Stormwater master plan sets $46.3 million list of projects; council told limited local revenue will stretch work over decades

City public works director Sinan Afslan and consultants from Intuition & Logic presented the city’s updated stormwater master plan, a multi‑year inventory and prioritization of flooding and channel stability problems across Webster Groves.

Consultant Tim Dean described the methodology: a city survey produced 406 respondents and 639 complaint points, which the team consolidated into 325 field‑verified items and then into 102 candidate capital projects. The team walked more than 8.5 miles of channel and incorporated available data including topography, hydrology and known sinkhole locations. Projects were costed using engineering quantity estimates and prioritized with a benefit‑cost scoring system aligned to Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) criteria with some municipal adjustments for roadways, parks and natural resource impacts.

The plan lists a program‑level cost of roughly $46.3 million: about $24.5 million tied to flood‑related projects and $21.8 million for channel or stability projects. Dean said the projects that most directly protect structures and infrastructure ranked highest under the benefit‑cost framework and therefore would be the initial candidates for a 5–10 year CIP program.

Director Afslan told council the city’s current annual stormwater revenue includes roughly $250,000 from the local stormwater sales tax and an estimated $300,000 in MSD Proposition S allocations once that program begins, for a total of about $550,000 per year. Using that funding alone, Afslan said completing the full $46.3 million list would take many decades — roughly 75 years at current revenues — or would require an additional roughly $1.6–1.7 million per year to finish the CIP in 20 years. Afslan suggested using the new plan to pursue MSD funding, state and federal grants, OMCI balances in existing MSD subdistricts and targeted local investments.

Consultants and staff recommended an implementation approach that prioritized upstream, locally controllable infrastructure (inlets, culverts, closed systems) where feasible and emphasized coordination with MSD on downstream channel projects and related capital work. The consultants included a line item allowance for sinkhole investigations at projects where karst conditions were suspected.

Council discussion focused on costs, timing and coordination with MSD. Councilmembers asked about opportunities to ‘‘piggyback’’ on MSD projects to reduce cost, the use of OMCI funds earmarked for particular watersheds, and hiring a program manager (0.7–1.0 FTE) to administer a multi‑year program. Afslan and Dean recommended annual incorporation of the prioritized projects into the city CIP and a five‑year rolling implementation plan; they also proposed rescoring projects only if field conditions change.

Ending

Councilmembers asked staff to post a high‑level version of the plan and appendices for review; several councilmembers asked staff and the city attorney to prepare language for formal adoption and to present a funding and CIP integration plan for future budget cycles.