Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beexley staff outline goals for a new sanitary- and storm‑sewer study, plan RFQ and funding steps
Summary
City staff presented goals for an updated sanitary- and storm‑sewer engineering study: to improve hydraulic models and GIS asset data, locate sources of inflow and infiltration, prioritize projects by consequence of failure, consider homeowner assistance options, and produce a multi‑decade capital improvement plan tied to funding and rate decisions.
Beexley city staff told the City Council May 26 they will seek a consultant to perform an updated sanitary‑sewer and storm‑sewer study that will inform capital projects and funding choices.
The staff presentation outlined seven primary goals for the study: update and improve the sanitary‑sewer model and the storm model; fill missing tributary data and add asset attributes (size, material, estimated age) into the GIS; correct and add flow metering data; identify specific sources of inflow and infiltration (I/I); prioritize projects by consequence of failure and the city’s chosen level of service; develop plans to remediate I/I including potential funding mechanisms to assist homeowners where private laterals contribute to issues; and build those priorities into a multi‑decade capital improvement plan to guide rate-setting, bonding, and project phasing.
Staff said the results will direct field investigations such as smoke testing, dye testing, CCTV inspections and visual surveys and that the city expects proposers to propose means and methods for the seven‑item scope. "This is a process overview of how what is the funnel of a sanitary sewer study," a city presenter said while walking council through the planned deliverables.
Council members asked whether the chosen vendor would perform all seven tasks and whether city staff would retain oversight; staff responded that the consultant will be expected to deliver the full scope but that city leadership and engineering staff will review and approve the resulting plan and funding recommendations.
City staff said they will circulate a draft request for qualifications to council for feedback before issuing the RFQ. The presentation emphasized that both public‑side and private‑side sources of I/I must be addressed and that the final CIP should include funding options and a cadence for future reviews to track progress and adjust priorities.
Next steps: staff will share the draft RFQ with council in the coming weeks, issue the RFQ, and then bring proposed project prioritization and funding options back to council for decisions on rate changes, bonding or other financing.
