11081999 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

130 Regular Meeting November 8, 1999 Page 5 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE COTTONWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN PROJECT. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration Item 9.B. (1) removed from the consent agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, REINSTITUTING A CURFEW AND PROHIBITING ACCESS TO THE SPRING LAKE DAM AREA; INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mr. Cox moved for approval of the Ordinance on second reading and Ms. Hughson seconded the motion. Mayor Moore briefly reviewed a timetable of events regarding the dam. The Council discussed many details regarding the dam with Mike Lowe of TNRCC. Mr. Mihalkanin asked specifically what their procedures are prior to publicly issuing their letter. Mr. Lowe stated on a case by case basis they determine if they will look at a dam. They prefer to have two engineers look at a dam. They will make their assessment and report back what needs to be done. They will try to reach the owner or complainant at the time of inspection. Mr. Mihalkanin asked the qualifications of the TNRCC representatives in May, 1999, and Mr. Lowe advised they were both engineers with ten or more years experience each. He stated primarily what was noted was the number of people around the dam. Mr. Lowe stated an engineer for SWT contacted TNRCC in 1998 concerned with the dam. They observed the dam was deteriorating but mostly at the spillway. TNRCC did a visual inspection only. Ms. Hughson asked why the unit of TNRCC that is responsible for dam safety did not look at the dam the day after the flood knowing its condition. Mr. Lowe stated they did not look at the dam following the flood nor did they receive any indication there had been any change in the dam because of the flood. Mr. Mihalkanin stated if TNRCC was concerned about the condition of the dam in 1998, why weren't they concerned with the dam following the flood? Mr. Lowe stated the water master said the surveyor on that site had stated he did not know what was holding up the dam, but the public involvement at the site had not been previously known. Mr. Mihalkanin asked what is in the record of the February, 1998 inspection of the dam, and Mr. Lowe stated the report is less than ten pages. Mr. Mihalkanin stated that report would be the basis to determine the damage caused by the flood when they looked at the dam again in May of 1999. Mr; Lowe stated TNRCC will review plans when they are ready to bid. The environmental approvals will be the delay. The summary of the engineers is in e-mail and not in a formal report. Typically when owners of a dam start working on addressing their damage, TNRCC leaves them to do that until there is some reason for them to be brought back in. Between February of 1998 and May of 1999, there was more debris and more erosion at the chute. The erosion under the shoot was significantly increased after the flood and what is supporting the chute now. Mr. Doiron asked in the situation of a flood, is it a test for a dam. Mr. Lowe stated he is not surprised the dam did not fail; the dam has problems that not necessarily would be affected by a large flood. Mr. Cox expressed concern for the lack of documentation with an official TNRCC position in a letter. He would have a higher comfort level with a written report. On roll call for approval of the Ordinance on second reading, the following vote was recorded: AYE: Moore, Cox. NAY: Mihalkanin, Hughson, Doiron, Hernandez. ABSTAIN: None. Mr. Cox stated the City should contact our elected representatives to expedite repairs to the dam, as this is an important issue to this community. Ms. Hughson stated she would support the Mayor sending letters to our Federal and State officials.