Travis County Commssioners Court
September 24, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Agenda Item Twenty
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County commissioners court. Earlier this morning we indicated that we thought we maybe able to take up item no. 20 at 1:45, we missed that fwoal. Call it up now to consider the application of trinity materials to Texas commission on environmental quality, that's the old tnrcc, for an air quality permit for a rock crushing plant and take appropriate action. This is the old tnrcc, right?>> yes.
>> yes, judge.
>> okay.
>> judge, if you will allow me, we have some residents from the area that -- that basically attended a public -- informal public meeting, a community meeting [inaudible] at the satellite 1 facility over in johnny morris road this past September 16th, Monday. Of course there was a lot of things discussed in this particular meeting. They are here, some of those residents were here on this meeting conducted this past Monday, the 16th. Of course we have representatives there from t.n.r. And assistant county attorney tom nuchols and others. So if you are -- if you allow it, I don't know how you wanted this basically formatted, but if you allow for some presentation to be given by staff, first, and I think we have some comments from -- from the community. On some of the concerns that they brought up during the particular community meeting. I would like to receive that direction unless there's any other change to that --
>> maybe it would help to get a brief overview from staff. Sort of background information since they have come prepared with a diagram and all. Just wanted to go back a little bit in history and give you the background as it pertains to actual permitting concerns here at the county. This is a -- this is a sand and gravel operation out on f.m. 969 which is frankly nothing new. We have seen a lot of these types of operations, there are at least 3 other very large ones operating in the vicinity. This is right before you get to the eastern edge of the county line. It would be actually if you were on f.m. 969 between what we call little webberville in the community of webberville, big webberville right on the county line. Land actually that comprises about 500 acres that they are proposing to mine for sand and gravel, both on the -- both side of f.m. 969. Our or five pretty large parcels that com prize about 500 acres. Comprise. The applicant actually is trinity materials out of beaumont. And they -- they have come to us back in -- in I guess April or so for -- for your standard site development permit, which we had no legal standing to deny, basically. What we are here is to discuss the Texas council for voirm tall quality resource air permit, which is what they are seeking in order to be able to operate a rock crusher. Basically you have a series of conveyor belts that sort out particulates that are used for size grading, sand coming first, smaller gravels, when they get to the larger cobble sized gravels, they don't know exactly what to do with those, they are not very marketable, they like to crush them and put them into the belt to be mixed for concrete or used in whatever application they have a market for. Rock crushers in and of themselves again are not anything new. We've had txi propose one. I don't think they put it in place. Wally they operated one and -- actually they operated one and kind of got caught operating it without a permit. Went back to get a permit, had a big fight on their hands, kind of like what we have right now from the constituents in the area. That's kind of where we are with trinity. There are -- besides the community of webberville, there are a number of other residences in the area, there's a -- an older subdivision called owens acres that's actually kind of almost surrounded by these proposed tracts for mining. I don't know exactly, i'm sure the residents will tell you how many homes are in there. It's your basic rural subdivision, there's a handful of really, nice well kept homes in there. We have a situation where they are of course very concerned about the future as it pertains to traffic and aesthetics and of course health concerns. One of the health concerns that people typically bring up in relation to these facilities are air quality issues. That's what this permit is all about. From tceq. In order to -- to satisfy the permitting requirements of tceq for these operations, they either do two -- one of two things typically. They will either vac coup the fine particles which are the -- vacuum the fine particles or have a wet operation, that is what is proposed here. What they will actually do is have misting or sprayers at various points along the conveyor belts and the crusher itself. Typically tceq does not even monitor these operations because if they know that the technology is in place, that they have already done air models on, they basically call it good, approve it, that's kinds of where it goes. From my personal experience of visiting these sites, if those areas are operating and function -- if those sprayers are operating and if you thinking typically there's not a whole lot of emission. That's only a part of the operation, sand, gravel, mining, all of the trucks and hauling and stuff that goes along with it. That's kind of where we are at. I did bring a map. I apologize for the scale of it. It's not very easy for you to see behind the dais. I can perhaps just walk it up and let you all pass it down. When you see it --
>> it should be a part of the backup.
>> that map is good, too. The one that I have has a few more items on it.
>> as far as jurisdictions go, it's pure county here. At one point we thought it might be in the city of Austin etj, but to the best of our ability we have determined that it is not. The map that I have on the board there shows some red lines on the east and west sides of it that -- that clearly show it is not. So -- so --
>> so the red lines represent what?
>> the --
>> red lines --
>> etj boundary, city of Austin on the west side of course and actually bastrop on the east side there.
>> bastrop county.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> I have another map behind this one that shows floodplain, there's a fair amount of the southern most tract that has 100 year floodplain within it. It of course abutts the river. It abutts the river too, doesn't it? So that's sort of a background there. I don't know if there were any other specific questions that you might have.
>> a letter [inaudible]
>> would you like me to go over that letter.
>> if you would, go through that. Should be also a letter that we received from senator gonzalo barrientos dated September the 16th.
>> right.
>> that should be a part of your backup.
>> it's here.
>> you don't have to go through it, but I think it's a very important component, this initial letter sent on the 13th. Then also what we are looking at now as far as --
>> in terms of time frames, the time frames are key.
>> very important.
>> excuse me. When this came to our attention it was in the form of a notice coming from tceq. What's critical to note is when the notice comes out it typically indicates there's a comment period. The comment period is initiated by advertisement by the applicant. It was hard for us to figure out when it actually was advertised. We went through tecq staff, everybody in the world. Finally one of the constituents let us know it had been advertised in the elgin paper on the 28th of August. So that kick understand a 30 day comment -- kicked in a 30 day comment about to terminate here basically this Friday effectively. Commissioner Davis at that point was very concerned, wanted to get a letter out. We drafted one, got it in on the 13th on his letterhead. I think there's -- after that point he held a public meeting, we got a lot more input from the local constituents. I think he's interested perhaps in bringing before the court another letter that summarizes of course what was said in his, but adds some of that additional information we picked up in the public meeting, asks for basically three things. It asks for giving the fupg key advertising that -- funky advertising that happens, he wants to see perhaps that step gone through again so the comment period can be opened back up. Secondly he would like to have, I think the letter that he referenced from barrentos will effectively get a public hearing that is actually official or hosted by the tceq, will have the applicant there to answer questions. And third, and the most critical I think today, is that commissioner Davis is interested in seeing if you all are willing to support a case for a contested case hearing.
>> basically stipulated in the draft letter that we have here, as far as the backup, of September 24th. To this end. And that's basically the part of it, but based on that, what john just stated, there were interests based on this request that has the county interests such as the park and such as things of that nature and I think you mentioned the -- the federal ambient air quality standards and things of that nature. But there is some -- some information here that's in the letter that I feel, folks may not be able to fully understand. That is the impact of the -- or the adverse impact on the matter encapsulate matter -- matter encapsulate matter oo particulate matter, can that be explained very briefly.
>> sure. Basically the -- they are air quality and public health terms that basically reflect on the size of particles that come off of different operations. The finer the particle, in this case, it would be pnt .5, finer than pm 10. The finer the particle, the higher the risk or the higher of the potential danger for -- for damage because the -- those fine particles are able to be take place deeper into the lungs and actually also enter the bloodstream more readily. They are associated with a number of health effects, including asthma, bronchitis, you know, your basic plumbary diseases and -- pulmonary diseases, some studies indicate that there's some sort of sudden death related symptoms that occur in relation to heavy concentrations of these fine particles. So -- [one moment please for change in captioners] for instance. And I think we ought to do everything we can. It's just that i'm really to the point where I need some agency to look at it with seriousness. You know.
>> just clarify, if you mention the health department, were you talking about the state level?
>> or the local one. The local one. And whoever else will look at it as a public health problem.
>> okay, well, i'm sure that it will be perhaps simpler to get our own city-county health department.
>> whoever can get to it fastest.
>> on the state level, I am sure that they were involved at a certain point during the permitting and standards. Just to predict their response letter, that's probably what it would say.
>> I don't think we ought to leave any base uncovered. I think we ought to send anything to tnrcc. But if we could pursue it from the public health perspective and have some -- have another agency or agencies look at it from that angle, see if we can make some progress.
>> okay.
>> john, the thing that concerned me is really also the public notification process. I mean this is rule I something we had to deal with with the sludge plants, that it was just a registration process and they almost act cavalier about hi, we expect you to read the public notice section. And it's like if they put them in the obit section, people might see these. People read that. I'm concerned this is in the small elgin paper. I don't see anything here that says that the county judge of that particular county has to be informed this kind of permit has been filed and requirement we've got on, say, housing projects, they've got to let the judge know certain things are being filed so we are made aware of certain kinds of things. That may also be something that we want to take a real close look at is you shouldn't have to find out this stuff accidentally or through word of mouth or after the comment period has already taken place. It ought -- the comment period ought to be for public input and not just, you know, check off the public. It ought to be meaningful impact, not simply input, which you check it off and say, well, thank you so much and it doesn't mean anything. The other thing, are there any questions that can be raised with this being a non-attainment, a threatened non-attainment area related to our air quality of something ironically that we had to go work with the ten we can/tceq.
>> yeah.
>> environmental quality folks. I find it very ironic we work with them to try to do things to improve our air quality and here comes another one. I was wondering if we could also see about activating the clean air force to start raising these issues beyond what comes out of our vehicles. There are other things that are doing things to worsen the air quality and to just think about those kinds of things. I don't know if they are appropriate to comment, but I would be interested in knowing if this has any relevancy related to the '03 flex plan.
>> probably not much.
>> I know, but it's just ironic that we're supposed to do all this proactive stuff to clean up the air, and then they can do things in the back door of taking it down a notch.
>> yeah, let me just go ahead and make the distinction that needs to be made here on air quality, and that is that the '03 flex and those types of ozone-related issues pertain primarily to emissions. This is really more -- frankly, more of a particulate issue, which we are not in danger of being in non-attainment for. But, on the other hand, there are parts of the county, and this is one of those, where certain industrial activities happen and they happen at a larger frequent frequency and there are more of these places and there really is not monitoring in those areas. And that's why I think it's good for you to note that in the human health -- in the letter that you get, the droft letter that we've got there, there is -- draft letter, there is some mention of that under the section human health and safety issues. And we basically say that we are not aware of any monitoring stations that you have in these areas. You know, how are you going to know if you have exceed exceedances and so forth. There probably isn't much of a affect on the way they currently monitor for particulate matter, but in that immediate area of impact, we do not know if there are issues.
>> it could also impact the users, we've invested over $2 million in acquisition and improvements in this park from soccer to concession stands to restrooms to boat docks to ramping to softball fields, the list goes on and on. There are many users of this park and this particular site is in close proximity to investment of a county court. So, again, there is certain interests -- Travis County interests that we need to also be addressing. And I think all of that probably is inclusive within the September 24th draft letter that we have here before us now.
>> and again, key word "draft." It's there for you to review and give input. The only critical factor is that time frame. We really sort of had this fall in our lap late. I apologize for that. If you have comments, we would be willing to work in those.
>> what's the state's position?
>> the state's position?
>> so far. Any?
>> you know, this is one of those I suspect if the technology is there it's going to be approved. Their rules examine for x, y, z to be documented and if it is, it's approved. They won't call a contested case hearing on their own.
>> and the state's case will end up being determined by what the contested case will be. I mean, obviously it's proposed and no one opposes it, no one requests a contested case, tnrcc feels free to issue a permit bates on the applicant. Obviously if the applicants notified everyone around the facility of what's going to happen and the people next to the facility are not convinced their safety and health are not at risk, in the contested case is the opportunity for those folks to say, you know, we want to find out exactly what's going to be emitted from this facility, we want to know the size of the particles, and if they are fine enough and pose enough of a health threat, you know, be able to say, tnrcc, this is a health threat so you should require very stringent emission controls for this facility. The state position will depend largely what comes out of this contested hearing. It's a fact-finding process and if the hearing examiner is convinced the facts are it's a health thrent, they will probably propose stringent health controls.
>> so for us to contest a requested -- request a contested hearing status. So the matter can be fully investigated, findings of fact made, et cetera.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Residents who came to comment today. Why don't we make some seats available. If we could have three or four. If you would give us your name, we would be happy to take your comments. I think I see where we are. My guess is due diligence says request a contested hearing.
>> I think that needs to be done.
>> we are in a position to do what we can do today, I think, and that is for us to go ahead and submit the letter on behalf of the entire commissioners court, ask the state agency to elevate this to a contested the hearing status and do the necessary due diligence that they would in any other kind of contested hearing f we could start here and just work our way to the left. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Thanks for taking time to hear and discuss this issue. I'm [inaudible] gonzales, i'm a resident of the webberville area. I'll be surrounded on three sides by the strip mining operation. There's a lot of discussion about the rock crushing plant and the permit for it, but not much about the actual strip mining that falls under the regulations of the Texas railroad commission, but really there are none. I mean they only regulate it from the aspect of safety. And that's only if it's within 200 feet of a public roadway. And then they just need a safety certificate, not a permit, per se. That's what I would like there to be more interest in is the strip mining operation. It's going to be several hundred acres of strip mining on both sides of 969. Like commissioner Davis said within 750 feet of the big webberville park. I don't believe tceq takes that into account, all the dust, all the particulate matter emitted from the strip mining operation. They just look at the particulate matter emitted from the rock crushing operation. They are not even considering all the emissions and the dust created by the strip mining process and the trucks coming and going in the permit process.
>> and you want those looked into.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> hi, thank you for listening to our case. Carol goodrich. We have a lot of issues with the improvement personally. One of the most important ones I think is that when I went to the file, there's not even been a site review from the regional tceq office. No one has been out there to see the houses and the families that are going to be surrounded by this thing. There are many forms that aren't completely filled out, errors, wrong zip codes, wrong driving directions, wrong cemetery. We have the oldest black church in the state of Texas right next to this thing with one of the oldest cemeteries, which if you study geology, you know duty is one of the first founders before Austin was founded. In the webberville area we had people settle there. And this is all an error in the application. Even the name of the cemetery is in error. There's two archaeological dicks on record with the historic -- digs on record with the historical society. They are so new they are not even in the records yet. That whole area is completely covered with indian remains, some of them dating back to prehistoric times that have been on record. The main thing is webber tion prairie. The area they are going to be strip mining in, the prairie we're so proud of is going to be the strip mine. It will be gone for good. It will never be returned in our lifetime. One of the problems that I have there is that in our neighborhood, the little subdivisions are spaced to where these strip mines are going to be literally where the subdivisions had been intended to go. And we have several children very sick with asthma. We have one little boy that's terminal with m.d., That his mother is really concerned with. He's to the northeast side, which would be the prevailing south wind to their home. The home with the asthmatic children don't even have air conditioning. I was up there day before yesterday and the wind blows across this prairie, it's wonderful, they sit on their front porch. It won't be wonderful when there's 250 gravel trucks with disease he will emissions which have been declared cars genic by the e.p.a. As far as sprinkling to keep the dust down, I drove in from webberville today, there was one truck coming out of the drive and the cloud of dust was as big as this room. Multiple that by 250 trucks, plus gravel pits, rock crusher and strip mine in a neighborhood, and it's -- it's going to be disastrous for the area. The other thing is we've been trying in the last few years to get a community to pull together to have a nice community. When these kinds of plants go in, the land value will be -- nobody will move there. When everybody moves out and sells their house, which will be devalued immensely, who will move in? You know. It will be a slum area. It will be a problem to Austin, to everybody else, but especially to us that are living there. Because nobody wants to move in with -- we already have two large strip mines. If you look at the maps, the whole area is surrounded by strip mines and dust plants. We have -- at southeast we have jails, sanitation plants, strip mines, anything that sun desirable in the whole area seems to come our way. I know commissioner Gomez knows what i'm talking about. That's the other thing I would like to request besides a contested case hearing. We would like a 30-day period, I would like commissioner Gomez to request it herself. Just as in previous times we fought the t.x.i. Rock crushing plant, we have stressed that garfield is basically in our area. There's a narrow colorado river dividing us, but yet because of a technicality, they never pump, they never notify the people in river timbers. Again, those people were not notified and I talked to people this last week that were very upset, that are surrounded already by all of these plants, and they were not even give ann chance to comment or speaking during this time. As far as the newspaper posting in the tceq requirements, it also says after they post it, which they posted the wrong city in the wrong newspaper, it also says testify a 10-day period to notify tceq that it's been posted. I went down 15 days later and they have no record of it. Many, many things like this. Many things on their permit where they -- we asked the output of the pressure of the machines, and at one point it said unknown. They have these plants all over texas. They know what that type of rock crusher, what kind of pollution it puts out, they know how many tons they are going to put it. It's not unknown. Those things should be known to us so we can research it and know exactly what kind of pollution we will be exposed to. We have to in our comment period say how it's going to affect us personally, but they don't have to tell us what they are going to be putting out. Okay? There's many, many more things t. Main thing, I would just like to say that everybody that lives out there, and I think I can speak for everybody that came with me, loves webberville frvment the first day I drove out there, it's our home, it's where we want to be. We don't want to sell out. We don't want to move somewhere else. We just feel like we're getting really mistreated by the city of Austin because everything that's undesirable gets put in our area. And so that's why we're here today is to try to get some support from the court because we haven't had any luck with the other state agencies in doing this. And we would like for you guys to support us and ask for a 30-day reposting and the contested case hearing. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Good afternoon. I own 32 acres in the western-most property line will be adjacent to one of the strip mines. The strip mine will be literally yards from my front door. And it's just unacceptable to put this type of operation in such a heavily populated area. No one seems to realize how many homes are out there and how many people live there and how many people's house is going to be put at risk if this goes forward. The southerly breeze comes right across my front porch and will bring the dust and emissions and the pollutants straight to my door. And I will do anything in the world to keep that from happening. I would like to respond to a comment that commissioner Sonleitner made about the emissions. While it's true that the air quality permit is based upon the emissions as a direct result of the rock crusher, we need to keep in mind that there are going to be 250 more gravel trucks and rock trucks traveling the road every day, and that the machinery that's operated is petroleum-based machinery. I mean, there's going to be all kinds of emissions from the actual plant also. I think that needs to be checked into. Another thing is I talked to the representative at trinity materials in beaumont, and I asked him what kind of reclamation is going to occur after they are through. And he told me, oh, we don't have to do any. So if we could live through the rock mining, we get to look at some huge crater at our front door with all the dangers and problems that will be presented by that. In fact, eastern Travis County is becoming pock marked with such holes and the devastation looks like a war zone. One other thing that i'm really concerned about is the water table. When I talked to the trinity materials representative, he told me that it would be a wet operation. They will dig down and they will get water. And I asked him, oh, you mean you are going to hit the water table? And he says, oh, no, we won't do anything that will hurt your water table. I told him we have wells out there, water wells for our residential use. Oh, well, they are 200 to 300 feet deep. That's not the case. The wells range from about 30, 35 feet. We're close to the river. The water table is close to the surface. This sort of strip mining is going to impact the water and the water quality in eastern Travis County. I appreciate your taking up this issue today and any assistance that you might offer to at least afford us a true fact-finding procedure and an opportunity to have our concerns addressed is really appreciated. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon. My name is keith webber. I live in the owen acres subdivision. Let me first express my appreciation of you taking the time to hear us today. I'm here to ask you to resolve commissioner Ron Davis on these issues, at least in opposition. Realizing that the powers of the county are limited in resources and what to do about this. At least they stand that this is an inappropriate development in subdivisions is my request. This particular industrial development will be on one of my property lines, and we just talked about water issues. I'm on a water well, I depend on it solely as my water resource. It's 30-foot deep and there's seven feet of woart down there. I'm very -- water down there. I'm very concerned that my well is either going to run entirely dry or it's at least going to be polluted. And water issues, especially ground water is changing in Texas with the implementation of senate bill 2. So we're in some rapid changes in how this type of resource is going to have to be dealt with. Tceq only looks at the air quality permit in this process. They don't look at any of the ramifications that will come about as a matter of granting this permit. I think while the neighbors have covered a great deal of that, as a person who drives these roads in Travis County day in and day out, even at 5:30 in the morning and a little bit later the school buses are out on the road, and I have on more than one occasion seen the school bus have to get on its brakes to avoid a collision. And so we're going to increase the risk to our children besides playing in the park, just getting back and forth to get their education. I think this is serious business. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> you also brought up something about some signage that you are looking at. Did you get a chance to, I guess, get with t.n.r. Staff to --
>> yes, sir, I got with staff out. Thank you. Even the sketch and -- should I brief about that or --
>> no, I just wanted to make sure -- [multiple voices]
>> I just wanted to make sure that the signage you are referring to they are aware of to go out there and check.
>> they certainly are. And that of course involves the request of replacing a missing stop sign and studying perhaps making that intersection a three-way stop and moving the speedlimit you sign. Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe and county commissioners. Again, thank you very much for giving us the time to come in and listening to us. But some of you know me, my name is john limon, and i'm the president of limon family [inaudible] and 99% of us live in Travis County somewhere. Since 1986 when we celebrated our first family reunion, we have gone to you, webberville park, and the reason we use it is because of the natural beauty of the park. And we were using the park when it first opened, when it was really a very raw park. But it was very beautiful. And i'm here speaking on behalf of my whole family, you know, supporting the residents that live there, but also the people that use the park. Because, like, our family reunion is pretty much like a three-day event. And, you know, we were allowed to continue keeping it -- like to continue keeping it as natural and pure as it always has been. I know there's no way in the world that any precaution they might take, a company like this can really protect the people from all the danger. And especially when you add the accumulation of to two that already exist. Plus a new one, plus the rock crushing, and plus we hope it doesn't happen, but thal coa I can't that's really not that far away. And the -- one of the hard things about it is that by law, things -- the t -- what?
>> tceq.
>> tceq, they can't live people that live right next to this places, not the people that live a quarter of a mile, five miles, they will still be affected because of the wind. It doesn't matter. Everybody will be affected. So -- and I know that it's not by accident or that the [inaudible] was -- notice was put in the elgin newspaper. They showed you what type of company they really are. On behalf of my 2,000 and plus family members who will be celebrating our 17th year reunion there at webberville park next month, you know, we stand firmly in support of all these neighbors because also we do have family members now that live out there. So, again, you know, we're asking for all your support that you all can give us. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else to speak? We can pull up one of those chairs there.
>> my name is bob fuller love, I live perhaps three miles away from where the plant would be, although I travel 969 almost daily. I would like to touch on a couple of issues. First of all, I guess you call it the democracy issue. The notice give nen the elgin paper, I don't know about you, but a weekly paper, I don't bother. If I get minus from the Austin paper or the radio, whatever, I used to have a son going to school in elgin playing football, they don't even cover sports good in that weekly paper. I've never subscribed to it even though it's 20 miles away and it's the closest town to where we live. Actually manor is closer, but manor doesn't have a paper. I'm not sure they put it in the Austin paper, and it may have actually been required that they do so. As far as the notice was concerned, I found out a couple days ago thanks to carol and some of the word of mouth going on. It's appalling to me they would sneak this in. I think of it as being sneaky. On other levels, it's appalling to me that you all are not notified in the same kind of way you would be for rural development. You are not notified when it comes to rural destruction, which is really what this is. As they noted, they don't have on to do anything afterwards. During the process, who knows what will happen with either the health dangers, the traffic dangers, the noise and other types of pollution. And my last point is as far as air quality and the process that we as citizens have to approach any redress of grievances, I understand, and this may not be accurate, but I understand that tceq is about the only regulatory agency of any kind that would have to give permission for this to happen. That otherwise if they say it's okay, there's no other body, even though it may affect ground water, even though it may affect health, even though it may affect traffic, all of our lives out there, there's no other body that they have to go through to get this permit. And if they have it and get it established and start going on it, it is -- it has been recorded that this company, trinity materials, elsewhere, once they have established a rock crushing plant, have begun work on a cement plant on the same premises without getting that permit. They've kind of taking a sliding slope and moved on ahead to other things. I fear that that's really what they have in mind is to develop this even further. In we can find any more support from that, i'm sure it won't be forth coming from the coming, but it might be by circumstance evidence at least in other places and I would like to have the time to do that, the 30 days' extension order, the opportunity at the case hearing.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> I just want to make one other quick point as far as the 30-day posting period. There was another important thing that they omitted. They sent the state letter, senator barrientos' letter to the wrong person and representative donna dukes's letter to the wrong person. As far as I know, donna dukes has never been officially notified yet. Jeff wittwort notified tceq they sent him the wrong letter. So they did go ahead and send barrientos a letter. As far as I know, teri keel didn't ever notify them so they didn't notify donna dukes. Tceq should at least know who the correct senator and representative is for that area. They posted their paperwork in the Travis County courthouse so they realize the plant is going to be in Travis County.
>> let me understand what you are saying. The letter that we received from gonzalo barrientos --
>> was after he notified him. Our group, not tceq. His letter went to jeff wentworth. And then we notified him and invited him to our community meeting, after which teri -- jeff wentworth sent a letter saying they had sent him the letter in error. And tceq faxed gonzalo barrientos a notice. As far as I know, donna dukes has never -- in the file as of last week, hers had never been corrected.
>> okay. John, do we think that the letter that's in our backup contains the complaints that have been brought to our attention today? I guess john and tom.
>> it contains most of them.
>> yeah, carol has done such a good job pointing out some of the notice issues. I think that perhaps -- i've got about three additional points we could add quickly. Just depends on how important you think that is.
>> we need to get the letters out in the morning. May as well be as comprehensive as we can. I would move that we send to the appropriate state agency or agencies if there be more than the new tnrcc, calling to their attention the reasons that were brought to our attention today. Any failure to meet notice requirements that we can identify. That in addition we ask that the 30-day notice be given to all entitled to receive it. And if we think the neighborhood just south of this area --
>> right, in garfield. [multiple voices]
>> but did not get one, raise that. Ask that it be elevated to complaint status. And that the appropriate due diligence investigation be conducted. That in addition, we do whatever we think we ought to do to assist.
>> and also, judge, a public meeting in a contested case hearing as far as this particular project would actually produce fact also if it's encompassed within if [inaudible] the summary request. I think all of that basically includes this except for the 30-daytime frame.
>> that's fair enough.
>> we need to get this letter out expeditiously.
>> yes, I think -- [multiple voices] > if you've got it hand-delivered to them by Friday, that would certainly meet the requirements. Comfort level would be a day or two before that.
>> when is the deadline?
>> [inaudible] deadline we could move on it quick like.
>> would you take it as a friendly to cc this to barrientos and [inaudible] because it's specifically in her district, but I would also say glenn maxey because on the other side of the river there are folks represented by representative maxey. I think he would want to know about this as well.
>> excuse me, I would like to point out we've also been discussing this issue with congressman doggett's office.
>> and since the railroad commission is the one who basically regulates the strip mining, perhaps it would be beneficial to get something to them to let them mow what "-let them know what our concerns are. They are actually the ones that regulate the strip mines themselves, right, john?
>> if they have a pit next to the road, they do.
>> we've got a pit on both sides of the road.
>> even that didn't used to be that way.
>> that's another point is this is being divided into five sections with 969, which is a really dangerous, narrow little road in between them. They are going to have to truck the material from these four spots over to the rock crusher back and forth. They are using 969 as a [inaudible] road.
>> have you made any contact with the road commission folks?
>> yes, I have.
>> we need to get that -- let's add railroad commission to that as far as the c.c.
>> I would ask our disk engineer bill garbody because certainly 969 is their responsibility.
>> txdot received a letter and they remained sigh lebtd on this.
>> i'm shocked.
>> can we have this ready by late tomorrow afternoon?
>> yes, sir.
>> who should we send copies to for you all? We have your address?
>> yes, i'll give it to john. Thank you.
>> we'll make sure we get it.
>> work with my office on that.
>> any more discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much for coming out. Appreciate it. [applause]
>> is that going on court letterhead?
>> yes. Yes.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM