My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018_04-24_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018_04-24_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2018 11:53:49 AM
Creation date
4/26/2018 11:52:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/24/2018
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
582 <br />conducting the maintenance without coordination with the City, they would be <br />583 <br />liable for anything the City wanted to do. <br />584 <br />585 <br />Mr. Freihammer noted they are trying to make sure businesses have someone in <br />586 <br />charge. <br />587 <br />588 <br />Member Seigler stated if it is clean and nice and passes inspection, it should not <br />589 <br />matter. <br />590 <br />591 <br />Mr. Culver explained the quarterly inspections cou e done by any maintenance <br />592 <br />staff on site. The annual inspection and certificatioiFeeds to come from a more <br />593 <br />technically qualified individual. They need to certify that it is operating as <br />594 <br />designed. <br />595 <br />596 <br />Chair Cihacek stated this would need to be someowith an engineering <br />597 <br />background or something beyond maintenance. <br />598 <br />599 <br />Mr. Culver agreed and stated it could be atechnician or a landscape contractor with <br />600 <br />prior experience on this. <br />601 <br />602 <br />Member Misra inquired if the maintenance plan would cover the inspections and <br />603 <br />suggested they include language that indicates approval of who would conduct the <br />604 <br />inspections. <br />605 <br />606 <br />Chair Cihacek agreed with Member Misra. <br />607 <br />608 <br />Mr. Culver suggested the wording be changed to "an annual inspection certification <br />609 <br />by an approved individual as indicated in the maintenance plan." <br />610 <br />611 <br />Mr. Culver noted they will look at possible options. <br />612 <br />613 <br />Chair Cihacek commented they can submit it as is knowing there is a potential risk <br />614 <br />for problems during the first year of implementation. Based upon feedback, they <br />615 <br />can make an adjustment the following year. <br />616 <br />617 <br />Mr. Freihammer noted they will incorporate the Commission's comments and share <br />618 <br />it with the City Council. <br />619 <br />620 <br />Member Seigler referred to Agenda item No. 6 regarding the Solar discussion. He <br />621 <br />stated he would not do the government option. It seems like everything is still up <br />622 <br />in the air and they should give them a year to see how it all works out. <br />623 <br />624 <br />Mr. Culver inquired if they should still submit an email of interest to them. <br />625 <br />626 <br />Chair Cihacek stated they have sufficient information from what was offered by <br />627 <br />IPS Solar. <br />Page 14 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.