07221996 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Regular Meeting July 22L 1996 Page 5 would be processing water from the San Marcos River. Mr. Gilley stated that would be the most cost effective. Mr. Mihalkanin queried if putting the plant at one of the three proposed sites would increase the logic of developing the two-month water supply, and Mr. Gilley stated yes. Mr. Mihalkanin stated his concern is if a reservoir is built and all the water comes from the San Marcos River and all the river water from the Aquifer, how that will help ~- the future of San Marcos get off using the Aquifer. Mr. Gilley i stated the issue of the reservoir is a whole issue that needs to be ! discussed and determined at some point. The location of the plant near the river makes it more practical to use the reservoir for off-channel storage, but it does not necessarily mean we have to. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he did not want us to make decisions now that would be irreversible later because of costs we have sunk into this route. He stated the river is more than a water source; it is a quality of life and very important to tourism. Mr. Gilley stated locating the plant at one of the proposed sites does in no way obligate the City or even initiate a step that would imply moving towards that next step. If the San Marcos River is used and ultimately a decision is made to develop an off-channel reservoir, this is the best possible site, but it does not necessarily mean that is what should happen next. Ms. Hughson asked what is the best site for bringing the water in through the GBRA pla~, and Mr. Gilley stated that has not been determined. Mr. Gilley stated this location will work adequately, but if a decision is made that our sole source of water will be transported from the Guadalupe River, we have not really identified where the best site for that would be. Ms. Hughson asked what if we are going to use both, and Mr. Gilley responded, this is probably the best location. Mr. Cox stated it is probably the most flexible site because it does give options. Mr. Guerra asked if we are discussing the 621 site, and Mr. Gilley stated yes. Mr. Gilley stated we have not acquired that property, : so all this is still academic at this point. We are only beginning , the design of the treatment plant. On roll call the following vote ! was recorded: AYE: Hughson, Hart, Moore, Guerra, Cox, Hernandez. NAY: Mihalkanin. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration Item 6.D. (8) removed from the consensus agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, APPROVING fu~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BLACK AND VEATCH FOR PROGRAM MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Cox moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Guerra seconded the motion. Mr. Cox stated this permits us to go ahead but we are not locked in, and Mr. Gilley stated that is correct. Mr. Cox asked if the reference to oversight of water rights acquisition and permits activities are the permits we have pending with TNRCC, and I was advised that is correct. Mr. Cox stated we are contracting with -- Black and Veatch to assume this- responsibility with Staff support and policy guidance from the City, and Mr. Gilley advised that is correct. Mr. Gilley stated this contract does not lock us into the 621 site, only for the firm to perform management services. Ms. Hughson stated on Page A-I, Sec. A.2.b., it refers to a total of 15 meetings (one per month). She too is concerned with the deadline and wants to know if this is an implied deadline, and Mr. Jenkins stated the duration of the design construction project is approximately 18 months and probably another 18 months for construction. Mr. Hart stated the sense of direction given by the Council to Mr. Gilley is the 621 location. Until the majority of the Council states otherwise, that is the direction we are proceeding. If the Council wants this location to be somewhere