City staff urges advancing AOI 2 design in Upper Turtle Creek stormwater plan amid steep estimated costs

City engineering staff told the University Park City Council they recommend advancing design and construction readiness for Area of Interest (AOI) 2 in the Upper Turtle Creek Basin while holding AOI 3 at 60% design to allow time for complex utility relocations and funding planning.

"Don't necessarily need to make decisions today," Katie Barron, the city's director of engineering, said as she opened the briefing and asked the council for guidance rather than a formal vote. Barron reviewed the 2019 stormwater master plan and described three AOIs; she said phase 1 and 2 improvements already in the ground cost about $4,800,000 and have reduced modeled flood depths by inches in key locations.

Barron said the consultants (identified in staff materials as Hewitt Solar) modeled outcomes for different phasing approaches. She described two common sequences—installing an underground “storm trap” first or advancing the heavier design work in streets and lateral detention—and said the consultant can deliver 60% plans for AOI 2 and AOI 3 in the coming months. "If we have shovel-ready plans, we can then phase that out as we like," Barron said.

Staff presented updated cost estimates that vary by scope and phase: the phase 1 improvements at the south end (including a storm trap at Coffee Park) were presented as a just‑under‑$5 million item; a larger phase 2 package of storm drains, lateral detention and associated paving/utility work was presented in briefing materials in the range of about $21 million to $35 million depending on scope; Barron also cited a roughly $50 million all‑in estimate for the entire basin in some modeling runs and noted staff are carrying contingency assumptions (about 30%) in current estimates.

Barron stressed utility complexity in AOI 3, including a city 20‑inch water line that supplies the Northwest Highway water tower and would need relocation or replacement. "That line…would have to be relocated as part of this project," she said, estimating full replacement of that 20‑inch line could cost $2–$3 million in a future project and add to complexity and scheduling.

Council members pressed staff for clearer evidence of realized benefits from earlier investments. One council member asked for a business‑case cost‑benefit analysis before committing more funds, noting the city has invested roughly $14.6 million already and asking whether that work measurably reduced past storm damage. Barron said modeling shows a 10‑inch reduction in some locations and offered anecdotal reports—reduced street closures and fewer yard inundations—while also noting the city has not experienced a recent storm event that fully tests the modeled design conditions. "The modeling is also the best tool that we have until we can have an actual real life event," she said.

There was also discussion of public‑safety context: council members and staff referenced a storm‑related historical fatality noted in the record as occurring decades ago at the McFarland Boulevard bridge.

On funding, City Manager Robbie Quarter and the finance director said the scale of the multi‑phase work will exceed what the city can reasonably pay for on a strictly pay‑as‑you‑go basis. Quarter told the council debt issuance is likely necessary to execute large elements of the plan and that staff will return with funding options. "This is not something we can fit within the pay as you go structure of the city's capital improvement program," Quarter said.

Staff recommended advancing AOI 2 design and pausing AOI 3 at 60% to allow additional engineering time for utility relocation planning and to provide more flexible construction phasing. Public Works Advisory Committee had previously concurred with that prioritization in October. No formal policy vote to change the master plan was recorded at this meeting; council members requested more analysis (including a clearer accounting of realized benefit from prior investments) as staff and consultants advance design and present funding options at future meetings.

Next steps: staff said they will return with updated plans, funding strategies and additional committee discussions in the coming weeks and months; the item is expected back on the council agenda in a future quarter for further action.