Travis County Commissioners Court
May 10, 2005
Item 26
26 is to consider and take appropriate action on status of tnr work plan and need to adopt al tern native strategy to perform tasks related to walnut creek erosion plan.
>> good morning. Do you want me to launch?
>> that would be fine. I got in an e-mail mood yesterday and sent two or three out where basically I tried to indicate conversations I had had with joe and some folks that I had. But joe?
>> I think just to highlight a little bit here. There's really two issues with tnr. One is the work load. And the other is the expertise. We have any number of major initiatives going on, and we're relying on some of the same staff to support those initiatives, those being the bond program and the support of the bond citizen's committee. The southwest growth corridor dialogue where it's really now coming into its full strength for us and the staff work that has to accompany that. We also have the landfill siting agenda items that we're supporting. And then we have ongoing multiple issues with the capital improvements program contracts projects, meetings. We're to the point where we're really con strained about taking on another major initiative, and so when the court directed us to start developing a policy and a project for erosion control on walnut creek, initially I thought that would be done out of the Commissioner's office and it would be mainly evolving many outside agencies. It's become clear to me that there still is a major role for tnr. And we, quite frankly, do not have the technical expertise to support that program. And so john and I have talked about this and kind of gone through the various options so that we can continue on the path, but we believe that all of the options that you laid out in your e-mail, we believe the hiring of an outside consultant probably meets the bill the best because it is getting the expertise that we need and also the additional -- the resources to help us supplement the staff. We will not be involved, but I think we'll be involved to a level that we can do this along with our other work load, and also we lie on the technical expertise of an outside party to really do most of the analysis of the problem. So we would really recommend that the court authorize perhaps a scope of work and some additional funding. And i'd be happy to come back to the court with that scope of work and with an estimate of how much it's likely to cost to start looking at the problems along walnut creek. I've taken the liberty to talk about this issue also with the city of Austin watershed protection department, who I believe really do have -- have developed a very credible program over a decade in the area of watershed management and erosion control. I trust their judgment. And they also at this point have a department of some 400 employees who not only do engineering work, but also plan review and take on projects such as this. So it just gives you the order of magnitude where we're really at our -- not well prepared to take on even a small project at this point, but I did in talking with the city, they would recommend a couple different firmdz that they believe do pretty good work in this area that could help us develop that scope of work as well.
>> joe, there was an article just last week in I think it was in fact, talking about how the environmental board and one other commission -- I sent it to christina yesterday, just got a report from watershed protection. And they've got 800 million dollars' worth of drainage issues in watershed protection and they said the number one problem watershed was... Walnut creek. Which was contrary to some of the feedback we were getting initially from you all that when we were talking about, well, where's the city on this? This was like they're not anywhere on this. The city is now saying it's a problem and they've got their full watershed protection report, which I haven't popped it up on the web yet, but it's got all the information about walnut creek. And it seems like we ought to see if the city will join us because clearly they've got issues on walnut creek as well. And see if they'll join us.
>> I知 sorry if you were misled on any statements we may have made with regard to the city. I think we -- they're very clear about what's unincorporated and what's incorporated. And so I think our comments were really with regard to them extending their capital improvements to the unincorporated area when they have enough on their plate inside the city. So they've --
>> I think they've got issues on walnut creek within the city that are upstream from ours.
>> we also recognize that it's a basin problem. And I think one of their advice to us is be careful because band aids don't even work. So you may go out and you think you're going to take care of a problem, but because of the nature of water in a watershed and how it einvolves over time that you really need to be careful and thoughtful on what you do in one step because it may be that mother nature has bigger plans for the basin. And so that's why we feel at ease for us to recommend that you spend $100,000 on a quick fix if that's not appropriate. If we feel that might wash out because of something else going on in the watershed, then we've just wasted our money. So we really believe that to proceed we ought to have good advice and make use of whatever limited dollars that we have to do some kind of fix in it. And that fix may be a structural fix, it may be a buyout program. I think at this point it's too early to say which is the better.
>> and I know that I ran into christina and some of the other folks from the walnut creek area yesterday. Congressman mccaul was there. I know they were talking about whether there will be some federal funds available and I talked to one of their assistants and she said their working on what assistance there could be perhaps from the federal government. I think we're going to need to get many hands working on that thing.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> to me that's the fix. I thought that the question today really boiled down to rewell have three options. I mean we can either -- because basically what you are saying is hey, you can reduce my workload, we can talk about what else I don't do in order to do this. Or I mean I don't know whether these court members assign their staff to do it, I mean, gosh, I mean, there's nobody on my staff that would be any help for this, you know, because they wouldn't know what they were doing or to retain a consultant. Naturally might be the city, us going to them and saying hey, we'll help. Why don't we has that move? -- make that move? I mean go to them, say, help us do this, we're kind of in the middle section, but you guys are on either ends of it. If it's going to be dollars, so we know that it's going to be dollars, but we are prepared to spend some dollars wherever it has to be, but to me that's the only -- a consultant is the only person that I think other than out of t.n.r., since you all are so overwhelmed, joe --
>> again, I think it's not just a workload, it is expertise. This is a special discipline.
>> sure. That's the reason --
>> ease my mind, I guess. When he thought about the possible options these three came up. These are the obvious courses and what joe is saying is that two of them don't make much sense. If you look at the expertise, then our respective office would have less than t.n.r. At this point. But so have we asked the city for its assistance on walnut creek, any unincorporated area.
>> i'll answer to my part, in my conversations with george oswalt, he's certainly said that they could provide us a -- a -- advice, scopes, you know, help in terms of -- of giving us some direction and -- in how to put together things. I did go so far as to ask him if we could contract with him to do the work.
>> [indiscernible]
>> john kuhl environmental t.n.r. Officer. We have had direct conversations with george and others in that work area. I said directly, you know, this is the type of project that you, your engineers would do in terms of design and analysis in house or would you contract. The city said oh, now, given the magnitude of this project, this would be a no brainer that we would contract out. So -- so what I think you do here is you use the same -- there's only two to three at the most contractors that do this type of work with great expertise in this area. And, you know, you just -- if you can isolate the dollars to contract it out, you make sure that the -- that it is done in concert with the bigger plans and projects that the city has.
>> we have a range -- a sense, joe, of what you are talking about, at least to get the preliminary work done.
>> I don't, but I thought that we would look at it as being perhaps a two or three phase process. You would hire a consultant really to come in and almost prepare a scope of what they would propose once they take a look at it. And then perhaps some -- some further technical work and then if you finally decide that want a structural improvement, there's design work to design the improvement, the second phase of that make some regard with -- some improvement with regard to either structural or non-structural. If it comes to non-structural, it's just a buyout, I think we can bring that back in house. We certainly have the technical know how and the people who know how to do that, so we have been doing it in a front [indiscernible] buyout. So I don't think that's a problem. But it's more just knowing what it is that we are trying to accomplish with a -- with -- at the technical end.
>> well, having looked at some more pictures yesterday with christina buying folks out doesn't stop the erosion. That stuff is still continuing to eat away at the land and so buyout just helps that one person, there's still erosion problems there that are just amazing, water has a mind of its own.
>> what I知 beginning to my osmosis pick up more and more about this whole subject matter. I think one of the things that the city emphasized time and again that in a developing watershed, like this one, you can expect the -- the basin to widen over time so erosion is a natural phenomenon. And so -- so you have to be careful about thinking that you are going to fix it to one place when -- when over years and years that whole -- both sides are widening out because of the amount of water coming through. As george told me, the grand canyon didn't get there by accident. It was really over many eons, that is typically what happens in these developing watersheds. So -- so with that said, I mean, it's a much bigger picture when you start looking at it in terms of an entire basin as opposed to just two or three parcels that are being eroded.
>> why don't we give t.n.r. The Marching orders to go to the city of Austin to say let's legitimately sit down and determine how we would bring a consultant on to look at this project. I mean, that's -- because like you said, buying the few properties is not going to -- I mean it may help, you know, one or two people but I mean what we are really after is how do we take this issue on? The sooner the better. I mean, as opposed to dilley daliing around -- dallying around.
>> I want us to be prepared to move on with things that we need to do whether the city is part of it or not. If the city is not a part of it, we can't say oh, woe is me.
>> I think we point-blank say here's what the corps is giving us Marching orders to do is to come and to see are you -- can we partner with you on this thing.
>> and collaborate.
>> yep.
>> makes sense to me, if the city can help us identify consultants or do this work, that means we'll go ahead and have preliminary consultations with them.
>> again, this drainage report, judge, was just released to two of their economics last week. Commissions last week. The intent is to start making the round in anticipation of their bond election because they have every intent of putting on items related to the drainage utility.
>> right.
>> so it's a timely discussion.
>> sure.
>> whether we can work -- okay.
>> but it takes two to tango, two to have conversations. If in fact the city's plate is full, I don't know how much they will want to converse about our problem.
>> we can find out.
>> if they have said there are two or three consultants who have expertise to this do this work, the implication there is that they want to start with these consultants. I知 saying we might as well go ahead and do both.
>> yeah.
>> well, I can't imagine that the city is going to go, no, we don't want to be involved with you all, you all just go ahead and do what we are going to do. We do something in the area that does away with whatever they are doing. I mean, they have got to want to deal with us and say you have got part of the creek that's in the up incorporated area. It's only natural that we are together on this thing.
>> can you recall exactly what the court approved last time?
>> set up a committee. And told us to go after it. So we --
>> to look into what needs to be done?
>> yeah. Come back with recommendations?
>> doesn't that sound like y'all, is that what y'all think that we ought to do?
>> yes.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> you we need to get you on the mic, ma'am. Comments.
>> I知 cindy magner, I found some things that the city of Austin has done extensive studies on walnut creek and the whole watershed, all of the watersheds in Austin. It called the watershed protection master plan. A lot of places that they identified where there were problems, [indiscernible] ranked problems for all Austin watersheds are located on walnut creek. There are several -- a couple of type 1, which are the -- this one is in 2003, when this study was done, I believe. And -- and they have also have had creek erosion mitigation program, where they have made some -- some improvements on several areas different watersheds and creeks throughout Austin and there are some pretty nice band-aids, these some pictures here and -- and this is the -- the [indiscernible] several Barton Creek, peoplebrook trail, bartholomew park, loyola lane, on little walnut creek. They have turned out very nice, there's quite a few places they have identified as problem areas. There's a lot of them on walnut creek. Also, this new pioneer crossing area that they are building right at dessau and parmer, they are planning on adding I think 53,000 people to the area. It's huge. It's huge. Not only is it going to cause us traffic problems, but it's in the walnut creek watershed? Guess where the water is going to go? Downstream and --
>> right.
>> so that's a big concern, big concern for us. The aisd taxes, we pay it, even though we are not in the city of Austin. The pioneer crossing, they are going to be in minor i.s.d., although they are in the city of Austin so they won't be paying the Austin i.s.d. Taxes, that kind of -- doesn't sit well with me either.
>> why don't we just give staff direction then to chat with the city of Austin and the question is how can we collaborate with them to discuss issues on walnut creek, specifically the parts in the unincorporated areas for us. Second thing, though, is we may as well go ahead and contact the two or three consultants that work in this area and see if they have any kind of preliminary views, including what they cost would be, what they would charge.
>> all right. Do you want -- order of magnitude even at this point? I mean so -- as we step forward, I have a fairly good sense for the amount of money that we are talking about in various phases, it's -- so one -- it forecasts where we are going a little bit. We are probably talking in the order of 20, perhaps $30,000 in the first phase of look and see. If we get to design you are probably in the neighborhood of 100 to $200,000. For a structural program, you were then -- or a buyout for that matter, you are probably talking two or three million. So -- so this is sequence that we are -- cost involved -- probably what you should expect coming back and in terms of being able to actually do something that has an outcome to take care of the problem.
>> consistent with how we handle the creek and some of the others, it's a big problem, we try to whittle away at is as best we can.
>> so the motion would be to allow t.n.r. To go to the city of Austin and engage in -- let's find out what it would take for us to collectively, I mean, do a major -- do the fix.
>> I will come back with a scope of work, some cost estimates and i'll try to get george here for the next meeting so he can give you the context in which our work might be done so that we are closely tied with what the city is doing in the same watershed.
>> but you are going to contact those firms to see --
>> because the city seems to be saying [indiscernible] do the work. So we may as well get their preliminary estimates of the different phases if that is true.
>> well, don't you think that's something that the city is already going to have, I mean, they seem to be ahead of us in this game. So let's go to them and say, I mean, as opposed to us finding some [indiscernible], we have already got some, let's say hey, we want to piggyback your deal. You all are the big guys in this thing, we want to see how we can participate, we have to cost share in that. The city probably won't turn that down. But I would ask the city to have you all in -- if -- I would imagine they are probably going to put all of them capable of doing this job on some sort of a list. Don't tell us, three or four that we would go to.
>> I知 getting the impression we are doing it different ways, talking about the scope of the problem. The city is trying to get to a place where they can throw it into the bond election with a if I can. They have laid out the magnitude of the problem. They are not hiring people or doing the preliminary work. They are just trying to lay out the case to their boards and commissions like what is happening with our citizens bond committee with the intent of moving forward with a solution, you know, in the may next year time frame in terms of what do they put on their bond leak. But they are not -- bond election. But they are not engaging consultants here to start doing preliminary work.
>> no. I get that. I知 just saying let's ask. Can we participate with you. That's the first question that we have got to get from them. Then yeah we really know where to go next.
>> so we can go online with them.
>> the only difference I was saying I would do both. I would get as much information as I could to the appropriate persons and entities, I think it will take you two weeks to do that, won't it?
>> yeah.
>> so I mean I would use the time-wisely. You don't know whether you will get a yea or nay from the city. I assume -- assuming they give us the most help possible they have already said we don't do this, the consultants do. Right? And so we may as well go ahead and talk with them, get whatever preliminary ideas and estimates they have. So when we look at this issue again on the 22nd, on the 17th, on th 24th, two weeks from today, we have have specific information to consider.
>> okay.
>> that's what I知 thinking.
>> okay.
>> so the court has effectively ruled out options one and two and there are no others.
>> right.
>> so these three are the logical ones of these three the consultant option is in our view the best one.
>> yeah.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. I just did those in the form of like court directions.
>> uh-huh. Okay.
>> unless there's an objection I don't know that we need a motion. Our intention was for the committee to work with staff and try to put together this precise sort of scope of work anyway. And what we are saying is that work from the city of Austin and consultants in this area at this time may make more sense and help us get this done in the most timely manner. It's still staff doing some work. But it's trying to get the -- a lot more expertise than we have in house, I take it. Ms. Kubec.
>> I知 christina kubec from walnut creek. Thank you for the issue and thank you Karen Sonleitner for the web link you sent to me. I appreciate it, it's very helpful. I believe that time is an ill afforded luxury to everyone. Especially to those whose homes are quite literally falling off the edge of a cliff. I sincerely hope that someone makes the time to apply for an extension on the use of the $100,000. I personally don't want to see it just get thrown back to the state. Other than that I have a picture that was taken in December of -- of 2004 of cindy's property that I want to show to the court, Karen Sonleitner has already seen it. It's fallen worse than -- than --
>> update on $100,000?
>> we have to provide the [indiscernible], basically we are telling them we are treading water, trying to figure out the best way to put it to good use. We will certainly continue to timely file those reports and ask for extensions as appropriate.
>> treading water is not good. That's terrible.
>> you have got to get us to a [indiscernible] place before you can submit it. They won't let us spend it on the study. They have been very clear about it.
>> okay.
>> I guess we need to indicate to them that we are moving in the direction of specific work.
>> anybody else on this item? If so, please come forward. If you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> ilona torok lien bro -- I知 eileen broman I live at [indiscernible], I really felt no surprise at all that the staff was recommending that somebody besides them do something today. It's though the that they don't have enough to do, but this has gone on for many years. And I thank you for reassigning that we really do something, not just talk about it. It's got to be something besides talk and passing the buck. Thank you for listening. I really hope we get down to doing some actions.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> we will have this item back on on may 24th, two weeks from today. Let's get all of the information that we could, maybe have have specific recommendations from the court to act on.
>> thank you all.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:12 AM