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