My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2025
>
051325 SPECIAL
>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2025 2:52:49 PM
Creation date
5/14/2025 10:07:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/13/2025
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Mr. Nelson Fialho/Mr. David Haglund Page 20 <br />Preliminary Issues Assessment of Potential Colocation of Maintenance Facilities <br />Attachment D <br />Summary of Case Studies and Lessons Learned <br />Management Partners conducted research to find examples of local governments and school <br />districts that share maintenance facilities. The purpose of the research was to serve as a source <br />of learning for the City of Pleasanton and Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) to <br />understand what helped those agencies be successful and what pitfalls to avoid in a facility <br />sharing arrangement. In doing our research, we carried out the tasks detailed below. <br />•Identified candidate agencies. We conducted research to identify agencies and asked for <br />examples that the City and PUSD may know about. We discussed potential candidate <br />agencies with the City and PUSD at our meeting on April 26, 2018. Neither the City nor <br />PUSD were aware of specific examples of co-located city/school maintenance facilities and <br />we were unable to find many examples. The agencies used for the case studies are listed <br />below. <br />•Researched information online. We conducted a general internet search to gather <br />information on potential case study examples and reviewed information available on each <br />agency’s website. <br />•Contacted the agencies. We contacted the agencies by phone and email to ask questions <br />about their experience. In two cases, we were unsuccessful in having our phone calls or <br />emails returned. <br />•Prepared case studies. The following case studies are described below. <br />1.City of Livermore and the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (California): <br />Joint use Maintenance Service Center <br />2.City of Manassas and Manassas City Public Schools (Virginia): Shared services, <br />including use of Public Works Compound <br />3.City of Corning and Corning-Painted Post School District (New York): Consolidated <br />fleet maintenance facility feasibility study <br />4.Town of Windham and RSU 14 Windham/Raymond School District (Maine): Shared <br />vehicle maintenance facility <br />Lessons Learned from Case Studies <br />While each case study is quite different, and none identically match the circumstances and <br />potential partnership that are the focus of this preliminary issues assessment, there are several <br />lessons learned from these examples that may inform the decision -making process in <br />Pleasanton. <br />•A comprehensive, written agreement between parties will provide clarity and allow <br />each agency to plan for operational and financial impacts, short and long term. <br />•The terms of such an agreement, including cost sharing, s pace allocation, administrative <br />responsibilities and dispute resolution should be developed jointly by the parties.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.