My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-01-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-01-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2011 8:54:33 AM
Creation date
1/24/2011 9:39:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/25/2011
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.
/
35
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
Aging infrastructure requires planning for rehabilitation and replacement <br />Responsibly funds to meet long -term needs <br />Committed to sustainability to meet current and future needs <br />Roseville Problems Identified <br />Aging infrastructure, with the majority constructed in 1950 1960 and <br />wearing out <br />Tight budgets limit funding for maintenance <br />Replacement or renewal costs estimated at $60 million <br />Project will answer questions such as <br />Can maintenance extend life of facilities and lower overall cost of ownership? <br />Life expectance of water and sewer mains <br />Cost benefit relationship to aid maintenance and replacement decisions <br />Simple tools to aid making those decision <br />Why important to solve <br />Infrastructure wears out or becomes too expensive to maintain <br />When is it less costly to replace? <br />What maintenance can extend life of utilities at reasonable costs? <br />City knows of need to begin a major rehabilitation program <br />Chair DeBenedet reviewed a construction history of the City's water and sewer <br />infrastructure system between 1956 2009, with the ma j ority in the 1960's and <br />reviewed the length of water and sewer main miles installed annually. With <br />reference to the City's sewer system, he 'noted that the majority of the system was <br />clay the with unsealed jute joints, currently creating an infiltration problem that <br />the City was mandated to address by Metropolitan Council Environmental <br />Services (MCES), the City's wastewater treatment provider. Chair DeBenedet <br />advised that most of the City's water pipes were cast iron and susceptible to <br />breaks, with the City currently experiencing an average of thirty -five (35) breaks <br />annually. <br />Discussion among members and staff included replacement of the majority of <br />lead service pipes to -date with the remaining seven (7) lead services removed in <br />1987; and the City basically having a relatively lead -free system from its <br />inception. <br />Lessons Learned and Outcomes <br />Roseville maintains its sewer and water systems comparable to other <br />metropolitan communities <br />Field maintenance versus management of maintenance needs to be defined <br />Better understanding of options and opportunities <br />Cost effective service delivery <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.