Laserfiche WebLink
an independent person or a vendor the city may feel indebted to if bidding on a <br /> contract at some point in the future. <br /> Mr. Culver clarified roof inspections done on a regular schedule for minor <br /> maintenance issues; and how a bidding process for future major maintenance or <br /> replacement would be handled. <br /> On page 17, Member Seigler noted the need of an additional column to show <br /> whether or not a category was above or below the rating goal. <br /> As actual inspection data becomes available, Mr. Culver advised that the city <br /> could gather more confidence in the numbers and overall ratings. <br /> As the last step for the rating system, Mr. Sandstrom noted the spreadsheet was <br /> hard to formulate to incorporate the system ranking while ranking it with overall <br /> GIS maps for better visualization and communication to show different areas and <br /> pass on to various departments. For assumption purposes, Mr. Sandstrom noted <br /> they would be refined moving forward. As an example, Mr. Sandstrom noted the <br /> city had 70,000' of sanitary sewer lines for televising, at which time those pipe <br /> ratings for the overall system would be refined. At this time, Mr. Sandstrom <br /> noted the city attempted to televise 1/10 of the city's sanitary and stormwater <br /> sewer lines annually, so within 10 years that televising should be completed and a <br /> good rating system in place. <br /> Member Lenz asked if staffs intent was to use 2017 to put together this rating to <br /> inform the 2018 budget for maintenance and repairs. <br /> Mr. Culver responded affirmatively; but prefaced it by noting variations of the <br /> maps displayed by Mr. Sandstrom had actually been in use for a number of years, <br /> perhaps not as well-defined with condition ratings, but showing water main <br /> breaks and known trouble spots to allow the city to prioritize scheduled and <br /> projects over the upcoming year. Mr. Culver noted this additional data would <br /> allow staff to better priority strategic items that would come into play for each <br /> CIP budget for each asset. As is currently done, Mr. Culver advised that staff <br /> assumes a capital expense for each year, varying per utility, determining annual <br /> spending for those capital projects to-date. Using maps, Mr. Culver advised that <br /> it was then decided where to spend the allotted $1 million annually. However, as <br /> this data becomes more refined, Mr. Culver noted staff would be able to project <br /> (e.g. poor condition rating items) and set a goal that within a certain time frame, <br /> all those rated items should be replaced, and to do so, an annual allotment of so <br /> much was needed. If the city's policy caps those annual expenditures, Mr. Culver <br /> noted utility rates could address those dollars needed. In the preliminary budget <br /> numbers the PWETC had already seen for 2017, Mr. Culver reported staff would <br /> be able to do a better job projecting those annual costs going forward. Mr. Culver <br /> advised he was really looking forward to being able to do so with the city's storm <br /> sewer system and other assets not having good history or data available now. <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />