Travis County Commissioners Court
June 13, 2006
Item 14
Number 14, a little bit later than I thought we would call it up, but the pharmacy item took a little more time than I thought it would. 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on walnut creek erosion and flood control study recommendations. A is use of supplemental environmental program funds to crukt structural controls in walnut creek. And b is conduct voluntary buyout of up to 10 homes in the walnut creek watershed. And c is to modify contract with alan plummer associates inc. To design structural controls in project reach.
>> joe gieselman with the transportation and natural resources department. With me also are steve (indiscernible), who is with alan plummer and associate. Stacy shuffle and of course john kuhl, the environmental officer. We have used money authorized by the court to hire alan plummer and associate to look at the drainage issues along walnut creek. Specifically those in the structure of the creek just north of u.s. 290 east. This was discuss understand a work session many weeks back and we would like to refresh your memories on what this study said. So as to put the recommendations that staff is baking into the context of that larger picture. And steve is going to do that for us. Then we'd like to walk through the recommendations that staff is making today on the use of the grant money that we have from the tceq, the state agency, supplemental and environmental money, about $11,000. We have a deadline to meet by submitting an action plan to the state by the end of this month, so we're hopeful that we'll get direction today on how to proceed with that. On the larger recommendation on how to spend the bond money that was approved in November for either structural or non-structural improvements in this area, we thought we would defer for a couple of weeks to allow the court members to digest what we have in the backup today. So we're not looking for direction on that. And then finally, stacy is going to give us an update on the corps of engineers study, which is off in the future, but we still would like to bring you up to date on that. So that's our agd. We would like to be through this as quickly as we can, but there are probably some folks in the audience that would like to speak on the issue.
>> did we share with the residents our recommendation on how the sepped funds should be -- sep funds should be used?
>> the memorandum does discuss the sep money, yes. I致e heard at this point everybody should have a copy of the full report produced by alan plummer and also the backup memo from the tnr. With that let's steve give us an overview, remind us of the big picture and the context for the recommendations.
>> thank you. Again, my name is steve coon with alan plummer and associates. We were retained by the county to do an evaluation of flooding and erosion issues along a stretch of walnut creek along highway 290. In that stretch we went back through the history in looking at aerial photos to determine what has transpired through that region in the past. And what we determined was that there has been erosion along that stretch of the creek back into the 1970's time frame. It is a natural occurrence in all creek bodies, and frequently erosion is increased in its severity through urbanization, but we did not see any specific instances where that had occurred in this watershed. The watershed is developing and we are expecting that there may be in the future, there tends to be a threshold where once a watershed goes over a given threshold that is different for each watershed that there is an advancement of that erosion problem. In addition to the natural -- there are a number of man-made things that have occurred in the past that actually some have helped and some have hurt. There were some stream cutoffs in the lower stretches. There were also some crossings of utilities with concrete encasement that are actually holding the creek from eroding further upstream, and those are all factors that we took into consideration. Then we looked at -- that's what happened, kind of what we might expect to happen into the future. What can we do to help alleviate the problem in the future. So we looked at some structural controls along the bank where there is some significant erosion. There are very high banks that are highly erodible. The soils are very difficult to work with in that area, and from an engineering perspective, that caused us a lot of problems that to come with an engineering design that would -- that we could stand behind and indicate that these homes would be protected, would be very expensive and not really practical. It would also require the significant changing of the character of the creek. And so there are some minor things that can be done to continue helping out the situation. As I mentioned before, there are utility lines crossing the creek in the lower portion of it where that concrete encasement is now being undermined and to go in and replace that grade control would extend the life or retard the advancement of the erosion, and in addition then some full protection along another slope that is not as severely eroded. Beyond that we looked at then the flooding issues, and you can see as shown on here, the red lines are the limits of the new fema restudy, so that is what the proposed fema floodplain limit is. And there are a number of structures in the floodplain, and I believe that you had specifically asked to go over the last six slides from our previous presentation back in April, and they should be up on the screen now. Where we indicated that there was a 10-year floodplain and a number of structures on quiet drive as well as chimney hill, there are seven structures in the 10-year floodplain in the chimney hill area. There is one in the quiet drive area. And then continuing, there are two additional in the 25-year on the quiet drive and then there are three more along quiet drive and then some more up in the chimney hill area. And that is just in this reach of the creek. There are additional structures to the north that are also in the floodplain, but were beyond the limits of our study. So then we looked at what could be done in terms of the flooding and how that could be mitigated. Typically you can look at detaining water upstream so that you have less water flowing through at any given time, however, there's too much storage and too much that would be required to really reduce the flows through, and that wasn't determined to be practical. We could look at diverting a portion of the flow around the area through some sort of diversion channel; however, again, there's just too much water to really effectively be able to divert that. Flood walls or levees are something that is sometimes done and we looked at that; however, if we tried to protect the quiet drive with a flood wall, it would raise the elevation of the floodplain and threaten the houses in chimney hill as well as the houses upstream. Improved conveyance, opening up the channel. There really isn't a significant pinch point in the channel where we could go in and just target that and solve the problem. There was an area in through here, there is a little bit of a constriction that if we could open this up through some excavation, that would help some of these homes as well as this home, and then potentially the homes upstream. And then the other option that we looked at was voluntary buyouts for those that are in the floodplain. Again, the conveyance would be channel improvements. They won't eliminate all the flooding, but they can improve in some areas. It would require that other homes be bought to make way for those channel improvements. And then in summary, there's a number of homes that are subject to both flooding and erosion throughout this reach. Engineered solutions are very difficult and would be quite expensive. Spot repairs may add some time as far as the erosion, but the voluntary buyouts really is the best option in addressing both the flooding and the erosion. But within the available budget. And so the funding status again was through the bond program, $1.67 million was allotted. Some of that has been used and so there's only 1.484. There is sep funding that can be used for the small targeted improvements, the grade control and the (indiscernible) protection, and that's $11,000. And in terms of then the recommendation, to implement the voluntary buyout for both erosion and the flooding, look at prioritizing the list of those because the money isn't going to go far enough to get everybody, so there will need to be some sort of prioritization. Go ahead and implement the grade controls to address future cutting and the top protection measures. And then have a way of monitoring the erosion in the future so that we can come in and make adjustments before it gets too bad again. And that was -- that was the end of our presentation from last time.
>> I have visions of flood control projects in a natural creek that worked and are fabulous and we're proud of. Others that make you want to cry. Boggy creek makes you want to cry because they took a beautiful, natural creek running through east Austin with serious flooding issues, but they made it into a skate park. It's all concrete and it's just awful. It looks like the la river. But on shoal creek we are now using more the natural limestone in places to really shore up and make it still look like it's a creek while still trying to deal with some of the erosion issues. Txdot blew it on 2222, took what the natural braij way and turned it into a skate park. So my question is are there ways that we can still respect the environment while still following through on the mission to protect lives and property? Do we have choices here?
>> are you talking about the tow improvements now?
>> yes.
>> that would be in the order of using the limestone blocks or structures that would only be three feet tall, four feet tall with the intent really being that as erosion occurs, it initially occurs right at the tow of the bank and you get a vertical slope right at the beginning there. And then it sloughs and then that vertical slope has moved back and it has gotten higher. And then it sloughs again and moves back. So if we can stop that from beginning, we've gone a long way towards addressing the erosion problem. And so our typical tow protection is a very low profile. We have done some where we have used limestone blocks, quarried lime tone blocks. We've done some where we've used gabbian wire baskets. Both are available for use. But they are towards -- they are not impacting the whole channel. We're doing a limited amount right at the tow to protect -- keep it from starting.
>> steve, I know in figure 3 in the action plan, which is one of the attachments, showing the longitudal plantings. Is that something you've done before?
>> to the extent that we like to use vegetation to hold banks as much as possible. And vegetation does a wonderful job holding banks right there at the tow. Typically we like to use something a little stronger than the vegetation alone.
>> if the court decides to move forward, we're not going to do everything today as far as what's on the agenda, but to maybe move forward with some of the things that I think we need to have some place with that sep money and stuff like that because of the deadline that we must meet according to tceq. What would it take as far as time lines is concerned for an operation like this to get started to offset as much as possible what we can do in this particular study that you have conducted as far as ensuring that the tow construction and all those other kinds of things is made possible? What kind of time line would we be looking at? Would that be like six months, a year? What kind of time line would that be?
>> we're talking in the order of about a quarter-million-dollar capital improvements project. First of all, we need to get our plan into tceq to have them approve it. Probably have that done within a month, I would hope. I think simultaneous to that we would probably want to proceed on into engineering design on the tow improvements. I知 guessing that would probably be three to four months' effort and then whether or not we did the work with our own crews or whether we contracted it out, that could be probably another two months. So probably in six months to actual start work, and this type of work probably could be completed within four months. So I think we're probably talking six to 10 months perhaps to get the job done.
>> one thing I might add, one qualifier -- excuse me. That I might add there is tceq will have very definite deadlines, and I believe if I知 not mistaken they wanted us to try to finish in the calendar year. So we're going to be real tight.
>> okay. That's what I want. That was my concern.
>> I think we'll have it done within a year.
>> within a year?
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> but if we end up dealing with this today, I guess we will need to -- we need to hear from the community also on this, but we kind of have our backs to the wall as far as time frame is concerned. Do our best to deal with tceq.
>> and that is also in --
>> the action plan. We've got our backs up against the wall on that, there's no doubt about it. I just wanted to lay that out on the table and let everyone know what arena that we're playing in as far as time lines are concerned and the things that are required for us to do according to those folks that have some of the money.
>> and that money is only $111,000.
>> I understand that.
>> these improvements, we are likely to spend probably $200,000 in county money to supplement that 111 to do these tow improvements and grading. That would include both the engineering design and the supplemental capital cost of the project itself.
>> and we presume that that will come out of the bond money.
>> okay.
>> that is is also, by the way, we're kind of getting into the recommendation here. That will be our first recommendation is to proceed on to submit our action plan to tceq, to get authorization to initiate the grading and the tow improvements using not only the 111,000 from the state, but also supplementing that with 2005 bond money to extent that we need to to do the engineering design and also finish the improvement.
>> joe, we mind me of what language we had on the referendum? Regarding walnut creek.
>> it was labeled I believe quiet/walnut creek drainage improvements. So fairly generalized wording in the bond. I think everything we're proposing to do falls well within the scope of the bond proposition.
>> you do this kind of work that's contained in the tow recommendation in the winter months?
>> typically it's done more to the schedule of the entity that is bidding it. You don't want to be out there in the spring when you do expect flow in the creek. Summer months when the flow is typically down and it's dry are good although you're subject to flash flooding during that time as well as then in the winter we've had instances. There really isn't a perfect time to do it this the spring being the least advantageous.
>> again tell me where the tow project would be and --
>> tow protection would be in this bend through here, and then the grade control would be down in here. And the purpose of the grade control right now is as the channel erodes, it tries to deepen itself.
>> we need you to pick that microphone up there. As the creek row roads up it tries to deepen itself. If we can put a grade control across there to keep it from happening then it makes it more difficult for the banks to start that tow erosion and begin that sloughing project because the bank -- if the creek bottom erodes up, then you're basically exposing that tow of the bank.
>> okay. Those three orange things, are those structures or what?
>> these are condos that are deep in the floodplain. And it shows up as three, but I believe there are actually more condos.
>> there are seven units.
>> actually, those three are actually five units. The seven encompass the ones that are further up in the floodplain as well.
>> quiet drive on this street right here.
>> when you actually end up doing your study itself, you end up unveiling or revealing, I guess, the situation in the chimney hills area where those condos are located now that the structure is actually in the floodway. So that was just a spinoff of what uncovered during your study.
>> yeah. I don't know that we revealed that. I think it was known that these were in the floodplain.
>> although identified as far as this study is concerned, you were able to point what brought in in this process. We're not only looking at the quiet drive residents over there in the buyout program, but we also are looking at those because of what's happened there.
>> right. We studied the reach from about this location to this location, and we studied both sides, not just one side.
>> exactly.
>> and those three are on the other side of the creek? Chimney hills?
>> yes.
>> so the tow protection, to the buyout that money allows in the third recommendation is what?
>> it's actually
>> there are certain conditions they have to meet to be eligible for a single buyout, but I think that's probably what you're looking at in terms of full recommendation. It's just proceeding on to find -- I guess what we're saying is the problem is bigger than what we initially scoped in our bond program and we started looking at that, there's not enough money even with our bond money to solve all the problems we're looking at right now. It looks like we can certainly use the sep money to do some towing permits. We can do our bond money to the extent that it's available to do some relief to some of the households, but not all of the households. So there has to be some priority made on just how we spend the bond money. And third is to go after additional funding sources just as the fema buyout money.
>> and you need to move fast before fema begins to -- there's an article out where the federal government is rethinking how much they're going to continue to invest in buyout programs because there's repetition that is involved in all of the flooding and the claims, so I would recommend that we move fast before they change their priorities.
>> and I guess -- on the one hand, I need to maybe make a motion to this effect as far as -- thank you, Commissioner. Now, that was fast. [ laughter ]
>> we need to move approval of tnr and also purchasing, negotiate to look at the scope of work on the tow protection and also grade control under the -- under the grade control we want to keep that in the range between 20,000 and 25,000. And under the tow protection we want to keep that in the range of 150 to 200,000. And also pursue and submit the action plan to tceq that has to be no later than the 30th of this month, June 30th from what I understand, on our particular recommendation as far as how we're going to use the sep money of -- that's been designated here, $111,210. And also to come back with a modification as far as looking for the necessary funding, bond funding to offset the additional costs that it will take to do this particular work as far as the grade control and also tow protection in this area. Also in that projection I would like to see -- to authorize tnr to contact fema to see what these homes in the chimney hill area, to see if they will be eligible for the fema program, buyout program. So with those particular recommendations, I壇 like to have -- I壇 like to move profl of those things I -- move approval of those things I just stated.
>> second.
>> motion and a second. Now, some residents have come down on this item. Those who would like to address the court, please come forward and if we can make about three of those chairs available.
>> judge, I want to correct one slight misstatement that needed to be made, and I think some of the residents may have caught it as well. When steve was presenting, the 1.84 versus 1.67, and he stated that some had been used, that's incorrect. All that is is 1.67 was the full alotment, the other is for 2006. The remainder, 180,000 is still there. Nothing has been touched.
>> my wife just stepped out. We live a quiet drive, which I think is closest to the creek -- (indiscernible). We've flooded three times in the last 11 or 12 years. I think we are in the 10% floodplain. I want to thank all of you for having looked at this. (indiscernible) (indiscernible) what we want in our house are some options. What does it look like, how much time do we have? If there's going to be construction that's going to effect us on the top part of the graph, what is that going to look like? I don't know what effect the tow work is going to do for us in the top part of it. The house we have is kind of in the corner of the creek and it's also at the lowest elevation of that whole area. So we flood continually. We have grandkids play. So I don't know what it's going to do for us. I do believe it's going to be quite a bit for people who are basically having problems with the creek. So we wanted to tell you that the only thing that I知 looking for is what are my options? What is it going to do in five years? (indiscernible). I want to be able to have some options. If I didn't live in Austin, I couldn't afford to live here. (indiscernible).
>> joe, could you come back to the table? I need to find this out while he's asking this question, and that is we're not -- we began this discussion you said that we were not -- we wanted to mull over the buyout phase as far as what he's addressing today. The motion I made is combining option a, item a and c of this particular agenda. Of course, b I have not looked at because I wanted to hear what their testimony would be. So for this gentleman's sake as far as him giving his testimony today, would it be an appropriate time for the court for you to bring this back after you hear the testimony to look at and have the court to review and look very thoroughly at the buyout option and the persons that may be eligible with the erosion and flooding conditions at his home, would be interested in because he's bringing up time lines. And I知 hearing it, but I need to hear from you as far as when you think we need to bring that back.
>> two weeks.
>> you will bring that back as far as the time lines, all those things you mentioned we'll be able to discuss it and exhaust it in two weeks the best we can?
>> I値l be glad to come back.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> are those four structures at the top, which one is yours now?
>> I believe this one or that one. And the creek comes right through here, but what happens when it floods, it jumps the creek about here. They have flooded three times. I知 sorry. The creek is way back here and then comes straitd straight across. So this whole area is underwater fairly quickly. And we have a big -- we had about 14 pecan trees out here, but right in front of the house there's a sunken here about four feet, so the water fills up here, comes in, fills up the front and then goes through the front windows and out the back door. And all this goes up and it's the english property up here as well. So this whole thing is a beautiful greenbelt basically, but it just basically floods when we scr -- if we get five inches very quick, we get water. I致e had the sheriff come tell me we need to get to a hotel. That's the problem. And I think a long time ago, I guess about eight or nine years ago, there was some work that was done over here that there was some dredging done. And actually it did help for a few years. Now it looks like it's filled up with vegetation and dirt and everything else. But it did help for a few years. We didn't see the creek rise as fast and it was going down faster. If we get five inches now, we're flooded.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else? There are three chairs there. It would help us if whoever wants to give testimony were to come forth and let's occupy those three. And as you finish your testimony if you would leave your chair, somebody else can come forward.
>> my name is barbara magna. I just want to find out -- in this e-mail that I received it said that it would probably only be enough money for three or four homes to be purchased with the bond money. And I wanted to try to find out which three homes they're recommending, so I値l know if I知 even included or not. And then also I think that you should consider the homes that are most at risk of immediate damage as a result of erosion. They should be made priorities for buyout. Any priorities that may qualify for fema money should be pursued in that manner. The properties, of course, that are suffering from erosion don't qualify for any fema money. And unfortunately, the tow that's going to be built down there is not going to help. I wish it would. I don't have an acre behind my house. I have about 10 feet from my structure where it's sloughed off. And --
>> can you show me where your house is on the map? Can you see it there? Can you show about where you are?
>> get the mic there.
>> this is my property right here. And this is the kelly's property and the creek has come here, and my backyard has fallen off. It's about 50 feet from my backyard down to the creek, and a large chunk of my backyard has just sloughed off as he was referring to earlier. And it's about 10 feet from the swimming pool and the surrounding patio area is beginning to show signs of crumbling and quite a bit of severe damage.
>> thank you.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that's correct. So I was just wanting to find out what three to four properties were going to be included in that recommendation today.
>> well, I think that was a conservative way to say that we will take the available funding and do as much good as possible, but obviously it depends on -- the buyout program depends on what the value of the homes is. And so you try to maximize for beneficial impact, but we do have a finite sum of money.
>> right.
>> so staff is trying to hint that not everybody should plan to take advantage of the buyout program. But I agree with you at some point we should adopt objective criteria that would enable us to determine exactly what order we purchase homes in. And that ought to be a matter of public record.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is david thorson. I live at 3622 quiet drive, which is right next to the magazine nus home where the slough off happened. Judge Biscoe, this was -- that home was the one that you came and observed around thanksgiving of 2004. You can even see the steepness of this cliff as indicated by the shadow there. Significant problems there. I apologize for my unfamiliarity of this large report that I just got. It says the area where potential structural bank instability poses greatest threats to home is along 72. Looking at this document, segment 2 runs from this home down to approximately this home. That's the degree that exists along section 2. The banks are awful steep. The houses are not situated as close to the creek as segment 2. Segment 3 is where the stabilization is going to be done from here approximately down to there. Excuse me, I知 very, very nervous today. One of the homes that was referenced a moment ago was in the floodplain when the property was purchased by that individual. I am familiar with the broker that sold it. My concern is that for homes that are located in a potential buyout for fema, that that route would be taken. The initial purpose for this -- my understanding was when judge Biscoe came out and this whole process started was from this collapse at the creek, which affects most definitely 3620, 3622, 24 and 26 quiet drive, which are my home, the wagners and the kellies home. And we just ask that you would please let us know which homes are going to be included and prioritized and communicate that to us and seek funding from fema for properties which are located in the floodplain. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I知 christina kubek. Thank you for this opportunity to address this issue. I agree with cindy and david that the highest priority should be those that don't qualify for a fema buyout. They wouldn't otherwise qualify as others will that are obviously down in the floodplain. I also would like to see that we don't shortchange what the possibilities are and what added protections could be put in place because ceer confined to the amount of set money that's available and the time limit that's put on it. I agree, yes, that needs to be used, and have made suggestions that are probably could help in certain areas. I don't believe it should stop there. The walnut place neighborhood association is an actual nonprofit organization. We have trey here who is an accountant and is capable of setting up an account accepting funds. We have a grant writer who is eager to help us out. We have someone who is capable of creating a website with information about the creek project. And we have me, who I知 very tenacious about things I知 passionate about, and this is my most passionate subject. We really would like to go after corporate grant money for this project to ensure that we don't have to shortchange what could be done. I don't want to be coming back here 10 years from now saying, look, this didn't do enough or, you know, it just wasn't enough. The time is now to organize this. It would need to be coordinated with what the county's doing. I can't just go out and beg for bucks and put it in an account. It needs to be coordinated with an actual plan that they're designing and an actual goal with a project that backs it up. It needs to be a coordinated effort. And I believe the money is there. I know some of the major companies in Austin that give quarterly grants to community projects and nonprofit organizations every year, it's worth pursuing. We did discuss doing just that at our last neighborhood association general meeting that we held. And we all thought that would be a good thing to do since the money is limited. It would be a way -- a way to move forward and not be gypped on what we get.
>> so if money were no object, what would the recommendation be?
>> from an engineering standpoint, if money were no object, I think our suggestion would still be voluntary buyouts. The magnitude of the problem and the soil condition out there is just one that we can never be certain that any amount of money that you spend is actually going to solve the problem. There is always going to be continued risk.
>> okay. Tell me the importance of the new fema floodplain determination. What fema did was expand the floodplain on walnut creek, right in. Right?
>> in some areas the floodplain did extend a little bit.
>> so those red lines there that describe the new fema floodplain, those didn't expand? It only expanded the preexisting lines a little bit?
>> I believe in this area this structure was not previously identified as being in the floodplain, so there was an expansion in through this area. Due to the steep banks in here, the floodplain delineation is pretty much identical and also along the chimney hills side it is not -- it did not change significantly through here. There may have been some minor changes in that area.
>> so in terms of potential fema relief being in the floodplain means exactly what?
>> in terms of the fema buyout program --
>> being in the fema floodplain means that you're in an area with a one percent chance in any given year a flood of a certain magnitude or greater occur will. It's a certain risk factor and it's the risk factor that the federal government has decided is significant.
>> but in terms of potential relief from fema for the homes in the floodplain, what's the significance of the determination?
>> being in the 100 year floodplain per the fema map is a qualification to get fema buyout.
>> whether you have fema insurance or not?
>> some grants require that you have insurance in order to be eligible. Each grant has different qualifications. I certainly don't want to leave the court with the impression that fema money is a gimme. People work years and years trying to get fema money. We've got approximately 50 50 homes that we were able to purchase with fema grants. Just to give you some idea, we have over 8,000 structures within the fema 100 year floodplain. It's very difficult. They're very difficult to obtain, and funding is limited, even more so in this coming budget year.
>> and I think it's going to get tougher.
>> it's going to get tougher and generally grants are competitive. For all communities within the state of Texas. It could be nationwide.
>> that's why I think we need to act fast.
>> what's the good news? I see you --
>> I wish I could give you better news. There's really two categories of buyout grants that we'd be looking at to solve this problem. One of them is the grant that the federal government gives when there's a disaster declared in the area. We don't have one of those right now. So that leaves us with two grant sources. One through the state, through the water development board, and the other is a nationally competitive program that's new called the predisaster mitigation program. We would be competing, for instance, with people doing retrofits for earthquake areas. We're looking at people trying to protect their communities all over the country, and so again they're ranking the level of need and who's at risk, the highest risk.
>> so does the tow protection recommendation provide relief to the structures in the yellow, outlined in yellow there?
>> the grade control recommendation, which is the most downstream, will provide benefits all upstream of there in terms of not allowing the creek to erode down, which stands the bank erosions. In terms of the tow protection, the benefit of the tow protection would be to the structures along this bend. That benefit doesn't extend up beyond where the tow protection is. One of the other items was the improved conveyance, and if these three homes are purchased and there is some conveyance improvement, some excavation to improve this, that would improve flooding conditions in other areas.
>> okay.
>> but maybe not put them out of the 100 year. It would reduce -- it may get them out of the 100 year.
>> at least for myself when we were trying to right size the bond issue, I never had the illusion that we were putting 100% on it and there would never be any more money and this is your one and only shot at it. I never thought that. It was what the name of that little area down there, Margaret, that flooded that we had to keep going back and going back? Timber creek. On timber creek it was like we started and we kept at it and kept at it and kept at it and kept at it. And as we had opportunities, we added to it. So, you know, my thought always was is the 1.67 is a wonderful, great first start, but we have some unallocated dollars within that same proposition. We have the possibility of trying to get federal funds. We just keep at it. But to me this is just phase one. And we keep going until we finish it. I just -- I知 just sitting here going, we ought not have to send christina and the gang out to beg dollars from corporate sources on something that truly is seven figures in magnitude. And if this is not the job of government, I don't know what is. This is something that is our job and we need to figure out how to do it. And so to me it's like we need to start -- since the problem was much larger than when we first went in there, then we ought to figure out what's it going to take to solve this problem, and then to prioritize leveraging, you do. I agree with cindy and david and christina, you want to try and leverage the dollars that can only be spent on erosion kinds of things on from those sources of funds. And if you have the possibility that something can get it from either source, fema or the bond money, you need to be smart about the money you've got. But I致e never been under the illusion that we're only going to get three houses and then we're done and nothing will ever happen again. No. We're going to get going on this. The toeholds are extraordinarily important because you don't want to have anything disintegrate more so in the meantime. So to me it's like phase one and then we move to phase two and then we keep working at it until it's done. But it ought not be that 20 years later it's still not finished. We owe it to the residents and the watershed. There are some serious issues here and let's get going.
>> yep.
>> how many homes have we bought in the timber creek project? About?
>> I知 going to say 44. It's running right around 50. The majority of our buyouts have been in the timber creek neighborhood.
>> I might add that these are for the most part mobile home structures and we're able to buy them at a fairly inexpensive rate compared to stick houses. So the order of magnitude is really different. You're probably going to spend five times as much money for one unit in the stick houses that we have paid for those 40 units at timber creek.
>> if we spend a million bucks on three houses to make room for the gattis school road project, so we've got to do what we've got to do. You're right, these of more --
>> sounds familiar. We've got to do what we've got to do.
>> any more residents here to address court on this item?
>> a few more things that I壇 like to discuss.
>> hold on. I do see a couple other residents. Last opportunity on this item. Come forward. Ms. Kubek, any closing remarks?
>> there's a few technical aspects and a few things that I have planned to spot while flipping through this plan that I just got this morning. I would probably like to discuss with him about it --
>> that would be two more weeks.
>> okay.
>> we'll have this back on.
>> when I知 finished I知 sure I値l have a lot of comments.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> ms. Ingraham?
>> thank you for being here this morning. It feels good to finally get to this place. I think alan plummer and cindy -- I thank them for the work they did. Their study, they came and visited, they looked, they walked. We saw them in rubber boots having a hard time maintaining their balance across the creek while they were finding values. This is not a new thing for us. It's taken a very long time to convince anyone to listen, and not only to listen, but to do something. And so it has been a very long and frustrating process. But I do thank you for bringing us to this current place. It appears to me from what has been said so far is that you're now considering as primary buyout the three houses, our home, the (indiscernible) home and the english home. But I think that in this process I also thought that today there was going to be presented the priorities of the buyout, kind of like a list of what going to be happening. And is that what's going to be happening in two weeks?
>> in two weeks we hope to cover that in two weeks.
>> okay. The other thing is that the cost of the tow you were talking about almost completely corresponded with the cost of the tow, 111,000, which would be the sep money. For some reason I thought that sep money was going to be used to pay for the alan plummer study, but I guess other arrangements have been made at this time.
>> okay. The state has use of money for soft costs, like studies. It has to be capital improvements.
>> so you're converting that to the tow project.
>> that is not sufficient to do the tow project. We're going to have to use even some of the bond money. We're estimating that the tow improvements are probably about a quarter of a million dollars. So the state money will maybe pay for about half of it and will not pay for any of the engineering costs associated with that. So that's why we're having to use the bond money to pay for some of the tow improvements and the grading.
>> but the state has to approve that recommendation.
>> that's right.
>> the tow project.
>> okay. In the bond language I do not recall the language of putting it on there primarily as a drainage issue. It says in parenthesis quiet drive buyout. And I have some confusion about that. I didn't have an opportunity. I致e been out of town for two days. We came back last night, and I didn't even have an opportunity to refresh myself on those parts of the issue. I値l be glad to refresh myself to ask you about additional information that I am concerned about. Thank you for your time.
>> we appreciate that. Thank you.
>> and judge, I want to make sure I make clear for the record, I have no presumption as to which houses are going to wind up in what order on a buyout list. It could be the ones that ms. Ingraham just mentioned right there. It could be somebody else's list. I make no presumptions as to which it is because I think there are differing expectations. Some people think it had to do more with erosion buyout kinds of things. Others may have do that it had do with floodplain. I知 looking to maximize what money we got, combine it with other sources and do what we can. But I make no presumption that somebody is number one, two or three on this list. None.
>> let me mention another idea. Since we tried to cover as many homes as possible with a finite sum, if we need a couple hundred thousand dollars to implement the tow protection project, why wouldn't we try to locate a couple hundred thousand dollars from other projects, maybe surplus funds? Start with precinct 1 and go to the other parts of the county. We may do, may not. What we do is leave as much money as possible in the '05 grant funds for buyout. I think we ought to take a look. It may not be there. So it's not that I know the money's there, but in the past sometimes I致e been surprised that we've been able to identify remaining balances, combine them to get good work done. So --
>> I think we can certainly do that. But I want to give you an order of magnitude so we can calibrate collectively just how many homes you may be able to purchase even if you used every bit of the bond money. I知 just looking at tcad values, and we understand that that may not be what people are willing to sell their property for voluntarily. The tcad values for these structures, no matter whether their erosion or flood remented, range between 150,000 to about $190,000 per unit. If we buy them out, we're probably going to have to demolish the structure, so we're estimating about another 20, $25,000 per unit for demolition. We haven't talked about relocation costs. We may or may not even offer that. But on the average let's say you're spending close to a quarter of a million dollars per structure. And so I think realistically the court should expect to buy somewhere between four and six units if you used all of the money for that purpose. So $100,000, if we found it in another source, would not equal half of a house. So it will help, but it may not be sufficient to even get you one more structure purchased. I just want to lay that out so we're all in the same ballpark with expectations.
>> I知 there with you. If that house is mine and there is relief for half of it, I知 a lot more positive than if it's zero. The other thing is a lot of difference between three and 46. So I知 just saying -- and the money may not be there anyway, but I think we ought to look because if we look and we find a couple hundred thousand dollars that we don't have to take from the '05 voter approved grant funds, then that's a long way towards a quarter of a million dollars. If it's not there, though, then we just have to live with that conclusion.
>> and again, the bond election is one way that we saw problems, -- that we solve problems, but we did with annual appropriations on twin creeks that we responded when we needed to respond. Whether it was coming out of the car account, whether it was co's, we did what necessary to try to meet some things that happen with federal forces that suddenly came forward, and we did it. So we also have an annual budget process here, so I知 really interested in finding out what's the gap between the identified houses that we think need to be on a list in whatever order, what's the money available and what would it take to get all of them regardless of order in terms of arrange here? And let's see what the gap is and whether that's something that goes in the co in a couple of months.
>> and judge -- john, could you come to the table? We looked at this, we've all had our hands in this, the court members as we've looked and gone through this process. There were some early meetings that were held with different governmental entities. Tceq sitting at the table, state representatives from the area, city of Austin, of course Travis County, and we had other elected officials, the state senator, all of the state representatives were at the same table looking at how can we resolve this problem. And of course during that time, though when we had those meetings, we didn't have before us the latest bond initiative approved by the voters of Travis County as far as a buyout program. And I know that those folks were there, and john, my question to you, since we are talking about looking at additional funding, additional monies, maybe we can go and revisit some of those particular entities and say, look, here's where the county is as far as trying to accommodate in an ongoing process of buying out these residents that are really volunteering it. This is not a mandated thing where we're forcing the buyout, it's actually a volunteer. In other words, the person doesn't have to. It's all voluntary compliance on this. But there may be money -- an example, I remember when representative mccaul, he said blah, blah, blah from the federal side. Maybe there's some funding that may be available that we need to uncover that may not have been on the table as far as looking at buyout because that was not discussed in any of those meetings that we had. And john, if there's any way possible during this time frame, because it is going to take some time to do these things, just as we dealt with timber creek, which was a floodplain -- but anyway, there may be some time to uncover funds from those other agencies and governmental entities that was not discussed in those series of meeting that we had in the past. So I壇 like to maybe also throw that on the table as far as helping us in this situation, as far as what we can do, but we maybe can collaborate and get others to participate financially. Thank you.
>> now, there is a motion before us, and as I understood that motion, it was to approve a, which is the sep program by presenting the tow protection strategy to tceq, supplementing that recommendation with the county money, and the request is that we try to identify funds from other projects, surpluses, without using the '05 grant funds. Is that okay?
>> yes.
>> and the other part of that was c, which is that we modify the contract with alan plummer and associates incorporated to design structural controls in the project reach, and the other sort of subpoint there is that in two weeks we'll have this back on the agenda for any remaining items. That's the motion and seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> did you want us to brief you on the corps of engineers' study in two weeks?
>> that's an idea, mr. Gieselman. Let's make sure that our agenda language is broad enough to cover anything and everything we need to do.
>> and judge, I thought of something. I know on the 27th I知 in galveston for south Texas judges and Commissioners association. Margaret are you down there as well?
>> yes.
>> are you down there?
>> so we have at least three people. I don't want to hold this up, but you've got two of us out that week.
>> let's get as much done as we can. The next weekend is the fourth and we have a short consent agenda hopefully. Any more discussion of the motion? By the way, steve coon any who you may remember from the old kennedy ridge project back in 1990, he was just a young engineer during those days, but he provided a lot of pro bono services for us, right, and did a whole lot of good and is still doing good. Good to see you again.
>> thank you, steve.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, June 14, 2006 9:58 AM