My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2023
>
121923 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2023 6:21:19 PM
Creation date
12/18/2023 6:19:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/19/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
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
Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />Phase 1 – High-Level Assessment of City’s Water System Program: This phase includes <br />utilizing the Effective Utility Management guidance document to evaluate the City’s existing <br />water system program practices and make recommendations for improvements. <br /> <br />Phase 2 – Develop Work Plan: The portion of this phase completed to date includes a work <br />plan to identify and prioritize capital improvement needs. This analysis forms the basis of the <br />water enterprise 10-year CIP. The other portion of this phase deals with internal work planning <br />and scheduling that spans a minimum of six years so that it covers the time period of the initial <br />WSMP through the first comprehensive WSMP update. <br /> <br />Phase 3 – Document the WSMP: The City will develop the initial WSMP in accordance with <br />the work planning from Phase 2. The WSMP will be organized by program elements identified <br />below. Tasks to be included in the final WSMP include, but are not limited to: <br />• Water enterprise goals, key performance indicators, and policies to guide the <br />management of the water system <br />• Review/summarize existing planning efforts (e.g., urban water management plans, risk <br />and resiliency assessments, water distribution capacity evaluations, etc.), identify <br />planning gaps, and perform high-priority planning tasks (e.g., establish a 10-year CIP, <br />perform a regulatory review, etc.) <br />• Review/summarize existing operation and maintenance practices, identify deficiencies, <br />and perform high-priority tasks (e.g., establish a standard operating procedure program <br />and competency-based training program) <br />• Recommend a prioritized list of actions, programs, and CIP projects to be implemented <br />to improve the management of the water system. <br /> <br />Phase 1 involved a benchmarking exercise comparing the City’s water utility management and <br />operations to that of an effective water utility as determined by standards established by the <br />American Water Works Association (AWWA) and adopted by the US Environmental Protection <br />Agency. The assessment looked at ten attributes, and of these, the City staff ranked its most <br />important but lowest achieving areas to be financial viability and infrastructure strategy and <br />performance. <br /> <br />This led to completing a portion of Phase 2 as follows: the development of the rate study, <br />which the City Council recently concluded by adopting a 2-year rate increase implementation <br />starting January 1, 2024, followed by the development of a water enterprise 10-year CIP. This <br />water enterprise CIP development is the focus of this report. <br /> <br />Condition Assessments <br />Teams of engineers, operators, and technicians performed multiple days of on-the-ground, <br />appraisal-level equipment and facility assessments of the City’s water assets. These activities <br />were conducted to establish baseline conditions and identify capital needs. Needs were <br />categorized within the areas of water supply, distribution capacity, above-ground facilities, <br />below-ground pipelines, and SCADA/Power. Each category is populated with projects, which <br />then get prioritized considering the risk score and the discretionary versus non-discretionary <br />nature of the projects. <br /> <br />Page 235 of 270
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.