Webster Groves stormwater commission debates how to reprioritize preapproved projects amid complaint-driven data gaps

The Webster Groves Stormwater Commission spent its July meeting focused on how to refine rankings for preapproved stormwater projects so the city’s priorities surface amid limited complaint data.

Chair Steve Stump opened the discussion by outlining three projects the commission had been asked to review — listed in the packet as GC9, DC70 and MC7 — and asked members to consider whether the ranking method could be adjusted to favor Webster Groves priorities.

Staff explained trade-offs engineers weigh during early triage. “If one requires one easement and another requires 15 easements, the reality is it's going to be easier to get one easement from a homeowner than potentially getting, you know, 10 or whatnot,” the staff member said, framing easement counts as an implementation constraint. Staff also noted some projects are already advancing: survey and design work is under way for Southwest Park (GC9) and Glendale/Brookdale (MC7) is planned for LMCI-funded approval in the third quarter with MSD involvement.

Commissioners debated benefit-cost thresholds used to screen projects. One member summarized staff advice that projects with a benefit-cost ratio below 1 typically should not proceed on public dollars absent special justification. Emerson Smith echoed the caution that the initial ranking is “one engineer's thoughts” and could change during detailed design.

Several commissioners raised concerns that the project list is largely complaint-driven and therefore undercounts problems where residents did not report flooding. “This whole project is based upon what record of complaints there are at the time,” Emerson Smith said, adding that the screening did not include wider modeling. Missy Castro pointed to the local stakes: “It just so happens that project is my driveway is pictured in that picture,” she said, describing a neighbor’s recurring flooding and arguing that on-the-ground knowledge should be reflected in prioritization.

Commissioners proposed several steps to improve the data and outreach: publishing a heat map or hotspot visualization to show where complaints cluster, posting clearer information on the commission’s web page and embedding short video explainers for residents, and using a consistent measurement grid to score reported sites. Staff agreed a heat map exists in the study materials and offered the commission web resources and social media channels to amplify outreach.

Members also discussed process options for doing deeper review. Because a subcommittee with a quorum would trigger public-meeting requirements, staff recommended either forming a subcommittee of fewer than a quorum for preparatory work or scheduling a dedicated public work session where the full commission could focus on re-ranking and trade-off decisions.

On funding, staff said projects draw from different sources (Prop S funds versus LMCI/OMCI-type funds and, in some cases, watershed-specific money) and noted OMCI funding was drawing down while Prop S funding would continue. Commissioners asked for a clearer accounting of available funds and the next disbursement timeline to match project selection to budget capacity.

The commission agreed to table an in-depth re-ranking to a future meeting or a dedicated work session and to return with proposed outreach materials, clearer fund balances, and any supplemental engineering information for the top candidates.

The meeting proceeded to other agenda items after members suggested homework and outreach steps for the next session.