Friese Nichols presents Midwest City wastewater master plan; consultants and staff outline prioritized repairs, inspections and funding needs

City staff and consultants from Friese Nichols presented a wastewater master plan that analyzes Midwest City’s sewer collection system and recommends a phased capital and rehabilitation program.

The firm said the study expanded the previous East Side capacity work into a citywide analysis that combined hydraulic modeling, 60 days of flow monitoring (18 flow meters and four rain gauges), 300 manhole inspections and a desktop risk assessment. The model evaluated both existing and projected future flows (through 2050), applied a design storm with a 20% annual exceedance probability to identify surcharging and capacity shortfalls, and produced a prioritized project list grouped into 0–2, 2–5, 5–10 and 10–20 year buckets.

Consultants and staff identified two principal program strands: capacity improvements (to address lines that surcharge under wet- and projected future-load conditions) and rehabilitation/replacement (to address aging pipe material, work-order history and condition). The study assigned each pipe a composite risk score that combined criticality (consequence of failure) and condition (likelihood of failure) to help set priorities. Fifteen of the city’s lift stations were inspected for condition; staff said there are 16 total lift stations and Centralium was not online during inspection because it was under construction.

Key recommendations presented to council included:

- Implement an annual rehabilitation program targeted at older and higher-risk pipes and specific lift stations. - Launch or expand a pipeline inspection program: purchase an additional CCTV truck and crew to inspect high-priority lines identified as “red” in the desktop assessment. - Proceed with capacity projects already identified in the East Side study and add citywide capacity improvements phased across the 20-year horizon. - Perform site-level and cybersecurity reviews for lift stations as part of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) master plan and include physical security recommendations (fencing, lighting, cameras) in site work where appropriate.

On financing, staff and consultants discussed existing annual revenue streams and options. Staff said Midwest City currently receives roughly $1.7 million and $966,000 from sewer construction funds (about $2.7 million total) and also operates a sewer operating account (account 192) that pays for crew operations. The consultants and staff said a planning-level annual program of about $3.5 million (the presentation described the 0–2 bucket as approximately $3.5 million per year, and the 0–2 pot was discussed in a combined total of roughly $7 million over two years) would be a useful target to begin addressing immediate rehabilitation and capacity needs; they also noted larger capacity projects and WRRF needs pushed long-term estimates into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (an estimate cited in discussion for the broader treatment-plant work was about $171 million; presenters said the plan’s cost figures are 2025-level estimates).

Council members pressed on prioritization, how aging pipes and infiltration/inflow (I&I) factor into long-term projections, and whether the study’s desktop condition assessment requires follow-up CCTV inspection before major replacement is undertaken. Consultants repeatedly cautioned that the risk assessment was a desktop-level prioritization tool meant to guide where to perform detailed inspection (CCTV and field work) before committing to large-scale replacement.

City management and council praised the report for converting prior uncertainty into an evidence-based plan. Paul (city manager) summarized the value of the study: “I would not stand here and present it to council if I didn't believe in the contents of the executive summary... I think it's great because up until now, we were guessing about what needed to be repaired and how much it might cost us. Now we are informed.”

Consultants said the full report is more than 440 pages; staff said the executive summary and presentation materials were distributed to council and the full study will be posted on the city website. Staff recommended the council treat the master plan as a living document, review progress periodically (the consultants recommended a five-year check-in) and begin implementation with the highest-priority, short-term projects while seeking grant and loan funding for larger capacity work.

No formal council action on funding or rate changes was taken at the meeting; council members signaled they expect follow-up budget proposals, possible loan or grant applications (including principal-forgiveness programs available through state agencies) and discussions about phasing any rate adjustments if needed.