Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines 17 stormwater project areas; six prioritized for GO Bond construction
Summary
Consultants presented hydrologic modeling and a nine-factor prioritization matrix that narrowed 92 candidate stormwater sites to 17, with six recommended for final design and construction under the city's GO Bond plan. The package targets at least 267 properties and fits roughly a $6.1 million construction budget.
Daria Sacareva, a consultant with GBA, told the Raytown Board of Aldermen on Nov. 12 that a system-wide 1D/2D model and a stakeholder-driven prioritization matrix narrowed more than 90 candidate stormwater problem areas to 17 project areas and identified six top-priority projects for design and construction.
The presentation explained that the team ran both 10-year and 100-year storm scenarios, correlated model outputs with the city's 2014 capital improvement plan and 21 resident flooding reports, and then evaluated sites using nine criteria including number of impacted properties, level of service, visibility and safety. Each site received a numeric score multiplied by a weight; the resultant value score was divided into a conceptual construction cost to produce a cost-to-value ranking.
Why it matters: the prioritization aims to direct limited funds toward projects that benefit the largest number of residents and reduce property and street flooding. Sacareva said the six projects recommended for final design would collectively affect at least 267 properties and fit within the city's available construction budget of about $6.1 million.
Key details: the consultant described different solution types tailored to conditions. In some neighborhoods the issue was a lack of enclosed pipe where only roadside or backyard ditches exist; in others, existing corrugated-metal pipes require lining rather than full replacement. Sacareva said detention basins were recommended in several locations as a cost-effective alternative to upsizing downstream pipes and that school property would be considered for at least one detention site with fenced, grassed designs for safety.
Timing and next steps: staff said design work for the selected projects will follow and likely take six to eight months, with construction planned in 2026. The consultant recommended staged bidding: put the first major package out to bid, then use actual pricing to calibrate subsequent packages and possibly add deferred projects.
Quotes from the meeting: "We ran the whole storm sewer system through a 1D and 2D model," Sacareva said, describing how the analysis identified the depth and location of flooding. Public works staff recommended lining corrugated metal pipe in constrained areas and said that some roadside ditches are being enclosed because backyard ditches are inaccessible for regular maintenance.
The board declined to select extras pending further coordination where street-reconstruction projects are planned (notably Woodson Road), and staff noted grant-application history and the possibility of future bond rounds to address remaining sites.
The board received the presentation, asked clarifying questions about specific sites and map details, and thanked staff for moving long-discussed neighborhood projects into design and construction phases. The GO Bond presentation closed before the board moved to routine consent business.
