CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA PACKET

City of Pleasanton, CA (0012108.00) 4-2 Woodard & Curran, Inc. Pleasanton Long-Term Sewer CIP October 6, 2025 Scenario 1 – Maintain: This scenario offers a balanced approach, deferring some projects while aiming to reduce the backlog of gravity sewers with major defects. While less aggressive than Scenario 2, this option still requires more than double the City’s current capital spending by FY27 to avoid deferring Priority A work. To capture the risk in delaying projects, a line item representing unplanned/emergency repairs equal to 2.5% of City-funded capital projects is included in this scenario. A chart of spen ding by year is shown in Figure 4-2. Capacity Projects: • All priority A capacity projects are completed in the near term. Lift Station Projects: • Some near-term lift station projects are delayed to the mid-term, and some mid-term projects are delayed to the long-term. Condition Assessment Projects: • This scenario targets full repair/replacement of pipes with existing major defects by FY30 –31, with $3M annually (corresponding to approximately 1.5 miles of sewer) available starting in FY27–28. This funding assumes the pipes analyzed in Pleasanton Sewer Condition Assessment are representative of the entire sewer system, and that only ~4.5% of pipes in the system require some type of rehabilitation. If more defects are found than expected, the backlog of pipes in need of rehabilitation or replacement will grow in the near-term. This is especially true if siphons, forcemains, or trunk sewers are found to be in poor condition during their near-term studies and funding is needed for emergency repairs. Staffing: • This scenario requires 2 to 3 additional staff starting in FY27, managing an average of $8.4M annually (excluding FY25–26). Staffing increases to 4 FTEs from FY31–33 to complete major pipeline and lift station work. FIGURE 4-2: SCENARIO 1 – ANNUAL SPENDING BY FISCAL YEAR $0 $5 $10 $15 CI P C o s t ( $ M ) Priority A Priority B Priority C FTE Page 236 of 323