Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Shoreline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff say riverbank protection project redesigned after heavy rains, scour analysis pending
Summary
Engineering staff reported a redesign of a riverbank stabilization project after recent rain and storm events altered site topography; the city is awaiting a scour analysis and expects change orders and later cost and schedule updates.
City engineering staff told the TIPS Committee that a riverbank protection project near Panola Road required a complete redesign after multiple heavy rain events changed the site topography.
The project team discovered that recent storms had shifted the slope and removed material where the planned wall would sit, so consultants performed a new survey and the design engineer produced a revised structural plan. Engineering staff said the wall design is now based on a new as-built survey and structural criteria rather than the original aesthetic-focused plan.
Why it matters: staff said the redesign is intended to reduce the risk of repeated repairs and to satisfy regulators. The committee heard that the city is waiting on a scour analysis — an engineering study that models water velocity and erosion risk — before finalizing the design and moving forward with construction.
Engineering staff said a contractor-designed structural wall will be used, with panel units (described as modular blocks) and added handrails where required by code. “The wall design is solid,” the presenter said, adding that the assembled units and quantities may change from the original bid and that the city expects change orders as a result of the new survey and the added protections.
Staff described work completed so far: a second topographic survey, temporary erosion control, and installation of an additional row of large modular segments to reduce immediate risk from upcoming storms. They said these are stopgap measures until the scour analysis and final design are delivered.
Committee members and the mayor asked about cost and contractor liability. Staff said the original contractor received minimal payment for prior design work (described in the meeting as a small amount, ‘‘not even 10 percent’’) because that payment covered early site-professional work; staff said they are negotiating with the contractor about rework and that financial details will be discussed with the finance committee. Staff also told the committee they are trying to limit repeat repairs by adding more robust protection rather than restoring the original, more ornamental design.
Staff reiterated that delays were prompted by unpredictable site changes; they emphasized that they are pursuing additional engineering assurances to avoid rebuilding the wall after the next major storm. No formal vote or funding decision was taken at the meeting.
The project team said they will return with the scour analysis, updated design documents, and any required change orders for committee or council review. A timeline for final construction completion was not provided; staff said earlier contractor estimates that had cited a July completion date may be extended depending on the analysis and redesign.
