Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham leaders weigh a capital-improvement master plan as water, sewer and road needs mount
Summary
At a March 9 workshop, city staff told commissioners roughly 38% of Birmingham's water mains predate 1929 and many sewers are similarly aged; staff proposed a standalone capital-improvement master plan and requested $200,000 for a consultant to model priorities and funding options.
The Birmingham City Commission opened a special workshop March 9 to discuss whether the city should develop a stand-alone capital improvement master plan to make aging infrastructure and funding choices clearer to residents.
City management and engineering staff told commissioners the city has roughly 100 miles of water mains, about 38% of which were installed in 1929 or earlier; sewers show a similar age profile. Melissa, representing the engineering department, said the city's PASER road rating rose from 4.28 in 2021 to about 5.266 in the most recent evaluation, but that a target PASER rating is generally nearer 6 for communities of Birmingham's size. She said the current capital-improvement program is about $17.7 million this fiscal year, with proposed increases to about $19.3 million next year and $21.9 million in 2027–28 (that later year includes nearly $2.9 million in grant funding for a bridge project).
"We have aging infrastructure," the city manager said, framing the central challenge as funding: "The only way that we can do more is to either a, look at other funding alternatives or b, look at our existing budget and make different priority decisions." He and staff noted that some water and sewer pipes are approaching 100 years and that replacement often requires digging under existing built streets.
Commissioners pressed staff on the scope and utility of hiring a consultant. Commissioner Kozlowski said a modest, high-level analysis would give the commission a sense of scale — "how fast are we going" — and whether multiyear contracting, bonds or changes to special-assessment policies make sense. Other commissioners highlighted that infrastructure scoring used to prioritize projects does not always factor drainage interdependence and traffic counts; they asked whether a more sophisticated rubric or a public-facing GIS dashboard would help residents understand when and why a street is scheduled.
Staff recommended asking the commission to fund a consultant at roughly $200,000 in next year's budget to produce a master plan, financial modeling and public-facing presentation options. Commissioners did not take final action at the workshop; staff said they will return with a proposed scope of work and draft RFP language.
Why it matters: the city is confronting decades-old pipes and competing priorities for limited capital dollars. The workshop framed a choice many municipalities face: invest in deeper data and public-facing tools to help sell long-term funding proposals, or rely on existing annual budgeting and project-by-project decisions. The commission asked staff to lay out a clearer scope and cost estimate for a consultant and to return with options for resident engagement.
