Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Bexley begins multiyear sewer study process, budgets $500,000 for phase 1
Loading...
Summary
Council heard a detailed first reading and historical briefing on the city’s sewer infrastructure, voted to receive the presentation and discussed a proposed two-phase study (phase 1 budgeted at $500,000 in 2025) to update a 2014 plan and guide future capital spending; staff recommended Burgess & Niple to lead the updated study.
BEXLEY, Ohio — City officials on Feb. 25 presented a comprehensive update on the city’s sanitary and storm sewer infrastructure and asked council to support a refreshed, multi-year engineering study to guide investments. Council received the first reading of Resolution 011-25 and a staff briefing on why the 2014 DFFO (design-flow, flow-monitoring and facilities) plan needs a new data-driven update.
Public works staff and city administration summarized the city’s sewer system and its planning history. The city maintains approximately 48 miles of sanitary sewer and 42 miles of storm sewer. A long-running compliance issue originated with an Ohio EPA order requiring the city and its regional partner (City of Columbus) to address inflow and infiltration and reduce sanitary sewer overflows; Bexley adopted a 26-year implementation plan in 2014 to meet regulatory goals. Since then, staff said, work done in the field has not always tracked with the original model outputs and newer guidance and Columbus’s “Project Blueprint” work suggest the city needs more granular modeling, including private-side contributions to inflow and infiltration.
To close gaps and create a near-term strategy, the city issued an RFP and received three responses; staff recommended Burgess & Niple as the engineering firm to perform a two-phase update. Phase 1 (budgeted in 2025) would cost about $500,000 and be followed by a second phase contingent on phase 1 findings (board-level estimates for phase 2 are in the $500,000–$600,000 range but final scope depends on year-1 results). Staff said the study would increase confidence about where to invest in spot repairs, main replacements and private-side mitigation, and would inform a long-term funding strategy (options include capital-fee adjustments, OPWC loans, bonds and other grants).
Council and the auditor stressed the financial linkage: the sewer fund balance has been drawn down in recent years because of project spending and debt service, and even with grant and loan assistance many projects have city budget impacts. Council members asked for more detail about why Burgess & Niple’s proposal cost more than other bidders; staff pointed to a much larger field-inspection effort (more manholes and on-the-ground verification) and a more thorough private-side investigation as the principal differences.
Council did not adopt the resolution on first reading; staff and the mayor said the request to fund phase 1 was already included in the 2025 budget and would return to council with contract documents and more detailed cost comparisons. The presentation materials and prior DFFO documentation were posted to meeting materials for council review.
