Laserfiche WebLink
399 <br />400 <br />401 <br />402 <br />403 <br />404 <br />405 <br />406 <br />407 <br />408 <br />409 <br />410 <br />411 <br />412 <br />413 <br />414 <br />415 <br />416 <br />417 <br />418 <br />419 <br />420 <br />421 <br />422 <br />423 <br />424 <br />425 <br />were flushed and set up on an inspection sheet currently underway, at which point <br />all conditions will be added to the system. With a current minimum rating of 2, <br />Mr. Culver advised that the average rating was not yet known pending those <br />inspections. However, if the ratings are set to high initially, Mr. Culver noted it <br />would be difficult to meet that higher average, clarifying a difference in <br />"minimum" and "average" ratings. Agreeing that the city certainly didn't want <br />any hydrants rating fewer than 2, signifying immediate replacement, he suggested <br />there may be another item that needed to be added to the document, such as <br />"Target Condition Rating" such as the PMP has now, showing an average system <br />rating. Mr. Culver suggested that could be applied to other assets as well until the <br />actual average had been identified but still not setting that average too high <br />initially. Mr. Culver noted things would adapt and evolve as more ratings were <br />added to the system, allowing a better picture. Generally speaking, Mr. Culver <br />noted the age of the city's infrastructure; but considered the city's maintenance of <br />the system at a good standard based its usage and overall safety for the <br />community. <br />Chair Cihacek asked if the system br t whi ctions weIhe highest <br />priority, in aggregate ver specifically. <br />Mr. Culver responded that the system should be able to perform both and generate <br />a report accordingly, in addition to generating average condition ratings. <br />Member Wozniak noted he didn't see any vehicles or equipment on this list; and <br />asked if treet sweepers or chain saws were considered assets. <br />Mr. Culver reported that staff didn't track shovels or similar smaller items for this <br />426 purpose, since they were considered more easily replaceable in the maintenance <br />427 budget. However, for plow trucks, and other heavy equipment, Mr. Culver <br />428 4 advised there was a fleet system; and offered to provide the PWETC with follow - <br />429 up information on how those assets were tracked. Mr. Culver reported that there <br />430 was more history in tracking thNosts <br />e assets over the last 20-30 years, and included <br />431 expected replacement dates an for all vehicles and larger equipment. Mr. <br />432 Culver clarified that those larger items were not automatically replaced at their <br />433 anticipated replacement year, but were annually adjusted to determine their <br />434 condition, with their value remaining in the schedule since it will ultimately need <br />435 replacing. However, Mr. Culver noted their replacement may shift forward a year <br />436 or two, or even move up for replacement depending on wear and tear. Mr. Culver <br />437 agreed it was a valid point that staff needed to do a better job tracking condition <br />438 ratings on vehicles and setting target condition ratings for replacements. Etc. <br />439 <br />440 Member Trainor suggested this document needed linked elsewhere in defining <br />441 who was doing the ranking — city staff or outside parties — for roofs, pavements, <br />442 etc. and in the case of the PMP, identifying whether they were civil engineers or <br />443 road contractors to determine their level of expertise. Member Trainor also noted <br />444 the need to clarify whether the person doing the inspection (e.g. roof <br />Page 10 of 19 <br />