PITCHBOOK - The Association of State Floodplain Managers

Report
CITY OF TULSA
Fee-in-Lieu of Detention, Tulsa, Oklahoma: Best
Management Practice
William H. Robison, PE, CFM, City of Tulsa
Janet K. Meshek, PE, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC
Chris S. Hill, GISP, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC
1437 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE 1080  TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74119  918.392.5620 (P) 918.392.5621 (F)  WWW.MESHEKENGR.COM
CHRIS S. HILL, GISP, CFM
 Senior Engineer for City of Tulsa
 GISP Manager for Meshek &
Public Works Department
 Been with City since 1988
 Extensive experience in
stormwater engineering design &
construction, Community Rating
System (CRS), Hazard Mitigation
including FEMA grant
applications, construction
management & multiple software
programs
 BS, Civil Engineering, Oklahoma
State University
JANET K. MESHEK, PE, CFM
 Founder of Meshek & Associates &
Principal Engineer
 32 years experience in stormwater
planning, management, design &
hydrologic & hydraulic modeling
Associates, PLC
 Been with Meshek & Associates
for 10 years
 Involved in numerous mapping &
GIS projects for communities
throughout Oklahoma
 Expertise in project mapping, data
visualization, project data
organization & project
administration
 Currently Adjunct Professor
teaching Introduction to
Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) at Tulsa Community College
 B.S. in geography with minor in
interdisciplinary perspectives on
environment, University of
Oklahoma
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
WILLIAM H. ROBISON , PE, CFM
floods – 3 dead & $55
million damage
 1977 Earth Change &
Drainage Ordinances
 1978 Design Criteria
Manual – established feein-lieu of detention as
“trade-off” option
 1984 “worst” flood - 14
dead & $150 million
damage
 Post-1984 Flood Watershed Development
Ordinance
FEE-IN-LIEU HISTORY
 1974 & 1976 devastating
 No downstream adverse impact
 Proposed fee structure $25,000/ac.-ft. or $0.20/sq. ft.
 Adopted fee structure - $0.10/sq.
ft. additional impervious area
 2003 increased to $0.20/sq. ft.
 Fee significantly less actual costs
2009 RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
 Increase fee to $0.73/sq. ft.
 Implement over 3 years
 Update regularly
FEE-IN-LIEU HISTORY
1994 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA MANUAL
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
 Storage volume estimated
 Unit costs from current City
construction projects
 Used 5 detentions
 Ranging in size from 50
ac.-ft. to 122 ac.-ft.
 City “as-builts” & surface
acres
 Calculation of average
actual construction costs
CURRENT LAND VALUES
 Based on County
Assessor’s property
tax base data
 Calculation of
average land costs
for detentions
STUDY METHODOLOGY
DETENTION SITES
STUDY METHODOLOGY
5 DETENTIONS CITYWIDE
 Alsuma
 Brookwood
 Haikey
 Turner Park
 Heatherridge
6
STUDY METHODOLOGY
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
 Example - Haikey
Creek Detention
Facility
 50 ac.-ft. storage
volume
7
 Current construction costs
were projected:
50 ac.-ft. at $19,000/ac.-ft.
 Amount of additional
impervious area computed:
50 ac.-ft./0.3 ac.-ft. =
166.67 ac.
or 7,260,000 sq. ft.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK
 Current construction costs were projected:
50 ac.-ft. at $19,000/ac.-ft.
 Amount of additional impervious area computed:
50 ac.-ft./0.3 ac.-ft. = 166.67 ac. (7,260,000 sq. ft.)
 To mitigate 1 acre of additional impervious area:
$19,000 X 0.3 ac.-ft. = $5,700/ac.
 To mitigate 1 sq. ft. of additional impervious area:
$5,700/43,560 sq. ft. = $0.13/sq. ft. of additional
impervious area
 Actual construction cost = $0.13/sq. ft.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS - HAIKEY CREEK
 Range in actual total costs of construction of 5
detentions
$0.13/sq. ft. to $0.38/sq. ft.
 Actual average total cost of construction
$0.26/sq. ft. of additional impervious area
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK
 Assessor’s data valuable resource
- Verifiable & defensible database
 GIS valuable tool for real estate data
GIS demonstration to follow
 2 adjustments due to nature of publicly-owned
land
 Surrounding real estate basis for cost projections
 Cost adjustment of 2.5 factor for eminent domain
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED CURRENT LAND COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK
STUDY METHODOLOGY
HAIKEY CREEK –LAND COSTS BEFORE ADJUSTMENT
 Total surrounding land value divided by total
number of square feet = average of $4.20/sq. ft.
land cost
 Adjusted land cost is $4.20/sq. ft. X 2.5 = $10.50/
sq. ft.
 Current land costs = total surface acreage
multiplied by adjusted cost per square foot
396,573 sq. ft. X $10.50/sq. ft. = $4,164,018
 Projected cost to mitigate 1 sq. ft. of additional
impervious area:
$4,164,018/7,260,000 sq. ft. = $0.57/sq. ft.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED CURRENT LAND COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK
 Range in actual total cost of land for 5
detentions
$0.20/sq. ft. to $0.63/sq. ft.
 Actual average total cost of land for 5
detentions
$0.48/sq. ft. of additional impervious area
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED TOTAL LAND COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK
 Average actual total construction & land costs to
mitigate 1 sq. ft. of additional impervious area
 Average total construction costs = $0.26
 Average total land costs = $0.48
 $0.26 + $0.48 = ~$0.73/sq. ft. of additional
impervious area
STUDY METHODOLOGY
PROJECTED ACTUAL TOTAL COSTS – ALL DETENTIONS
STUDY METHODOLOGY
16
current construction and land costs
 Easy to update data with minimal effort to
input new data, including GIS services
 Cost-effective
 Fees reflect actual public costs
METHODOLOGY ADVANTAGES
 Valid and reliable data based on actual
 Current actual total cost of
$0.73 is significant
increase
 Possible difficulty in
implementing due to
magnitude of increase
CONSEQUENCES NO INCREASE
INCREASE
 Fee will defray only part of
total actual public costs
 Costs not paid by
development community will
become future public
costs
INCREASE IS DIRECT RESULT
 Lack of periodic fee review
 Historical fees not
reflective of total actual
public costs
 Development community
influential in decisionmaking
OTHER CONSEQUENCES
 Proliferation of onsite nonregional detentions can
result in negative impacts
 Objections to
implementation likely
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
INCREASE IS SIGNIFICANT
 Sept. 2009 – Board approved fee
increase over 3 years
 Apr. 2010 – City Council approved
implementation effective immediately
 April 2011 & 2012 - Incremental
increases - $0.18/sq. ft. per year
IMPLEMENTATION
THE END OF THE STORY
 Matrix developed to determine when use of Fee-InLieu is appropriate
- Developer may implement Best Management
Practices to assure no adverse downstream impact &
no requirements
 If not, issues to consider before using Fee-in-Lieu:
- Any increase in impervious area?
- Any downstream structures that flood? Downstream
damages? Capacity of downstream system?
- Compliance with Master Drainage Plan?
 Based on the above, Fee-in-Lieu may be an option
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION – OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
DECISION MAKING PROCESS PERMITTING
FEE-IN-LIEU OF DETENTION
DECISION MATRIX TO DETERMINE USE OF FEE-IN-LIEU
 Uses existing accessible
and reliable databases
 Allows quick & easy
updates at minimal cost
 Uses actual public costs
 Promotes development
without public cost
 Fees based on original
intent of “trade-off’
 Has applicability to other
communities
 Use of decision matrix
QUALIFICATIONS
 Should be an option – not
mandated
 Should consider adverse
downstream impact in
approval process
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
EXCELLENCE
CITY OF TULSA
GIS presentation follows
Fee-in-Lieu of Detention, Tulsa, Oklahoma: Best
Management Practice
William H. Robison, PE, CFM, City of Tulsa
Janet K. Meshek, PE, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC
Chris S. Hill, GISP, CFM, Meshek & Associates, PLC
1437 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE 1080  TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74119  918.392.5620 (P) 918.392.5621 (F)  WWW.MESHEKENGR.COM

similar documents