Roadway to Implementation: Adopting a Successful Stormwater Program in an Oklahoma Community

1. Roadway To Implementation – How A Small Oklahoma Community Adopted A Successful Stormwater Program Ana Stagg, PE, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC Roger Stevens, City of Owasso

2. AGENDA – THE PROCESS • SPEAKERS QUALIFICATIONS • PROJECT UNDERSTANDING • ABOUT OWASSO • WHAT HAPPENED • PROJECT APPROACH • MASTER PLANNING PROCESS • PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM • IMPERVIOUS AREA STUDY • CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS • PROJECT SCHEDULE • QUESTIONS

3. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS ANA STAGG, CONSULTING ENGINEER ROGER STEVENS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR • Served as Owasso Public Works Director 2002-2007 • Over15 years of experience in civil engineering, management consulting and municipal government. • Certified Floodplain Manager OK-06-00048 • Oklahoma PE 20914 • Certified Water and Wastewater Works Operator OK-20972(B) OK-95405(A) • BS, Civil Engineering, 1993 Florida Institute of Technology • ME, Environmental Engineering, 1997, Cornell University • MBA, Business Administration, 2003, Northwest University, Kellogg Graduate School of Business • Currently serves as Owasso Public Works Director since 2007 • Certified Water and Wastewater Works Operator OK-20972(B) OK-95405(A) • Employed with the City of Owasso, Public Works Department, since 1991 • Member of INCOG (Transportation Technical Committee) • Member of the Owasso Economic Development Authority • Member of the Owasso Annexation Committee • 1997 Eagle Award Winner for Excellence in Public Service • At City of Owasso, Public Department, since 1991. (P.S. In 1980, I was only 8 years old).

4. ABOUT OWASSO, OKLAHOMA

5. 2000-2010 OWASSO BLOSSOMS… • 1990-2000, annual growth rate was 7.5%. • 2000, population of 18,502. • 2010, population projected at 35,000. • 2000-2003, voted as the highest growth rate in Oklahoma for cities of at least 10,000 people. • 2000-2010, Owasso transformed from a small rural community to a thriving suburban city.

6. WITH GROWTH CAME PROSPERITY… • Update critical master planning documents • Secure new financing resources • Upgrade priority infrastructure • Improve essential services • Support development

7. WITH GROWTH CAME RUNOFF… • Increased flooding • Overtopped bridges • Roadway closures • Public objection

8. DEVELOPING A PLAN OF ATTACK…

9. FORMULATING THE PLAN… DO’s DON’Ts • Apply a watershed approach • Listen/inventory all complaints • Investigate partnering opportunities • Use quantitative prioritization processes • Explain implementation plan in detail • Provide ample comment periods • Employ process mediators • Consult experts • Follow up with agreements/promises • Be reactive • Ignore the problem • Start without a plan • Overlook the watershed effect • Act in response to the squeaky wheel • Use qualitative prioritization processes • Neglect (overreact to) development • Forget already developed areas

10. SEEK PUBLIC SUPPORT EARLY… • Start Early – DO IT OFTEN • Beginning of Process – USE QUESTIONNAIRES • Following Inventory Phase • Review Mitigation Measures • Draft Plan – OBTAIN PUBLIC BUY-IN • Public Hearing @ Planning Commission for Final Plan • City Council / County Commission Public Hearing for Final Plan – MAKE IT FORMAL

11. ADVERTISE AND COMMUNICATE… • Utility Billing Inserts • Television Coverage • Public Meetings • Newspapers • Radio/TV Public Announcements • Community/Civic Groups

12. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES… CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE • Appointees of Elected Officials • Flood Victims • Planning Commission • Board of Adjustment • Floodplain Board • Interested Citizens • City Manager/Asst. City Manager • Building Officials • Utilities • Emergency Management • Parks & Recreation • Economic Development • Floodplain Manager

13. EXPLAINING WHY A PLAN IS NECESSARY… • WHAT’S THE CAUSE? • WHAT’S THE BENEFIT? • Existing problems • New land development • Increased impervious area • Speeding up surface flow with paved streets and parking lots, lawn areas instead of pasture, etc. (resultant shorter times of concentration) • Loss of floodplain and resultant loss of floodplain storage • Constructed channels that speed up the water through a reach • Prevent new problems • Correct existing problems • Enhance the community's safety, environment and quality of life

14. FOLLOWING FEMA’s PROCESS… • Provide detailed, logical approach to… • Problem areas inventory, • Alternative evaluation, • Development of solutions, and • Prioritization of projects. • Allows Hazard Mitigation Plan – Appendix – Inclusion • Facilitates Grant Funding Application Process • Enables Flood Plain Maps Revisions (CLOMRs) FEMA 10-STEP PROCESS

15. COVERING DETAILS… MITIGATION OPTIONS PREVENTION OPTIONS • Regional Stormwater Detention/Retention • Channelization, Bridge/Culvert/Storm Sewer Replacement • Acquisition of Buildings in the Floodplain • Floodproofing • Regional Stormwater Detention/Retention • Acquisition of Property in the Floodplain • Stricter Regulatory Controls • SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION • Flood Damage Reduction Benefits • Increased Safety • Nuisance Flooding Abeyance • Allowance for Future Development • Multi-use Facilities Where Possible

16. ILLUSTRATING RESULTS… 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING FLOODPLAIN VISUALIZATION 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING

17. IMPLEMENTING THE ($30-MILLION) PLAN…

18. SECURING FUNDING… • ORDINANCE 754 (2003) • Protect human life, health, and property; • Minimize public and private storm and flood losses from stormwater runoff in the City; • Provide for development of Stormwater Master Plan which will define the existing and future drainage system, identify drainage facilities improvements and project long-range capital improvements requirements; and • Comply with the Phase II Stormwater Management regulations. • (2003) Master Planning starts • (2003) Ordinance 754 establishes Stormwater Management Program • (2003) Resolution 2003-07 establishes ($2.50/ESU) Service Fee… • 1 ESU – residential • 3 ESU – non-residential (w/ water meters > 2-inch) • (2003) Stormwater Program starts w/ annual budget of $265,000 • ORDINANCE 754 (2003)

19. PHASE I OF IMPLEMENTATION… • (2005) Master Drainage Plan is completed • Over 30 Projects identified • Total cost of program is over 30 projects and $20 million • Top Ten Projects = $2.5 million • Implementation @ $250,000/year > 10 yrs • (2005) Commissioned “Impervious Area Utility Fee” • (2005-present) Find Partners

20. IMPERVIOUS AREA STUDY… TASKS DELIVERABLES • Detail edge of pavement, building outlines and other impervious planimetrics • Use developed polygons to measure impervious areas • Determine size of Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) for Owasso • Average ESU = 2,500 to 3,000 sq.ft • Recommend fee and estimate revenue • Map of impervious surfaces linked to GIS parcel data • Database containing: • Number of ESU’s per parcel • Corresponding billing amount • Data Table developed in a format to facilitate linkage to billing department accounts • Customer Web Viewer identifying parcel impervious area and/or ESU’s

21. IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA STUDY FINDINGS… • Impervious Study revealed potential 600% increase non-residential revenues • (2005) Commercial Service Charge Implementation • Phased implementation used to mitigate impact… • FY 05-06 25% of Fee • FY 06-07 50% of Fee • FY 07-08 75% of Fee • F Y 08-09 100% of Fee

22. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS… STORMWATER UTILITY FEE PARTNERS WANTED • Immediate 150% increase in Non-Residential Fee • 2005-2006 Revenues estimated at $285,000 • Potential annual revenues of $480,000 • Maximum debt ability… • 6%, 15 yr, $4.6 M • 6%, 20 yr, $5.5 M • Need… • Top Priority > $6.7 M • Total > $20 M • Tulsa County • Oklahoma Water Resources Board • Development Community • FEMA - HMGP

23. CITY BEGINS IMPLEMENTATION… GOLF COURSE USED TO REMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL FLOODING • (May 2000) First complaints recorded • (June 2003) Study commissioned • (July 2003) Council approves immediate action • (August 2003) Design completed • (October 2003) Construction begins • (December 2003) Construction ends • Cost to City = $250,000

24. NEW DEVELOPMENT HELD TO STANDARDS… • DEVELOPER AGREES TO CONSTRUCT REMEDIAL DETENTION • (2004) Complaints received on newly constructed residential subdivision • (2004) City commissioned study finds errors in engineering assumptions • (2004) Developer asked to construct remedial actions • (2005) Necessary improvements constructed and functional • Cost to City = $0

25. 2006 DEVELOPERS STEP TO BAT… Residential development detention facility serves as Regional Detention Developer contributed land and built facility City contributed 70% of cost Total project savings of $600,000

26. 2008 CITY HITS HOME RUN… GARNETT REGIONAL DETENTION • Provides remedial storage for downstream residential structures • Provides detention storage to future development • Enables larger development of retail space • Uses Fee-In-Lieu and OWRB Loan for financing • Project Value = $3 MIL • Project Cost = $1.8 MIL • City Cost = $0

27. OWASSO LOOKS AHEAD… • 2003-2010, Over $5 Million spent in Stormwater Improvements • 2006-present, Phase II Program compliant • 2009, new FIRM maps adopted (City’s MDP maps) • 2011, Completing GIS inventory of stormwater infrastructure • 2010-2011, $1.5 million Stormwater Budget • 2010-2015, $6.5 million earmarked for Stormwater Improvements

28. QUESTIONS? Roadway To Implementation – How A Small Oklahoma Community Adopted A Successful Stormwater Program Ana Stagg, PE, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC Roger Stevens, City of Owasso