Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates Hebner Creek erosion plan and $9,640 tree‑marking cost; no formal vote
Summary
Councilors and staff debated a $9,640 proposal to mark trees affected by the Huebner Creek erosion-control project. Concerns focused on heritage‑tree loss, project scope, prior engineering costs and alternative erosion controls; the council did not approve the additional expenditure on the record.
City staff and councilors on Tuesday discussed whether to pay $9,640 to mark trees in the Huebner Creek erosion‑control project alignment and broader concerns about tree loss, project design and costs. The council did not record a formal vote on the tree‑marking expenditure during the meeting.
City Manager Crystal Caldera described the item and said a contractor quoted $9,640 to mark trees "so y'all can visually see the trees that would be taken out with the project that y'all voted on." She noted that engineers had already produced plans and that some trees had multiple tags from previous projects, which complicates on‑the‑ground interpretation.
Council concerns and staff responses: several councilors expressed alarm about heritage trees in the natural area and questioned whether the city was losing large, old trees unnecessarily. One councilor said, "We spent almost $200,000, and yet nothing has been done in this project," summarizing frustration about cost without visible construction. Councilors also suggested alternatives, including asking the engineering firm (Ardura) to include tree‑marking as part of their contracted scope or to seek competitive bids for the tree‑marking work.
Engineering and scope: staff and the project engineer explained that the original realignment option had taken fewer heritage trees but would have removed homes from the floodplain; the revised plan aimed to address erosion while staying in the existing creek alignment, a choice that keeps homes in the floodplain but reportedly affects more heritage trees. Staff emphasized the project is to fix active erosion and prevent a house from sliding off the bank rather than to prevent flooding in general. Staff also noted FEMA/floodplain compliance and recycled‑water line impacts shape design options.
Budget history: staff provided project cost figures: approximately $193,000 spent to date (two engineering plans plus some work) against a budgeted $801,000 for the project. Councilors said they wanted clearer detail on which specific heritage trees would be removed before approving further expenditures related to marking or field verification.
Outcome and next steps: councilors opposed paying the $9,640 addition during the meeting and asked staff to pursue alternatives: seek clarification from the engineer about the tagging codes, ask the contracted firm whether tree marking could be done as part of their scope, and provide a keyed map showing which tagged trees are proposed for removal. Staff agreed to provide a key to the tags, attempt to coordinate with the engineer and determine whether the tagging could be produced at no additional charge.
