Barton Springs Public Process

Austin’s City Council Place 4, our very own regular swimmer shared this news:

Hello All –

I’ve been following the free swim discussion with interest, since I’ve seen it offer real benefit in many ways.  As I understand it, PARD will be proposing the following:

Morning –

currently 5-9am free swim, they clear out pool at 9 and charge.

proposed change – 5-8am free swim, will start charging at 8, but will not clear pool, so if already there will not be charged to stay (starting March 2011)

Evening – no changes to free swim

PARD is hoping to get this to the Parks & Rec Board soon, perhaps this month.

Laura

Laura Morrison

Austin City Council, Place 4

512-974-2258

512-974-1886 (Fax)

Laura.Morrison@ci.austin.tx.us

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/morrison.htm

The following is a series of emails sent by swimmer Dan Crow.

May 26, 2010

Dannette,

After the Parks Board passed a motion recommending to City Council the amendment of certain ordinances in order to allow access roads to the tunnel to be built, but that provided that Watershed had to come back to the Parks Board for approval of the final bypass tunnel repair plan, some of us went across the hall to the Planning Commission hearing.

At the Planning Commission we all wanted to go home, but I was opposed to the ordinance as proposed because it included signing off on repair of the tunnel, not just access, so that put us last on the docket. Jules said they were only asking for temp access not repair and that is what would be voted on . I wouldn’t accept that to be the case because the agenda said ” temporary access and repair a culvert in the critical water quality zone” Robin Cravey brokered a change in the language with David Johns so it could be moved up to the next item on the consent docket. I agreed to withdraw my against position and accept David’s revised language changing the word “and” to the word “to” so it would read “temporary access to repair a culvert in the critical water quality zone” with the firm understanding that “repairs” were not included. Then I went home trusting that it would be done.

Dan

—–

May 25 2010

Jules,

The answers to the questions of May 21st would be helpful in aiding us to evaluate David Johns’ anticipated request to the Parks Board tonight regarding the bypass tunnel. Please honor our request for this information.

Dan

AECOM was engaged to determine if  any of the 13 segments of the bypass tunnel needed anchoring. 1.  Am I too assume from this testing of anchors that AECOM concluded the existing structure was not sufficiently anchored in all 13 segment? If so 2. how many segments are involved? and 3. if the test are successful will repairs proceed as envisioned by Victoria Li as she explained them in the March 2nd meeting in which she said a new floor would be enough and no additions to the walls or deck would be necessary?

4. What are the possible failure modes that are being tested? There are engineers among us, so feel free to go beyond lay terms if you must. 5. How deep and how wide are the holes?

6. When will the tests be completed?

7.What eng firm will go forward from this point with supervision and design of the actual repairs?

8.If there are successful tests of the new anchors what is the anticipated start and end of the construction period?

Again thank you for this information.

Dan

—–

May 18th, 2010

David,

I was disappointed in this new policy and its abrupt implementation that interrupted us in mid communication, but this in no way affects the cordial relationship that you and I have enjoyed from the outset. You indeed have always been very open and you have provided multiple opportunities for real and meaningful public participation for which I am ever grateful.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply it is greatly appreciated.

Dan

—– Original Message —–
From: Johns, David
To: Dan Crow
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:11 AM
Subject: RE: To Jules Parrish : Questions about the bypass update from David Johns May 13, 2010( see attachment)

Dan,
Not trying to be rude but that is what our Director agree to do. The intent is so there are not mixed messages given to tbe public. As you know, I’ve been very open in the past and will continue to be so in the future. As Jules’ email indicates, there isn’t really anything new just yet we can hang our hat on. I will see you soon I’m sure.
dj

From: Dan Crow [mailto:dcrow30@Austin.RR.Com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:35 PM
To: Parrish, Jules; Johns, David
Cc: Ennis, Tom; McClintock, Nancy; Li, Victoria J; Linda Guerrero; Roy Waley; Peter Steinhardt; Elizabeth Churchill; Bill Bunch
Subject: To Jules Parrish : Questions about the bypass update from David Johns May 13, 2010( see attachment)

May 17, 2010

David,

As you see I am forwarding this request to Jules Parrish as you indicated, however making her the sole source of public contact may be a new ad hoc Watershed policy, but from my perspective it borders on rudeness. Your last email closed with a request to let you  know if I had any questions so I responded with questions about the meaning of your email to me about the update, how can Ms Parrish interpret your email and make a meaningful and timely response? This is disappointing, I had been hoping for a response before the meeting this evening at Park’s offices.

Dan
—– Original Message —–
From: Johns, David
To: Dan Crow ; Parrish, Jules
Cc: Bill Bunch ; Elizabeth Churchill ; Peter Steinhardt ; Roy Waley ; Linda Guerrero ; Li, Victoria J ; McClintock, Nancy ; Ennis, Tom
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: Questions about the bypass update from David Johns May 13, 2010( see attachment)

Dan,
Jules Parish, our Project Manager in Public Works, is our single point of public contact for this project. She can address your questions.
dj

From: Dan Crow [mailto:dcrow30@Austin.RR.Com]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Johns, David
Cc: Bill Bunch; Elizabeth Churchill; Peter Steinhardt; Roy Waley; Linda Guerrero; Li, Victoria J; McClintock, Nancy; Ennis, Tom
Subject: Questions about the bypass update from David Johns May 13, 2010( see attachment)

May 15, 2010

David,

Questions about the meaning of your May 13th update.

According to my notes of the March 2 meeting, about an hour and a half into the discussion Victoria Li  said that there was contradictory evidence as to whether or not there was limestone under the bypass tunnel as shown on the engineer’s as built plans. She said if there was limestone under the tunnel then the analysis would be different and she asked if there would be any objection to hiring a forensic engineering firm to do soundings or other tests to find out what is really under there to be sure that the repair design is based on fact. Mr. Pickett responded that he had always been an advocate for more testing.

David Johns asked if there is limestone in place does that change our repair options.
Ms. Li said in that case a floor would be enough, because then you don’t have to reduce the capacity more by having thick sidewalls which would no longer need to be thicker in order to support the extra weight proposed for the deck because there would be no additional weight added to the deck.

Where are we today with only fixing the floor as Ms. Li suggested assuming that there is ,or can be, adequate anchoring into the limestone?

David’s email to me yesterday said “as you can see we have a draft report”  I have not seen the report and my questions are:

1. May I have a copy of this draft report?
2. If not (a) who wrote it (b) what is the subject and what did it conclude?
3. Is AECOM the forensic engineering firm that Ms. Li anticipated could find out what is under the tunnel?
4. If so, what did they find out? Is there limestone anchor or not?
5. Why does the bypass repair document prepared for USACE on April 21st 2010 by Watershed still list the addition of steel to the deck as the preferred option of repair.?
6. What was the nature and outcome of yesterday’s staff meeting with AECOM that David mentioned?
7. Does the request to test rock anchors indicate that AECOM concluded there was currently insufficient anchoring into limestone?
8.Would the rock anchors be in lieu of adding weight to the deck and the attendant strengthening of the walls to support the extra weight?
9. What would these anchors look like?

David, thanks for your reply to my request for an update and for asking if I have questions.

Dan
__._,_.___