City/County "Cooperation" workshop

[Vision 2025]

Let me say something about the county claim for waiving stormwater fees.

In every development agreement between COT and a second party, a stormwater clause specific to drainage and fees is addressed.  If there is no specific clause with regard to a fee or detention of water, then the assumption is always that a fee is assessed by the city. Often, if for instance water can be stored on the property then a fee is waived in lieu of detention. Last I looked, the Fairgrounds had no on site detention for drainage. If the agreement between the city and county did not specifically address this situation then it's obvious the county owes the city the money.

The stormwater fee was a great idea. The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow. But the administrators were hydrologists and not good managers for necessary growth. They are not capable of continuing on as civil servants in the effort to keep Tulsa beautiful. They have fumbled around and flunked when it comes to streets and future growth.

What specifically does the COT/County agreement say with regard to drainage/stormwater fee?

You are incorrect, EXPO has a Stormwater detention facility

First the County had no development agreement with the City, they were outside of the City when developemnt began and as annexation was mid-development there was an agreement entered into which addressed it as is the case in many such instances.

The County and EXPO jointly constructed a significant storm water detention facility at EXPO which directly benefited the City.  As EXPO was a long existing fully urbanized facility it generated little additional runoff with the redevelopment and was therefore under limited obligation to construct storm water detention facilities yet today, there exists a nearly million dollar facility which by design benefits the City (but is not maintained by the City).  EXPO and the County took the staunch stance to be a good neighbor as there were homes downhill of EXPO which were routinely flooded due to chronically undersized City storm sewers which the City had long identified in the City's Master Drainage Plan but improvements were nowhere on the horizon for funding.  The County evaluated the situation and directed that this position that the EXPO storm water facility and storm sewers would be sized greatly in excess of any site redevelopment improvements so that they would address the problems of area residents and essentially eliminated much of the City's backlog of needed improvements in this sub-basin and improved the conditions residents regularly faced.    

In short, the County did the right thing in constructing their facility which is located at the NW corner of the property (West of the permanent RV Park).  

My knowledge of the memorandum of understanding is a couple of years stale but my recollection is that it states EXPO will not be subject to any fees or regulations it has not been subject to previously.  As EXPO had (for a fee) Water and Sanitary sewer service from the City (for usage) it would appear that all that was to change there would be a rate adjustment (downward) to the "in City" rates in exchange for collecting City sales taxes at EXPO.  I guess my take on it is that (from media accounts) the EXPO administration believes that as it was not previously subject to the City's storm water (and perhaps trash) fees they believe it constitutes a new regulation/fee and therefore violates the Memorandum of Understanding whch was the basis for dropping the annexation protest.  

[fotd]

Incorrect? For asking a question and stating a process? Such egos here at TNF...

But thanks for the clarity. If I were judge in this matter, I  would rule that a fee is reasonable if there is not enough adequate on sight detention for draining the entire fairgrounds based on the 100 year flood plain. BUT, if the memorandum of understanding specifically addresses this drainage situation and waives the fee then I would rule no past accruals for storm water are due, obviously.

More than often, the city tries to slip in the fee as a co payment with water and sewer charges.

Thanks again for attempting to clarify. The county has good reason to hold off paying the cost if indeed the agreement specifies no fee in lieu of defined detention. Is the facility at the NW corner buried like the new one at 41st and Harvard (that's a weird underground system)? Also, is the system on the NW corner for the entire fairgrounds? It really does not matter if this is well defined in their MOU.

Do you think infrastructure improvements to keep downstream property owners safe is the same as detaining storm water? I would think those improvements were necessary with the addition of the new buildings, race track and relocated ballpark. Is there somewhere the storm water ends up downstream? I'm thinking the racetrack is part detention as well...Glad to understand that the NW corner holds the 100 year overflow runoff because for a minute I visualized an additional use for the old Driller Stadium (just kidding RUF). Much of the fairgrounds drains in that eastern direction which makes the engineering to place all runoff in the NW corner suspect. 

[Conan71]

Such egos here at TNF...

ahem...

[Vision 2025]

Incorrect? For asking a question and stating a process? Such egos here at TNF...

But thanks for the clarity. If I were judge in this matter, I  would rule that a fee is reasonable if there is not enough adequate on sight detention for draining the entire fairgrounds based on the 100 year flood plain. BUT, if the memorandum of understanding specifically addresses this drainage situation and waives the fee then I would rule no past accruals for storm water are due, obviously.

More than often, the city tries to slip in the fee as a co payment with water and sewer charges.

Thanks again for attempting to clarify. The county has good reason to hold off paying the cost if indeed the agreement specifies no fee in lieu of defined detention. Is the facility at the NW corner buried like the new one at 41st and Harvard (that's a weird underground system)? Also, is the system on the NW corner for the entire fairgrounds? It really does not matter if this is well defined in their MOU.

Do you think infrastructure improvements to keep downstream property owners safe is the same as detaining storm water? I would think those improvements were necessary with the addition of the new buildings, race track and relocated ballpark. Is there somewhere the storm water ends up downstream? I'm thinking the racetrack is part detention as well...Glad to understand that the NW corner holds the 100 year overflow runoff because for a minute I visualized an additional use for the old Driller Stadium (just kidding RUF). Much of the fairgrounds drains in that eastern direction which makes the engineering to place all runoff in the NW corner suspect.  

Sorry, I modified my first statement to be specific to the detention facility.  Guess I could have said 'please look again, it's been there for years' or some other such but it is a pretty good sized nicely landscaped hole in the ground and I'm maybe a little cranky today.  

OK enough of that, please take a look, the facility is of conventional design not buried like at 41st site you mention which was an interesting minimization of the site impacts.

Via site storm sewers, (as I recall) the facility captures runoff from portions of the midway; all of the new parking west of the midway to 21st, the reconstructed Pavilion area parking, RV park, armory area and a portion of the livestock area.  I don't know about the racetrack complex, I assume it heads east.  

I would disagree with your judicial ruling simply because the City has an ordnance that requires improvements from what existed at a fixed point in time and since the site was very nearly fully developed (lots of roofs and paving) it was grandfathered for those runoff volumes, except for the increased volume which was fairly minimal.  As I recall this approach was utilized as a way of protecting existing property owners from having to make retroactive improvements and may have been part of the justification for the establishment storm water fees, in addition to general maintenance to be able to go into problem areas and make improvements to decades old problems funded by those who may not actually have problems.

I understand EXPO complied with the City's storm water discharge standards and As I recall actually went one better as the detention facility is/was oversized to knock the peak down further in this area because of the undersized pipes which caused water in houses issue so actually EXPO provided protection in this area making it constructed to a higher standard than a private developer would have under the same redevelopment conditions within the City limits.    

I've got no dog in the billing fight, I just know a little more than some about the issue and it is my own observation in response to question on an issue that hasn't been all that well reported yet in the media (IMHO).

V

Ps. Denny Tuttle and Bob Dick were who championed making the stormwater improvments.

[Conan71]

I'm pretty certain anything just a tick east of Pittsburg Avenue's alignment with the Expo is going to flow toward the east.

[RecycleMichael]

Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.

The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.

I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.

I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.

[fotd]

Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.

The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.

I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.

I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.

Totally agree...This is not some private developer getting away with something he shouldn't. It's the county. Pay up! The citizens of Tulsa relieved you of your burden. Pay us back. Seriously.

Also, thanks for the big picture. Forgot what that map from skycam looks like....it's like a prehistoric dinosaur tromped through that entire basin years ago...and all those areas that sift further out into Mingo and Mohawk. The Rodgers dry pond was another achievement of the storm water fee. Same with the tennis courts at McClure. JD done us good.

[Vision 2025]

Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.

The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.

I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.

I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.

Michael, just for discussion do you think they should get credit for what they spent beyond of what was required against the fee ?

[shadows]

Much quoted:

The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow.
__________________________________
It has worked well since no rainfall has been measured to equal the flood of '86.

I have questioned what other cities have follow our water retention system?

Why was it not developed as the Corps designed it?

Retention pond at East Central seems to be designed to hold only one foot of water.

The SWM fee is being assessed as a property tax therefore the city cannot assess government owned property.

[swake]

Much quoted:

The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow.
__________________________________
It has worked well since no rainfall has been measured to equal the flood of '86.

I have questioned what other cities have follow our water retention system?

Why was it not developed as the Corps designed it?

Retention pond at East Central seems to be designed to hold only one foot of water.

The SWM fee is being assessed as a property tax therefore the city cannot assess government owned property.

[fotd]

I thought it was a utility expense...it is for me.

[Conan71]

Perhaps it's viewed as a trade-off as a portion of the stormwater flow is retained and managed and the other goes direct to the city.  However, the part which goes to the city, as RM alluded to, is the part with the largest percentage of biological (animal waste) and chemical (i.e. oil, spilled gas, snow melt, etc.) runs direct to the city storm sewer system. 

RM, as the stormwater is not treated, is the city assessed any sort of fine or fees by the ODEQ or EPA based on an average sample of COD's, BOD's, TSS, etc.?  If the city is not being assessed something extra due to this, it seems like the Expo/County/collaboration is sort of a wash (no pun intended).

[shadows]

I thought it was a utility expense...it is for me.

How can it be a utility fee when there are no utilities present.  It is where the county is the prevailing entity of 77 counties and the city is subservient to it only by a revocable charter. 

Just think how many time the Federal Government has given the lands in Oklahoma to the tribes since the trail of tears and keep saying that was a mistake and takes it back.   

[Hoss]

How can it be a utility fee when there are no utilities present.  It is where the county is the prevailing entity of 77 counties and the city is subservient to it only by a revocable charter. 

Just think how many time the Federal Government has given the lands in Oklahoma to the tribes since the trail of tears and keep saying that was a mistake and takes it back.   

LITHIUM!!  GET THE LITHIUM!!  STAT!!

[Conan71]

LITHIUM!!  GET THE LITHIUM!!  STAT!!