Travis County Commissioners Court
July 11, 2006
Item 24
Now, number 24 is to consider and take appropriate action on walnut creek erosion and flood control study recommendations. A, voluntary buyout of homes on quiet drive using approved bond fund. And 24-b, negotiate modification to contract with alan plummer and associates incorporated for scope of work and design of structural controls in project reach for appropriate remediation.
>> carol joseph, tnr. And again, john kuhl, our environmental officer, as well as the division director of environmental quality will explain where we are with this agenda.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. Just kind of go over three main items real quick before we open it up to questions and comments. First of all, just a little brief history, that this overall discussion has probably been going on more than a couple of years regarding walnut creek and quiet avenue -- quiet drive in particular with erosion and flooding issues. Most recently I believe we were in court discussing this with you June 13th of this year, and essentially had some recommendations regarding potential buyouts along quiet drive. And I believe the court decided that there should be a little bit of time spent perhaps further developing the rationales and principles behind the priorities for this buyout program. So that's been done, and a backup was sent to you and the residents the Friday before -- I guess it was June 30th or so right before the fourth of July weekend or the weekend prior to fourth of July. So that backup included standard memo discussing what the staff recommended for prioritization for buyout. It also included just a rough working draft of a spreadsheet that included some working numbers that we've been using too ensure that we are at least coming close to project budget allocations. And it also had a pretty small graphic that hopefully has been improved upon by a larger version of that graphic that you hopefully have had delivered to you in the meantime. Not a huge version -- yeah, that's it. Commissioner Gomez has one at least. So let's just go ahead and walk through what I consider to be y'all's primary directive when we left last time was who -- what addresses would be most at risk and be brought out. What are the rationale and prioritization, underpinnings of those decisions. And so you'll see in the spreadsheet the series of addresses there, and on the left-hand column designations of tiers one through tiers four. There is active erosion and this area is considered to be a part of the meander belt where there's a lot of undercutting. These homes are also the closest to that owe roation force and also -- erosion force and also located on the highest banks above is that erosion. So they're really high up and being actively eroded at this time. So that explains tier two. And the next two tiers are essentially lower risk erosion properties. Again, still at risk from erosion, however as a general rule lower in the landscape above the creek itself and the homes themselves a bit further back. So they're not as imminently threatened. Tier four is essentially just a lower risk version of tier three, and our least impacted at this time. And I should add that based upon what we've used, the available funds and hopefully some innovative fiscal approaches, the first two tiers we feel we'd be able to buy out with the monies available. Tiers three and four will be addressed at least in the short-term through the other structural improvements that have been discussed before the court, which are what are referred to as tow truks, which is preventing the undercutting at the base of the bank and then the other engineering control that has been recommended, I mentioned earlier, which is -- I actually didn't mention yet, which is a grade control, which is basically just a stone or hardened surface that's put across the creek that halts or slows down head ward erosion, which would hopefully those two things together would greatly slow down and/or for at least the foreseeable future make those lower tiered threats much lower for right now. The overall staff recommendation encompasses both flooding considerations and erosion considerations, not only for the studied stretch, but also upstream sections. We have like I said attached where we are on budget. Really the only expenditures that we've had so far have not come from the bond monies, have been from other sources. And to date just include what's been paid to alan plummer for the study. As we move forward we have the overall goal of course as a staff of buying out as many of these as we can and expending the bond monies wisely in that regard. And that will include further consideration of using other available monies, including making a co request of you during the budget period.
>> in terms of this project, it's under park funds, correct?
>> yes, proposition 2.
>> didn't we not have something under prop 2, which was undesignated project dollars? Do we remember how much that was?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> if we wanted to get these done, another two million dollars on top of what we've already got gets tier one, two, three and four out of here. Done. That's the direction we want to go. We've authorized bond dollars and we've got that.
>> they were set for different projects ongoing.
>> right. It was for projects unknown and this is one where we basically want to say we want to just get it done, it's possible. It's within the abilities of this court.
>> john? You said this is a volunteer compliance effort by the property owners within tier one through four.
>> that's correct.
>> have we made an assessment at this time who are willing to participate in the buyout or have there been an indication that persons are willing to come forth and volunteer within the particular tier of priorities that we have listed here before us today? I'm trying to get a handle on where we need to go according to those that want to participate, because if I look at the backup, your staff, tnr, and with the assessments and the studies that was done through alan plummer, it appears that the tier one is the recommended version that we are coming forth with today. So my question is, that's an all or nothing type situation according to backup. In other words, all people must participate otherwise we go to different tiers. So my question today, because I'm trying to look for some direction I guess as far as where we need to go to make sure that we are going down the right path to, of course, purchase these properties under the set aside bond fund that was approved by the voters in November of 2005. 1 point $67 million. Can you tell me where we are on that. I know it's a lot of steps and appraisals and all these kind of things.
>> that's right. Yes, sir. As far back as probably a year and a half ago, we began some of these informal discussions. Let me stop a minute and be clear about the fact that I will never assume anything for individual homeowners and can be a very emotional decision as to whether they first of all even choose to begin the dialogue and second whether or not the negotiations go in a direction that they find acceptable. Let me just say that along the way we've had those discussions, including even originally we had a meeting where we discussed even fema buyouts and things like that, we had some forms filled out that indicated from those that completed them and turned them in that they were favorably disposed to at least begin that discussion secondly, over the last couple of months in these discussions in court I've seen every indication that most people are willing to at least begin that discussion. We have had one address who definitely pulled out and we have received a written confirmation a that they are not interested in that and they are not before you today on this list. So by and large I would say that discussion is only final, after appraisals and offers are extended, but it's so far pretty positive.
>> okay. So the addresses that we have before us today within each particular tier, can I feel comfortable that these are the addresses that are interested?
>> I would let them speak for themselves, but we don't have black and white evidence that they are not certainly.
>> can we have a show of hands? On 12, 14, 16, are the 12, 14, 16 people here? Are y'all in favor of the buyout?
>> it looks like one --
>> is anybody not?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> could you come up to the table?
>> let's just ask as opposed to --
>> that's fine.
>> if you're a 12, 14, 16 homeowner --
>> who is 14 or 16?
>> I'm 14.
>> and what is trek, 16?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> are you two yes, y'all are --
>> 36, 12 and 3614.
>> are y'all in favor of moving forward with some kind of a buyout program?
>> I am because if we don't, the property is almost useless because you can get flood insurance -- [inaudible - no mic].
>> could you get on the mic, please, sir, and just identify yourself. Thank you.
>> yeah, because I believe we're in the 25-year floodplain and y'all are in the 10, and evidently it will be flooded again. I believe there's a minimum amount of times that you can be flood and have insurance. If you don't have insurance and are flooded, then you're done. And you can't sell your property with that hanging over your head because you have to reveal it of course. You can't sell it and say it won't --
>> is that a yes?
>> yes.
>> and the 14?
>> my name is nellie rios and I do live at 2614 quiet drive and we are strongly -- we're looking at all of our options. We seem to have very few options in terms of selling or anything just as mr. Ingraham said, but we really are -- what I really would like to know at this point is are we going to have someone identified that we can ask questions of, discuss any possibility of -- I have a ton of questions that I don't know who to ask.
>> give your name before this meeting is over today. Actually, I guess, john, you are a contact person for the time being, right? John kuhl.
>> it depends upon the nature of the question. If it's a property transaction, it might be somebody different than myself.
>> well, I guess then I would ask that -- I would just ask the court that they consider that you've already recognized that this is an emotional decision obviously. I had a discussion with my sons, who were thinking I had gone crazy last night when -- they knew nothing of this. I have a son who just came back from college, and his first question was, mom, why would you even consider that? I was raised here. It's a very emotional issue. And what I need, or maybe not necessarily the financial transaction issues. It's more of specific to their there are very specific things in my house that I'd like to keep. What do you talk to about that?
>> I can assure you we have an amazing team of folks when it comes to that point from our right-of-way division headed by greg chico and they have had to deal with all these very emotional issues when we've had to move properties related to roads. They just finished off three houses up in the gattis school road and they have dealt with everything you're talking about, so when it gets there, we do have an amazing team of professionals who will work with you on every single one of those issues.
>> I certainly wanted to tell the court that I'm very data driven and I do need a lot of data and I don't feel that I have it yet. And I would certainly like to get it, but we are leaning in the direction of obviously having to move out because the options are very few to none for us.
>> I think our position will be that if you can carry it with you, carry it.
>> I love my house.
>> the other thing, though, is that this is a voluntary program, but if you're in tier one or tier two, your situation is ominous, right?
>> I'm in the 10 year floodplain. I'm in a really critical --
>> that's unfortunate. This is the kind of drastic step we're taking because the tier one, tier two home really are at risk.
>> how many times have you been flooded?
>> since I've been there in '91, three. And then I knew about the '81 flood when I moved there, and I got insurance based on my being in the 100 year floodplain. That's what I was told. Well, now I'm down to the 10-year, and every year seems to have gotten worse, but the '81 was the worst.
>> I think if you have a whole lot of questions, if you can reduce them to writing, get them to john, then we'll try to answer them as best we can. I would think that a lot of them would be pretty straightforward. Some may require more work than others.
>> so john being --
>> john kuhl. The one with the fancy suit on there. [ laughter ]
>> trek, are you -- we just asked 3612 and 3614, are they interested in the voluntary buyout. And of course you're at the other address, at 16, so we're just trying to get your comments because you're trying to give staff some direction according to what y'all tell us today. As far as the voluntary buyout program.
>> the question is real simple. Are you interested in being part of the buyout?
>> I don't want to give an answer today because I don't think I really have an option here. It's just the logical answer is of course, I should be interested in buyout because it's too late, can't go backwards. However, whatever john recommended be done is exactly what was recommended 20 years and never was done. So it's hard for me to hear this because if it had been done when it was recommended we wouldn't be here today. I'm sorry, I don't know what's wrng with me, but I can't take this whole issue differently. I don't know why. I've asked myself this many times, and I can't. I can argue with you on landfills for hours and get myself removed from the emotional part. This I can't. And I tried -- I went outside and tried to reason the way I wanted to reason it. He was very good at making me see things. And I think I guess my answer would be yes. I have to consider it. And I know what the consequences are if I don't do that option. I watch the creek. I probably know the movement of the creek better than most people because I am like a laser when I look at something, I just study it. And I think christine can tell you we've looked at the creek movement on several occasions. And of course marie and I converse on the phone when it rains and where is it on your property so we can tell if it's still going up or down. So that's on the flood be issue. On the erosion issue, there was something that basically could have been addressed a long time ago and was not addressed. And that's why I spoke with ms. Lancaster and she splaipd to me that there was very little that could be done that would even be remotely safe to consider. And perhaps much too expensive. So my long answer is yes. Thank you.
>> I guess we may as well get some indication from the tier two owners that are here. Are y'all interested in how we're proceeding here? Okay. That will get it down for us. Now, if we approve basically the approach, the next step is the specific appraisal for these structures, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> we have in the backup working value estimates that are based on the tcad values, plus an increase that we just applied across the board to get some idea of what the totals would equal and what amount of money we have available. And as you can see, the cumulative totals increase based on the number of homes covered there. Our goal based on our most recent court discussion was to try to take care of tier one and tier two, and to the extent that we put some affirmative remedy in place, tiers three and four.
>> sure.
>> unfortunately, the erosion problem is not going away. But if you're in three and four, we hope to put in place some sort of steps that will come closer to providing a permanent remedy. Only time will tell what that will require and whether we can do it, right?
>> that's correct. And the other obvious consideration is that the end use of these properties will be open space and/or parklands. And so while that was not the be all, end all, as I indicated, leaving folks in harm's way was a higher priority. We feel like we could work with the neighborhood to effectively manage these properties. There will be losses of the properties, literally from erosion over time; however, the tow protection and the grade controls we feel will slow that process and add benefit overall. So the answer is yes. It's an active mother nature force that you can only do so much with.
>> okay. The thing about the appraisals, we normally retain an appraiser who will go out and appraise each structure individually.
>> right.
>> and give us the number. We share that number with the homeowner. The homeowner can get an appraiser also. And at times there are two appraisers -- appraisals there, and what we try to do is compromise to the extent we can. And what happens if we're not able to reach agreement on the value?
>> well, as we laid out, again, staff recommendation, the tier three -- I'm sorry, the three properties in tier one are sort of a buy all or none scenario. Again, your option if you don't want to go that route, the rationale, just as a reminder for that, is that that allows-- first of all, it's the right spot in the creek to alleviate the conveyance problem. It's also a matter of needing that much space, that much literal area to achieve that goal. The other thing I would say about the conveyance grading controls is that that's an optional decision as well. If you buy those properties, you've gotten the folks out of harm's way. Second, if you find the money and have the inclination on down the road to do the conveyance improvements, let's do that. That would improve others' polites. As far as reaching an impasse in that first category, the way we have it structured right now, that's a problem for tier one. However, it is not for tiers two, three and four? That's a policy decision for you guys. If you feel that's not the way you want to go, that's not the way we'll go.
>> but if I'm a resident in tier four, right now I don't benefit from the buy program unless we change our minds. So what I get out of it, though, would be the conveyance improvements. For three and four.
>> and actually, the erosion improvements would be most significant for them because they're further downstream where those improvements will be actually right next to them and affect them the most. So it will slow the erosion down.
>> so they're not in imminent danger. We think we can take steps to slow the erosion.
>> that's right. And we will do that. That's another little line of conversation that has to do with the step funding and all those other things, but we have been in direct contact with tceq. They seem favorable to the proposal for the step and are awaiting more detail from us. That looks good so far.
>> any comments or questions from residents? If so, please come forward and give us your full name. We'll be happy to get your comments.
>> it is very emotional issue and I've been up with trek and putting things on higher ground with her and watching water and loading my station wagon full of all her landfill documents and putting it up on higher ground for her. We wish that something could have been done a lot sooner, but we're appreciative that we're here now to do something. What I didn't see in the report is a few things about segment three, which is where my house is in segment three. It seems like a good effort in that area, but I'm also wondering about the stability wall, the mechanically stabilized earth wall. Walls consisted of layers of soil wrapped in geo grid to provide additional reinforcement. It didn't address that for section three.
>> not as high-- it's not as high as the kelly's, it's not as steep as the kelly's, so it is somewhat different. The slope analysis, unless I missed it in the report, was done at the kelly's, 3626. Section 3 where I am between 3632 and 3634, I don't see a slope analysis, or if there were possible options for some type of stability for the slope in segment three to slow it down. I think you need to make some effort for some type of stabilization to at least slow it down from how it's creeping to fall off.
>> what's the response to that concern?
>> she's correct that when we looked at the erosion and flooding problems, we prioritized that the worst erosion problems were going on in that reach basically behind the kelly's and upstream towards trek's house. And we looked at what we had in that area and what the cost would be to try to make a bank stabilization wall through had there. And it was so high that that's what forced us to the buyout options for that. We didn't specifically look at the flexibility analysis and what the wall would -- what a bank stabilization wall would cost in the area where christine is talking about. It's still going to be very expensive, not as expensive as higher and steeper, so that is a possibility. I guess my thinking was there was going to be a limited budget. The worst erosion problems were further upstream, and that we could approach with buyouts because of the expense of the wall. Then there would be some -- at least want to do something for other properties that were threatened by erosion, and that was where we came in with the tow protection and the grade control. It's a policy decision we could go back and look at do we want to consider doing something more extensive, but it is possible that even there a bank stabilization wall may cost more than the buyout.
>> in item b of this particular item that we have in force today, there is an indication of your scope of work that's indicated. John, I guess my question to you would be in the design here and in also the structural design -- design of structural controls that we basically talk about here. Would that be something that could still come in the scope of work in item b as far as what she's talking about, christine is talking about?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. So we can look at that under item b of this.
>> okay.
>> so when a slope stabilization is too expensive, it is in what price range? What cost range?
>> well, in the -- I don't remember the specific numbers, but in the upstream area we were talking over two million dollars to get a wall that would work. And even then when you look at costs, you try to be conservative, but the engineering challenges for building a wall along there were so tough that when I talked with people who build those kind of walls, they could kind of give me what they thought it would be, but it was a bottom end instead of a top end because it wouldn't go higher. So that was the concern with that.
>> but the thinking was if you had two million dollars, you would buy out the six or seven homes impacted rather than -- and I guess even a stability wall would be -- wouldn't say problematic, but not a guarantee of permanent solution. It could work a few years and I guess there could be --
>> the intent would be that it would be a very long-term solution. But this situation is a little bit different because the houses aren't as close to the creek. Part of the challenge was the homes that you were trying to protect up towards the kelly's were right there where you needed to build a wall. There just wasn't much space to work with.
>> we look at the stability wall for tier three and tier four. We rule it had out for tier two. Thought about it for tier three, is that your question?
>> yes.
>> duly noted.
>> thank you.
>> right, john?
>> yes, sir.
>> yes?
>> hi. I'm cynthia kelly. We just haven't been able to be here before and I just wanted to put a face with our address. And --
>> which is which one?
>> 3626. We moved into the house in 2000, but we've been in the house since it was built because it our family's home. So our kids have grown up in that pool and we really were excited to move there and we love that house. A lot of work was put into it and planning. I'm a teeper, so I've had part of the summer off. I did summer school, but I've spent just an unbelievable amount of time just looking at real estate. And even to go out of town to look for something, and we're just dumbfounded at the choices we have out there, and what we're going to give up we're going to have to downsize. We already know that because there's no way we can duplicate this home. So that's what we're looking at right now. If there was any way we could stay there we would. But I know you've heard the stories of our house. We have a driveway that we can't park on because the whole neighborhood calls it some silly name that it's going to fall off. So the driveway was redone recently and new piers were put and sunk way down deep, but there's no earth under it now, so we can't park there. We have a boat there because if it goes down, it will float. [ laughter ] so that's okay. But I'm really saddened by what I've seen this summer when I've looked at properties, and so that's scary to me. The thing that I would -- my biggest questions, because of -- partly because of my profession, are time line questions. And so I would just want to know who I could talk to, like when will an appraiser come to tier two and how long would it take to get results from that? And then after that amount is given to us, how long will we get to make the decision? And then after that decision is made, how long will we have before we would have to vacate? Because if I have to be out during this taks it testing, then I can't do it. I know that sounds menial, but I have kids to prepare, fifth grade. They'll all be going to summer school if I'm distracted and they can't get the education they need before the fifth grade taks test. So I have lots of questions about the time lines, and then some questions that have to do with since it's a voluntary buyout and for some reason we have to say no because there's no way we can even move out of this house for this amount, then will there be papers, will there be things that we have to sign saying, you know, we've agreed to live on this condemned property or whatever, and what kind of things are we looking at if that happens? So my questions are mainly time line.
>> can we map out -- sort of master schedule as we see it, john? And I guess that would be our sort of best guess. It seems to me that if you're leaving there's no big rush on getting out. If I were leaving, I think I would try to beat the next winter if possible. But what we will do with the structure is abolish it by law, turn the area into some kind of park like facility for the public. And if I were part of the neighborhood association, I would kind of gather and give some thought to like a neighborhood park. The other land that we acquired, it is basically just raw land right now, right?
>> right.
>> more like a greenbelt. But there's a whole lot of park like uses that benefit the public. And the immediate beneficiaries would be I guess the residents. I guess a lot of other county residents wouldn't know about the park located right there. But the residents would. We can come up with that and try to do that within a week or so?
>> yes, sir.
>> in my view you sort of see where we're headed. The values here are estimates. Our best guess to try to figure out okay, budget parameters more than anything else. But we can try to talk with whoever will do the appraisals for us, figure out that person's estimate of time that it will take, factor that in, factor in the different steps that we have to take and try to share that with residents. I do think that we have a lot of flexibility on when you vacate. Now, it's not a good idea to receive public money and to kind of stay there forever, but I think we have as much flexibility as we can -- as we need to exercise.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for those comments. I can really understand the emotional part of this. A home is a home is a home. Home: and my goodness gracious, that's really a heart felt testimony that y'all are giving here today. If I had my rathers, I wish it wasn't that way, but it is and we've got to do something to protect you.
>> as the father of a fifth grader I appreciate your priorities as well. [ laughter ]
>> so is there anyone else that would like to give testimony in the tier structure?
>> I have -- I have one more comment.
>> which one is yours?
>> I'm 3634.
>> she's in tier three.
>> and I just wanted to say again that the walnut place neighborhood association is capable and willing and eager to beg for bucks if we have to to go after public grant money or corporate grant money. If that's what it would take to build a wall that would help slow it down, if it slows it down for another 20 years, that would be great. And if -- if that's what it takes, we're ready and willing to do that. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is bart kelly and I'm at 3626. Cynthia and I have been in the house since about 1971. It was built in 1971 by my parents. One thing nobody has said that I'd like to bring up is that most of us have got exemptions from the tax appraisal offices to lower our taxes and lower our property values. And in 2001 my house was evaluated at $134,000. And in 2002 it was $196,000. And I protested and went to the tax board and I got it lowered down to 163,000 because of the erosion and what it was doing to my property. I see now that it's listed at $168,000 on a tax appraisal for what I'm paying taxes on. Obviously there's a huge discrepancy here. I don't know if those -- the ones of us that have protested our taxes and got them lowered down, if that is being taken into consideration as to the value of our house today.
>> but when you have it appraised, that should mean less. I don't know that that won't be factored to some extent. What the staff did here was just go to the tcad, get that number, apply a 25% increase for all of them just to give us a range. When the appraiser goes out, he won't start with tcad, will he? He normally starts with properties that have been sold in the area. And you look at sort of market survey.
>> comparable sales.
>> but if -- unfortunately, whenever -- when you talk about an appraisal, you're talking about paying somebody to do it, but if you disagree with our appraiser, what we ask is to give us the real value and we try to work with that. We don't say be high, we don't say be low. We say real value. And so what we hire, their interest ought to be to do right thing, but residents still agree. We think your appraiser will do the same thing, get the real value. Where we know there's a great difference, we know there's a problem and we try to close that gap. I would think they would come back pretty close. If not, we ought to be able to figure out why. That does happen from time to time, but when it happens, we're normally able to pinpoint the reason why.
>> if you put an appraised value on my house now as it sits today, we couldn't sell it. So the market value is nonexistent. The land value is non-exist ent. I'm sitting on one and three-quarter acres, of which 100 feet by 100 feet is usable. That's a lot of land that's not usable that I can't even get to my lawn mower because the lawn mower won't go up the hill. Because of erosion, the erosion has taken away the rest of it. But I'm still sitting on one and three-quarter acres according to the land deeds. And whenever we got it reduced, the property taxes, it was because of the loss of the land and also because of our excess and couldn't get to it. I'd just like the court to understand that that is one and three-quarter acres that this is sitting there. And to take that into a value when you're appraising it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> you know, I think that there would be a whole lot of individual questions if we could get those reduced to writing and give them to john, we would try to figure out a way to get them answered, and either send an e-mail or open court. And can we map out some sort of schedule between now and next Tuesday?
>> certainly. Check with our appraisers and try to figure out whether they're available immediately and maybe try to figure out the time they would take to do something like this, give residents an opportunity to respond, some opportunity to negotiate. Try to as best we can put everything on schedule.
>> judge, we can do that. I did take the liberty of speaking to greg chico, who Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned earlier runs our right-of-way program and sort of manages all those appraisal processes. And he indicated to me that it would be very feasible to have offers for tier one folks within three months is what his projection was.
>> judge, if it's appropriate right now, I would like to get the ball rolling. We've heard a lot of good testimony and emotional testimony, which is I'd like to move approval of a at this time to let the process begin, and also take into consideration all the things that we've heard from the residents. So if we could move forward with that and also heard something on b, and also on b which we've heard from ms. Kubek and others, we're looking at tier three and four, and b is basically looking at the scope of work that alan plummer is dealing with this as far as the structural controls are concerned and move forward with that. Maybe they can indicate that in that as far as some of the structural aspects as far as design and looking at the work on that and what it would actually be according to what they're doing, have not done, and they can include that in this process. So I'd like to move forward with that so at least we can get going if that's appropriate at this time.
>> makes sense to me.
>> I'm not sure I understand what a really includes. Are we talking only about getting appraisals on tier one? Because clearly we've got more money than that. It ought to at a minimum be tier one and tier two. [overlapping speakers].
>> if we can go forward with that and come back, and I know you've started some conversations with some of the folks here, but if we can start with that process, I really would appreciate it. So that's the form of a motion.
>> and are you saying tier one and two?
>> yes, tier one and two.
>> can we -- if we take a look at some stabilization initiative for three and four and put -- if we can put a figure on it, determine feasibility whether it really would be permanent remediation, I guess we ought to get some feel for that. In addition to whatever we had in mind anyway. I know we had something in mind for that.
>> that was going to come with b, judge. The b portion of that to include just what you said. In looking at the aspect since we've had testimony from the residents, looking at the other stabilization for the scope of work. I was going to throw that in with that.
>> just so that you know the status on it, obviously with the sep negotiations and everything moving in the direction we felt like it was going to move in, alan has already drafted a draft scope. We will add this element suggested by ms. Kube k to that and we're in the process right now of having our engineers at tnr review that and negotiate that, working with purchasing of course, and moving ahead.
>> we'll have that ready next week? We're looking at having this back on next week?
>> we can certainly have that time line on. I'm not so thur that we'll be ready on the budget end of things.
>> ready in two weeks?
>> that would be better.
>> do you want to leave your moition to a and b, having the praildz done, mapping, etcetera?
>> that would be fine.
>> that's your second? Any more discussion of that? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> my name is trek english and I wanted to ask on these homes, it stops at 3636, but now there are two homes left -- I think there's 3638 and 3640, and that would be the end of the street or the end of quiet, the homes on the creek. And I actually know for a fact that 3640 has had some serious problems with the creek erosion, but somehow I never read anything about it, and I just was wondering, is anything done on those two properties, the last two properties? That's actually where the bend of the creek goes back towards chimney hill and where the -- that's where the creek actually turns and goes south and east towards the 290 bridge. So they have some serious problems there. I think one of those homes belonged to judge murphy and the other one is --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> I'm not sure -- did you ever look at their property?
>> when moved into the request for services at this project, we actually defined a stretch of addresses, and that was not part of it.
>> I'm not asking you to do that now. I probably didn't clarify. What I was thinking is when ms. Lancaster goes to do the -- address the remediation for tier three and four that perhaps at that point she could see -- take into consideration that perhaps the last two properties would give her an idea of what's going to happen to the ones in front of it. Because as bart and I noticed, the erosion started at both ends of the channel and it's going that way. Obviously all the six homes there are getting it. But then on the other end, it's coming back the other way from 3640 on down. If you walk the creek you can see it really well, especially if you go during a big rain event you can see the serious problem with where the water is. I think that needs to be taken into consideration when shrud studding the -- studying the wall stabilization. The bank stabilization, but you called it the wall something? The tow protection will probably need to be done all along.
>> why don't we have this back on in two weeks. And let's discuss the other homes, those inside tier one and tier two, other remediation initiatives that we think might help, the whole deal. The contract that's mentioned in the second part of this item today. And just have that on for approval. And any other part of this item that we need to discuss. Because it may well be that when we look at other initiatives that the cost is such that we ought to extend the buyout. And ms. Kubek, she's corporation friendly these days, so she's got -- if it's possible to generate money outside the county must augment that amount to expand the buyout program, it doesn't bother me. But what it forces us to do I think -- we already have a sort of phase one, phase two anyway, phase one being the buyout, when we target these six homes. This seventh person, was that a tier one home and the person said I'm opting out? Iks 3610?
>> 3610 says that they're opting out.
>> let's give some thought between now and two weeks from now. Anything else that we need to do today?
>> should I withdraw my motion, the earlier one on the appraisal, or wr he going to vote on it.
>> it got me me that quick. We voted unanimously.
>> I thought we did.
>> so I guess my point at this point is that when we do bring it back, judge -- I'm still concerned about b. And that is b being that the scope of work is defined in that -- there was a certain amount of money that was -- that was tied to that 220 to $270,000.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
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, July 12, 2006 10:47 AM