br /> Page 9 of 12 <br />