Laserfiche WebLink
improvement program (CIP), replacement costs, and condition ratings. While the <br /> condition ratings are done for the pavement management program (PMP), Mr. <br /> Sandstrom noted that a condition rating for all Public Works Department assets <br /> was new. Mr. Sandstrom displayed a working model of the city's infrastructure <br /> system, included in tonight's agenda materials. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the <br /> status and maintenance history already in place and tracked; with staff continuing <br /> to work on integrating software making future research easier. Mr. Sandstrom <br /> noted once completed, this would allow for an annual review and update of the <br /> CIP plan. <br /> Noting condition ratings were still in draft form for this initial presentation, Mr. <br /> Sandstrom asked the PWETC for their feedback on those ratings before moving <br /> this forward to the City Council. <br /> As part of the considerations and ratings, Mr. Sandstrom reviewed some of the <br /> criteria, including time tracked through PubWorks Software and used recent <br /> storm clean-ups as examples. Mr. Sandstrom noted further breakdowns could <br /> also be done by cost summary and task; with project cost components per job <br /> code tracked by department staff Mr. Sandstrom compared costs of the June 21, <br /> 2013 storm with that of July 5, 2016, allowing staff, the City Council and <br /> Roseville citizens to see actual overall impacts to the city for equipment, man <br /> hours and labor costs. Mr. Sandstrom noted this tracking was done for snow <br /> events as well, whether plowing or application of salt, etc. Mr. Sandstrom noted <br /> this allowed better planning for average costs to track activities and expenses <br /> going forward. <br /> At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Culver clarified that the cost shown was <br /> "gross"versus "net," since staff would be working anyway. Mr. Culver advised <br /> that a separate report for overtime generated could be created. Since some staff <br /> would be working and using some equipment anyway, Mr. Culver noted with <br /> unusual events, costs were tracked on that event versus time spent on something <br /> that didn't get done and delays caused. Mr. Culver noted an additional report was <br /> needed to show costs above and beyond normal operations. <br /> Mr. Sandstrom addressed the rating system examples and scales from 0 to 100 as <br /> a starting point and criteria used. Mr. Sandstrom noted it was found that rating <br /> system wasn't applicable to all situations (e.g. sanitary manhole inspections) and <br /> compared this rating system with the characteristics of the PMP. Therefore, Mr. <br /> Sandstrom noted staffs initial use of other rating systems, such as 1, 2, and 3 for <br /> good, fair and poor ratings. Specifically for pipes, Mr. Sandstrom referenced the <br /> report showing ratings of 0 to 5 with more information for those systems. Mr. <br /> Sandstrom further noted ratings from 1 to 10 for lift stations; and asked for <br /> PWETC feedback on staffs thought process behind various criteria. <br /> Page 8 of 19 <br />