Laserfiche WebLink
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 on its usage and overall safety for the <br /> community. <br /> Chair Cihacek asked if the system broke out which sections were of the highest <br /> priority, in aggregate versus 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 street sweepers or chain saws were considered assets. <br /> Mr. Culver reported that staff didn't track shovels or similar smaller items for this <br /> purpose, since they were considered more easily replaceable in the maintenance <br /> budget. However, for plow trucks, and other heavy equipment, Mr. Culver <br /> advised there was a fleet system; and offered to provide the PWETC with follow- <br /> up information on how those assets were tracked. Mr. Culver reported that there <br /> was more history in tracking those assets over the last 20-30 years, and included <br /> expected replacement dates and costs for all vehicles and larger equipment. Mr. <br /> Culver clarified that those larger items were not automatically replaced at their <br /> anticipated replacement year, but were annually adjusted to determine their <br /> condition, with their value remaining in the schedule since it will ultimately need <br /> replacing. However, Mr. Culver noted their replacement may shift forward a year <br /> or two, or even move up for replacement depending on wear and tear. Mr. Culver <br /> agreed it was a valid point that staff needed to do a better job tracking condition <br /> ratings on vehicles and setting target condition ratings for replacements. Etc. <br /> Member Trainor suggested this document should note who was doing the ranking <br /> —city staff or outside parties —for roofs, pavements, etc. and in the case of the <br /> PMP, identifying whether they were civil engineers or road contractors to <br /> determine their level of expertise. Member Trainor also noted the need to clarify <br /> whether the person doing the inspection (e.g. roof maintenance/replacement) was <br /> Page 10 of 19 <br />