Laserfiche WebLink
353 <br />On page 7 of the report, Member Seigler noted some of the condition rating <br />354 <br />percentages (e.g. pavement) that seemed to overlap and suggested further review <br />355 <br />before presentation to the City Council. <br />356 <br />357 <br />Specific to the PMP, Member Wozniak asked staff s rationale for a scale of 0 to <br />358 <br />100 when there were only five categories. <br />359 <br />360 <br />Mr. Culver responded that a separate program (entitled ICON) was used for the <br />361 <br />PMP program with an independent contractor used to visually inventory the city's <br />362 <br />pavement system. As that information is entered, Mr. Culver advised that over <br />363 <br />the last 20 years the PMP was done and updated, it addressed deterioration <br />364 <br />curves. However, Mr. Culver noted it made no sense to bring that asset into this <br />365 <br />separate software program, as the ICON program had no significant cost <br />366 <br />compared to this asset management program- Mr. Culver advised that the PMP <br />367 <br />and city policy established a timeline for pavement evaluation, with one quarter of <br />368 <br />the city done every four years, providing a relatively updated picture. Mr. Culver <br />369 <br />opined it didn't make sense to use anything more broadly than that model. <br />370 <br />371 <br />Member Thurnau suggested referencing that ratio e as a footnote in the report, <br />372 <br />and specifying if it included sidewalks and pathways, ADA compliance, etc. <br />373 <br />Member Thurnau opined that there was so much documentation to point those <br />374 <br />items out, it made sense to provide a definition of the rating interpretation in the <br />375 <br />document as w <br />376 <br />377 <br />Mr. Culver a eed t note for each item would be helpful, especially when <br />378 <br />using a different industry standard scale and their specific rating systems. <br />379 <br />380 Specific to the hydrant rating system on page 9, with a minimum rating of 2 <br />381 indicating a poor condition requiring routine maintenance, Member Heimerl <br />382 asked if it should bother residents if their hydrant condition was rated "poor." As <br />383 a Roseville homeowner, Member Heimerl suggested some consistency in looking <br />384 at those ratings to ensure they reflected the image the city wanted and if not to <br />385 bring those ratings to higher service levels. <br />386 <br />387 With staff duly noting that comment, Mr. Sandstrom suggested some may be <br />388 placeholders for minimum ratings at this time. However, after PWETC and City <br />389 Council input, Mr. Sandstrom agreed that clarification should be accurately <br />390 reflected accordingly. <br />391 <br />392 Mr. Culver agreed, noting that staff s goal was to get condition ratings listed now; <br />393 and then actively get all items loaded into the software program. While many are <br />394 consistent, Mr. Culver reported not all infrastructure elements had been inspected <br />395 for their actual condition ratings. Mr. Culver noted that some infrastructure (e.g. <br />396 water mains) were underground and difficult to visually inspect, so their assumed <br />397 condition was based on age, material make-up, number of watermain breaks to - <br />398 date, etc. In the case of the city's 1700 fire hydrants, Mr. Culver advised that they <br />Page 9 of 19 <br />