2016-08-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

309 improvement program (CIP), replacement costs, and condition ratings. While the 310 condition ratings are done for the pavement management program (PMP), Mr. 311 Sandstrom noted that a condition rating for all Public Works Department assets 312 was new. Mr. Sandstrom displayed a working model of the city's infrastructure 313 system, included in tonight's agenda materials. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the 314 status and maintenance history already in place and tracked; with staff continuing 315 to work on integrating software making future research easier. Mr. Sandstrom 316 noted once completed, this would allow for an annual review and update of the 317 CIP plan. 318 AL 319 Noting condition ratings were still in draft form for this initial presentation, Mr. 320 Sandstrom asked the PWETC for their feedback on those ratings before moving 321 this forward to the City Council. 322 323 As part of the considerations and ratings, Mr. Sandstro reviewed some of the 324 criteria, including time tracked through PubWorks Software and used recent 325 storm clean-ups as examples. Mr. Sandstrom noted further breakdowns could 326 also be done by cost summary and task; with project cost comp ents per job 327 code tracked by departm99 staff. Mr. Sandstrom compared costs of the June 21, 328 2013 storm with that of July 5, 2016, allowing staff, the City Council and 329 Roseville citizens to see actual overall impacts to the city for equipment, man 330 hours and labor costs. Mr. Sandstrom noted this tracking was done for snow 331 events as well, whether plowing or application of salt, etc. Mr. Sandstrom noted 332 this allowed better plaCg for average costs to track activities and expenses 333 going ford. Iff -4w 334 335 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Culver clarified that the cost shown was 336 `gross" versus "net," since staff would be working anyway. Mr. Culver advised 337 that a sepreport for overtime generato could be created. Since some staff 338 would be orking and using some equ' ent anyway, Mr. Culver noted with 339 unusual events, costs were tracked on that event versus time spent on something 340 ,that didn't get done and delays caused. Mr. Culver noted an additional report was 341 needed to show costs above and beyond normal operations. 342 343 Mr. Sand rom addressed the rating system examples and scales from 0 to 100 as 344 a starting point and criteria used. Mr. Sandstrom noted it was found that rating 345 system wasn't applicable to all situations (e.g. sanitary manhole inspections) and 346 compared this ra g system with the characteristics of the PMP. Therefore, Mr. 347 Sandstrom noted staff's initial use of other rating systems, such as 1, 2, and 3 for 348 good, fair and poor ratings. Specifically for pipes, Mr. Sandstrom referenced the 349 report showing ratings of 0 to 5 with more information for those systems. Mr. 350 Sandstrom further noted ratings from 1 to 10 for lift stations; and asked for 351 PWETC feedback on staff's thought process behind various criteria. 352 Page 8 of 19