Citywide Asset Management Strategy

At a glance

Based on uploaded (human-made) captions.

What: the city's first Citywide Asset Management Strategy (document 2026-358): a plan to manage roughly 82 billion dollars (replacement value) of public infrastructure across bureaus, with a vision for 2035 and six objectives.
Where it stands: presentation and discussion only; no vote. Councilors praised the direction but several said it was not yet specific enough.
Contested: Vice Chair Smith was "underwhelmed" and wanted an asset-by-asset registry with locations, condition and cost to repair; Millicent Williams said lists, maps and dashboards will come in January.
Next: a financial strategy with CFO Biery targeted for winter 2026; Emily Triche plans to return to the full Council in spring with refinements, a risk framework and service level targets; she was asked to meet each committee member.

Presented by Emily Triche (the city's first Chief Asset Management Officer) and Tate White (Bureau of Planning and Sustainability); Raymond Lee opened by calling assets his top concern and tying them to future bond discussions.
Condition: many portfolios are fair to good, but transportation pavement, parks, facilities, public safety facilities and older cultural venues have growing shares in poor or very poor condition. Ten-year capital gaps keep growing with inflation, regulations, seismic risk and climate impacts. Staff said every 1 dollar of planned maintenance can avoid roughly 5 to 10 dollars of reactive repair.
Data: the annual status and condition report (produced for over 20 years) rests on inconsistent methods; the strategy proposes data standards and a single citywide asset register.
Six objectives: governance and capacity; common data and an asset register; citywide investment prioritization frameworks; life-cycle, equity and community need; seismic and climate resilience; public trust through engagement and performance reporting.
Governance: the chief asset management officer holds authority for standards and systems, advised by an executive steering committee of bureau directors.

Smith: wanted a list of assets by location and bureau, an equity lens by district, brownfield counts, and a look at public-private partnerships or sales of unused assets.
Green: asked about the risk framework; Triche said it will draw on ISO risk standards and accounting standards, and Green said impact-of-failure ranking is how a bond would be sequenced.
Kanal: asked for data by asset type rather than bureau ownership (Triche agreed, by strategic priority); raised engagement standards for upkeep versus changes and concern about where a citywide engagement officer would sit.
Koyama Lane: asked about the citywide equity framework and targeted universalism (Triche deferred to the city's equity officer) and about the governance charter for cross-bureau coordination.
Chair Clark said she wants "the list" of what is at greatest risk by bureau.

About 46 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting	Minutes
2026-10-13 - Public Works Committee	46

2026-10-13 - Public Works Committee - Presented by the Chief Asset Management Officer and Planning and Sustainability; no vote. Smith criticized the lack of an asset registry; a fuller data report was promised for January and a financial strategy for winter.
2026-09-23 - Work Session - the plan's action list includes an asset management strategy and Pirtle-Guiney and Clark urged an audit of city facilities as near-term work; no vote.