Travis County Commissioners Court
May 24, 2005
Item 19
19. Consider and take appropriate action on status of tnr work plan and need to adopt alternative strategy to perform tasks related to walnut creek erosion plan. Mr. Gieselman.
>> good morning, joe gieselman with the transportation and natural resources department. John kuhl. We had a -- we had a really good meeting with the city of Austin watershed protection staff. Some of their experts in the erosion control. They were able to provide us some scopes of work that they have used in other erosion studies that they have done within the city. Also give us some pretty good rough estimates on what it would cost for buyouts and construction permits, whatnot. We then took that, their advice and information developed a very, very brief scope that was sent out to three consultants in town that specialized in this area of erosion, evaluations, and what you see is the result of both the scope of work and also the estimates for -- for what you might anticipate as being the ultimate cost for either a buyout or a construction of a bank stabilization solution moving all the way through the process. As we explained, not in the position to give the court technical guidance in that area, not our expertise. Should be a reconnaissance done by our consultants so that they can do some of the soil samples of that bank, be able to do the technical -- technical analysis to advise you on just what's happening on the bank. Then from there evaluate at least four different alternatives, one is of course always do nothing. The other one is to do some type of structural improvement that would stabilize the bank. And another option would be buy-out. A fourth option would be doing something with the bypass channel that the city actually -- it's an existing bypass, mother nature originally instructed it, but the city came in a couple of years back trying to add to it. So there's a bypass channel there. That would be another thing that they would look at is there something further that the governments could do to the bypass channel. So basically look at four different alternatives. At a fairly high level. And then come back to the court with that report and say okay here's basically what we have found, here are the options and then we can proceed to more detailed design work or if it's the buyout option appraisal of property. So we can firm up a budget. A capital budget for the buyout or proceeding into design and construction of a capital construction project.
>> in these particular areas as far as erosion, looking at all of these problems I guess, using the consultant, what time line have we allowed for something to come back, we can make a decision, be different options as far as how to proceed? What are we looking at? Have we looked at any time scenario? Because -- because of the urgency of the matter, in my opinion.
>> well, the first part of that answer is depending on how you select your consultant. We --
>> we indicated to these three firms that there would be an rfq process, that everybody would be in the competition so to speak to get the work. That would take probably a couple of months to set our rfq's, have them evaluated bring them back, end up working on the contract with one of those firms. The work itself I would imagine would probably take a couple of months. Especially if they had to go out and do some boring samples of the embankment to do a technical analysis of the erosion potentials. So I think you are probably talking probably four months minimum before they would come back with the results, the first phase of work.
>> four month minimum I guess from I guess when we get the r.f.p., all of that is basically included in the form of [indiscernible] for which you are stating at this time.
>> let me ask john because we really haven't talked about this.
>> yeah, I agree. It is very important, you know, typically you don't go out and get costs ahead of time. The engineers are quick to remind you that's an rfq process, we want to be very careful with that, make sure that we go through that process. I think joe's estimate is -- is accurate on the -- on the, you know on the minimum side.
>> all right. The reason why I pose that question is because another flood event, rainy season coming up, in are some properties that are in jeopardy today. What would be the impact on another major rain event, flooding event that would actually claim the property that right now that those homesteads that are in danger, that's why I pose that question. Buyout situations, there's another option, but then again this would put us beyond the point of -- of maybe looking at moneys that maybe we can -- maybe can be made available, maybe in a bond initiative. I don't know. But -- but I知 kind of concerned about that. Because if -- if there are properties that will be claimed in the next flood event, then how do we handle that? That's my point. Somebody talk to me.
>> you do have a -- probably a September deadline for -- for preparing election order for the bond election.
>> all right.
>> so that's -- that's probably your drop dead on if you want to include any -- bond 7 funds to take care of the problem. Bond funds to take care of the problem. It is close.
>> very close. There's any number of different ways that you deal with co's.
>> that's my final question for right for you, thank you.
>> who would put together the r.f.q.?
>> we would do that, t.n.r.
>> you think you would be able to get that done a week to 10 days.
>> I think we have some good information from the city to start with, it's not like doing it from scratch.
>> it would be on the street in 30 days, you think.
>> yeah. Now there's an issue of funding here, this is probably about a $30,000 first phase of work. [indiscernible] to do that.
>> when would that --
>> I would say 30 is probably more accurate.
>> 30 days is more appropriate --
>> I知 aware of that. This is done fairly quickly. These consultants that we were working with had just a little bit of information to go on. So --
>> very little time.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> let me make sure that I understand this. We were -- when you talked with the city, are we talking about these figures that we have on page 2 of just being for -- for our -- the county part of this thing and -- and the section where we are having the issue with the homes, this is not a -- not a full channelization kind of a deal. This is -- there's a specific problem in a specific area, that's what this covers. Did we get anything from the city with regards to -- okay, if we got involved with you all on -- you all got some upstream and some downstream issues. How does this coordinate that it with you all or does this just -- in other words if we were to do this, might what the city was doing in their areas, might it affect what we would do here? I guess it wouldn't just negatively I would think but --
>> no. This -- the scope that -- the geographic scope is pretty much what you see on the map, everything is working from this map. Consultants. So it really is just that short segment of walnut creek.
>> we would need the source of funding identified before executing the contract.
>> I would recommend the reserve. But I can get you that number. I should have it memorized.
>> we do have several residents here. Any comments before we act on this? My motion is that we authorize staff to prepare an appropriate r.f.q., for court approval that we try to have this on our agenda on June 7th seems to be a good date.
>> second.
>> and between now and then, we will identify an appropriate source of funding and tell christian that joe's recommendation is the allocated reserve. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. What the consultant will do is give us a better indication of what it will take to address these issues. Okay? Comments from any residents? You heard the motion. Yes, ma'am, ms. English?
>> [indiscernible]
>> while she is coming up, joe, have we made sure there's at least a conversation that is occurring with the bond committee that this kind of a drainage issue might be out there? Because I think they may be focusing more on drainage as opposed to erosion and creek stabilization.
>> this project has been discussed specifically.
>> excellent. Thank you.
>> thank you. Hi, ms. Ingram, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
>> the point that I wanted to make was that the -- relates to the comment on the [indiscernible] channel. That was not naturally made. Quick rise channel.
>> I知 sorry, I didn't understand you. Could you repeat that, I知 sorry.
>> there was a comments on the part of -- plaintiff mr. Kuhl or the other gentleman that the quick rise channel was a natural quick rise channel and it is not. It was one that was dredged by the city of Austin some long time ago, like 10 years ago. When there was still a -- not a chimney hills right behind us. And so that bit of information was not correct information. That's the only thing that I had to --
>> just the bypass.
>> that is the information that we got from the city of Austin who said that they did improve the channel, but it was there prior to their working on the channel. So ... I don't know what to say.
>> well, it's -- it's -- I知 not sure it makes any difference at this point.
>> at different times we were there, you know, we know what happened.
>> ms. English?
>> good morning. I wanted -- my name is trek english. I just wanted to thank you for working on this matter and your staff. I don't care if it was there or it wasn't there at this point. I知 willing to move forward. Commissioner Daugherty what I would like to explain to you is if all our houses are the chairs here, you have the island in the middle and you have the overflow channel going this way. Basically you have a v. And that's a part of the creek that's -- I知 sorry, that pretty much a little bit -- we basically -- what we basically have is you have this whirlpool instead of the creek going straight, whatever. The problem right now is just the flow of the water is just totally inadequate. My biggest concern is not only for the homes that are in jeopardy, but if you have seen the news lately, you have seen walls that have collapsed or whatever, my biggest concern has been all along, if a huge amount of land, whatever, were to fall in the creek you would have immediately blockage which would cause really a tremendous amount of flooding upstream because you couldn't be able to go through. I think that's where the urgency is -- is on this matter. Thank you.
>> thank you, trek.
>> this is one of the best overview maps that I have seen of in terms trek when you describe that kind of circular thing going on, this really shows it in a very good way. Unfortunately we have to see the up close of the house, this really shows what's going on, thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your patience.
>> 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 25, 2005 7:48 AM