My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-09-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-09-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2010 9:38:52 AM
Creation date
9/24/2010 9:28:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/28/2010
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.
/
33
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
determined by PMP software and budget modeling, with the program working <br />well overall, especially when interest rates were higher. Mr. Schwartz noted that <br />there were now some funding shortfalls based on reduced interest earnings, with <br />additional review needed for potential revision to achieve the goal to maintain <br />current overall pavement conditions throughout the community. <br />Discussion included clarifying that CIP monies covered reconstruction and/or mill <br />and overlay of residential streets; with the regular operating budget only covering <br />crack sealing, crosswalks, messages, and seal coating. <br />Pathways/Parkin~ Lots <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that this was for management of all pavements, currently <br />funded at $140,000 annually, with pavement software used to maintain conditions <br />and utilize resources, with predictions that increased funding levels were <br />Enterprise Funds <br />Water, Sanitary Sewer <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewec <br />provided maps <br />cast iron pipes <br />depreciation, a <br />for replacemen <br />staff as well as <br />noted that it we <br />operational coy <br />identified on tr <br />in <br />It i <br />terprise funds and rates for each program; and <br />e materials and replacing the old water system of <br />y to mid-1960's; new materials and respective <br />rate structures. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the phasing <br />f infrastructure components and ongoing financial analysis by <br />going technological and product improvements. Mr. Schwartz <br />d require a 2.5 - 3% increase in utility fees over and above <br />over the next ten (10) years to maintain funding for those items <br />Discussion included lining of existing lines versus open cutting and replacements <br />Member Vanderwall noted the need to proactively educate the public on these <br />funds for their awareness of the rationale behind rate increases. <br />for water mains as well as sewer lines; any reconstruction projects within the City <br />having cast iron lines automatically replaced as part of those projects to take <br />advantage of cost-sharing opportunities; as well as replacing those lines in areas <br />experiencing frequent breaks <br />Chair DeBenedet noted the human health and safety situations addressed as part <br />of these vital considerations for a community's water and sewer systems. <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.