1437 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE 1080  TULSA, OKLAHOMA  (P) (F)  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

WILLIAM H. ROBISON, PE, CFM  Senior Engineer for City of Tulsa 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  GISP Manager for Meshek & 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 CHRIS S. HILL, GISP, CFM ABOUT THE SPEAKERS JANET K. MESHEK, PE, CFM  Founder of Meshek & Associates & Principal Engineer  32 years experience in stormwater planning, management, design & hydrologic & hydraulic modeling

FEE-IN-LIEU HISTORY  1974 & 1976 devastating floods – 3 dead & $55 million damage  1977 Earth Change & Drainage Ordinances  1978 Design Criteria Manual – established fee- in-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  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  Increase fee to $0.73/sq. ft.  Implement over 3 years  Update regularly 1994 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA MANUAL 2009 RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

DETENTION SITES  Storage volume estimated  Used 5 detentions  Ranging in size from 50 ac.-ft. to 122 ac.-ft.  Unit costs from current City construction projects  City “as-builts” & surface acres  Calculation of average actual construction costs CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS STUDY METHODOLOGY CURRENT LAND VALUES  Based on County Assessor’s property tax base data  Calculation of average land costs for detentions

5 DETENTIONS CITYWIDE  Alsuma  Brookwood  Haikey  Turner Park  Heatherridge STUDY METHODOLOGY 6

CONSTRUCTION COSTS  Example - Haikey Creek Detention Facility  50 ac.-ft. storage volume STUDY METHODOLOGY 7

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. = 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. = 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 TOTAL 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 CURRENT LAND 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

HAIKEY CREEK –LAND COSTS BEFORE ADJUSTMENT STUDY METHODOLOGY

PROJECTED CURRENT LAND COSTS – HAIKEY CREEK  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 TOTAL 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 ACTUAL TOTAL COSTS – ALL DETENTIONS  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  $ $0.48 = ~$0.73/sq. ft. of additional impervious area STUDY METHODOLOGY

16 STUDY METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY ADVANTAGES  Valid and reliable data based on actual 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

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS  Current actual total cost of $0.73 is significant increase  Possible difficulty in implementing due to magnitude of increase  Lack of periodic fee review  Historical fees not reflective of total actual public costs  Development community influential in decision- making  Fee will defray only part of total actual public costs  Costs not paid by development community will become future public costs  Proliferation of onsite non- regional detentions can result in negative impacts  Objections to implementation likely INCREASE IS SIGNIFICANTINCREASE IS DIRECT RESULT CONSEQUENCES NO INCREASE INCREASE OTHER CONSEQUENCES

THE END OF THE STORY  Sept – Board approved fee increase over 3 years  Apr – City Council approved implementation effective immediately  April 2011 & Incremental increases - $0.18/sq. ft. per year IMPLEMENTATION

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION – OTHER CONSIDERATIONS  Matrix developed to determine when use of Fee-In- Lieu 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

DECISION MATRIX TO DETERMINE USE OF FEE-IN-LIEU DECISION MAKING PROCESS PERMITTINGFEE-IN-LIEU OF DETENTION

EXCELLENCE  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  Should be an option – not mandated  Should consider adverse downstream impact in approval process QUALIFICATIONS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

1437 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE 1080  TULSA, OKLAHOMA  (P) (F)  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