Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utility board adopts updated water and wastewater master plan after consultant projects 25,000-person growth
Summary
The board unanimously accepted an updated water and wastewater master plan that projects about 25,000 additional residents over 25 years, introduces a risk‑based assessment to prioritize pipe replacement and rehab, and keeps a 2% annual replacement target as a planning benchmark.
The Utility Board voted to adopt an updated water and wastewater master plan after presentations from staff and consultants that outlined capacity needs and a new risk‑based assessment.
Consultant Colin Carlson summarized the technical analysis and said the planning horizon projects “about 25,000” more residents over the next 25 years under current assumptions, and that the firm translated those population projections into future water demand and wastewater flow estimates. Carlson said the plan uses age, material and work‑order history to identify system segments most critical for rehabilitation.
A staff member described the addition of a risk‑based assessment (RBA) to prioritize where to invest limited rehabilitation resources and to better align sewer and water work with public‑works street projects. The staff member said the RBA will help the board meet its stated goal of replacing roughly 2% of the distribution system per year until the city catches up on deferred work.
During discussion a committee member asked whether the RBA provides a direct, precise conversion to the 2% replacement target. The staff member said the RBA offers indicators of high‑priority corridors and noted that, under current data in the plan, “we’re a little over 10% of the system still to be replaced” on the water side and “around 20%” on the wastewater side, but that those figures are not a one‑for‑one replacement‑rate conversion.
The board moved to accept the master plan (motion by Ken Davis; second by Howard McClarken) and the chair declared the motion passed following an electronic vote.
Board members praised the level of detail and asked staff to make appendices and key model outputs more accessible for future review. The board took no additional direction at the meeting; staff and the consultant will proceed with next steps identified in the plan.
