Travis County Commissioners Court

May 3, 2005
Item 22

22. Consider and take appropriate action on various issues related to type I landfills in Travis County, including the following: a. An overall strategy regarding type I landfills in northeast Travis County; b. Performance based agreement with browning-ferris industries; c. A siting ordinance for Travis County; d. Update on alignment options and projected costs regarding arterial a; and e. Other related issues. A, b, c and d are big issues, I think, that we have been in whole or part considering for months now. It was a little bit more than a year ago that we put that six month more tomorrow in place -- moratorium in place. It expired I think in October. We had a meeting, four, five, six weeks ago and at that meeting talked about some of this. More the contract than anything else. And in my view, it is time for us to land on some of these. The residents in the last -- in the latter part of the meeting that we had, suggested that we just take action not today but later. And that's a live request still? Right. Commissioner Davis will not be here next week, so we would be looking at the next opportunity of March 17th.
>> may.
>> may 17th. [laughter] may 17th. So I think all of this starts out with -- with three big options. That -- that we have chatted about from time to time. And as the county reminder, they really are that we can do nothing in terms of expansions. That we can just outright oppose expansions. Or, three, that we can adopt a strategy that is sort of like what I outlined in my April 22nd, 2005 memorandum or really kind of outlined and distributed to the court last week. Has everybody had a chance to review the outline? No reason for me to chat about it further, I guess, right? The -- we -- waste management did fine with the cap cog a draft of a draft -- did file with the cap cog a draft of a draft expansion request and the advisory committee is on a schedule that will allow that to be brought up how soon, do you know?
>> you said wm, is that right?
>> waste management.
>> just keeping everybody straight. Yes, the cap cog solid waste advisory committee has a subcommittee that is a permit review committee, they are scheduled to meet as indicated on may 12th to begin that review process.
>> now, several times before, the reason I put this item down is for us to give directions on how to proceed. Several times before we indicated if expansions -- if applications to expand were filed, then we would look at an appropriate siting ordinance for type I landfills in Travis County. The ordinance that we adopted covers none type I landfill facilities. So my request, we don't have a draft ordinance before us. My request, though, is that we let counties, either we take no action but county staff would know that or we give directions to county staff on how to proceed. We did talk about one possibility, and we may just be tom and me on that, and what we talked about was including for type I landfills an appropriate buffer around the locations and otherwise use the same receptor distances. So the same distances would apply unless you had a buffer of a certain distance. We didn't really flesh that out. We just talked about that as a possibility. The obvious advantage of that would be that we could get it done sooner. And at some point work does factor into this as they are working on the southwest development work groups and other things. But that is there for -- the overall strategy here looks at 2018, the residents have a different notion about that. The way I arrived that really was thinking that waste management has 12 to 13 years left on this current permit and I just added 200512 or 13 years up -- 2005, 12 or 13 careers we are up to 2018. We would do everything that we could to get both of them closed to type I waste by then, that will leave open the question what about transfer facility for type iv. I know the residents want to address us and the landfill operators have representatives here, also. And maybe others. Who want to give comments today. If -- if my outline is clear, then I think that will be a good place to start. I guess this is one for wm, can you explain the nuance between somebody putting in some kind of application at cap cog versus tceq and was it to one or both? I need to have clarity as to what's cooking there.
>> exactly what has been filed.
>> what has been filed and with whom, yeah. If somebody could just answer that one for us.
>> hopefully that's a quick question. Judge, Commissioners, steve jacobs waste management of Texas. Basically what we are been doing throughout this process, maybe the moratorium was developing our permit document for submittal to the state. Part of that is a cog review, which is required in parts 1 and 2. What we handed in to the cog last I believe it was two weeks ago was a draft of parts 1 and 2 for their input and recommendations or suggestions. Nothing is going to the state. The only document is the one that's at cog right now.
>> is this considered I guess preliminary work? How should I interpret that action as to whether that's an affirmative step or what in terms of when might that land at the state or is this -- I don't know, help me understand the nature of this action.
>> throughout this process, there's been a lot of suggestions and recommendations and requests that waste management work more closely with the cog in the community and what this was an attempt to do was to get it out with no intermediate deadline and allow cog to have input on it, make suggestions or recommendations to improve the application and give us time to incorporate anything that might help deal with community concerns and issues.
>> am I supposed to interpret it, though, as this is kind of an affirmative step forward because one of the reasons that we have been kind of like steady, stay, everything exactly as it is, on a siting ordinance, we wouldn't move forward if people weren't making efforts to move forward. Should I be considering this as an effort to move forward or just necessary background work, please come forward, help me -- because that's going to meter my reaction to that news.
>> right.
>> that's a great deal of background work that needs to be done to prepare the application, the cog input is part of that. Normally it's done in a very rapid fashion that gives the cog little opportunity to -- to comment or ask the company to consider doing additional things or adding additional services or -- or setbacks or things of that nature, what we were attempting to do was give the cog an opportunity to have input into our application before it was too far down the road for us to change.
>> okay. You guys aren't looking still for a green field site for someplace else. If that happens, if that's a positive step in that direction, would you shift the focus of your application you've got over at the cog right now clearly.
>> we probably could shift the focus somewhat to a new facility.
>> excuse me, john joseph representing waste management. It depends on the time table. If we were able to get that done quickly enough and get everyone behind us quickly enough to where -- where we finished up where we are now and in time to get another one licensed and operating that could shift smoothly, yes, we could. It also depends a little bit on what happens on arterial a. This is not -- I don't think that -- I?m asking you not to see this as a provocative move. They provides us to do this in case we need to do something. In terms of all of the things that are happening to the northeast landfills, including arterial a. It's an informational thing. Nothing has been filed with the state yet.
>> let's just plug this out a little bit, once the review is completed over at the cog, how long do you think that will take, rough numbers?
>> what was -- what would it normally take --
>> john and -- one of you is the chair.
>> one is the chair and I?m representing Travis County on -- on the solid waste advisory committee at cap cog. Initially, this has actually been an issue. The review time, initially the state has asked that it be done and turned back around in 30 days. If you have seen these applications, you'll understand that that's not always reasonable. So to the extent that waste management is offering additional time, that is appreciated. Now that -- now that -- that mr. Jacobsons is on this he understands the challenges in front of us. I would say for our purposes of a thorough review, we would probably need closer to 60 days or something like that. We can always give interim feedback, though.
>> trying to catch the nuances here because this is new -- this is news to me in materials of this application was forwarded over to the cog. And it's one of those things of -- of you know for people to be aware of what may or may not be happening. If the cog review happens and then it's placed in a drawer, it's, you know, just on hold and you have done a lot of due diligence, that's one thing. But if all of a sudden we have compressed what time I think the neighborhood would think that they need to react to some kind of an affirmative move forward, that's a different thing here. And so I -- I need you to be a little more firm that this is not an active provocation because quite frankly it's pretty -- it's a pretty important nuance for me.
>> well, our time table is dependent upon a number of things. One of those being arterial a. Which we have discussed with you. What the county does with respect to arterial a is going to determine a whole lot about how we proceed and the time table on which we do. This -- everybody knew that we had been looking to file an application on the wilder tract. This is sim me the draft -- simply the draft application being given to cog for review. No one is trying to shorten the time line for cog and they should take whatever time is reasonable for them to review it. It also gives the public that much more time to review it as well. We are not looking to speed the time process up. Other than how it might be impacted by what happens with arterial a. And how that might affect the existing permitted landfill.
>> i'll stop at this point, judge.
>> the other issue, too, is if john represents Travis County on the cap cog advisory committee, it would help for him to know what the Commissioners court's position is on this, otherwise he may end up in the same position that joe gieselman was before the technical advisory committee of campo, a couple weeks back.
>> I would like to add something about the pros at the cog. A couple of comments. One is that cap cog staff is encouraged, has encouraged permit applicants to go ahead and submit materials in their draft form in advance so they have more time to get feedback from the cog as well as the swac committee members. It doesn't necessarily mean that the committee would take action on the draft. The process, as I understand it, is when there's an actual permit application submitted, not a draft, but an application, then the committee would take action and make a recommendation and so what this does is give time for them to get more comprehensive feedback from both the cog and committee members.
>> any idea of when you might file your permit application with tceq some.
>> we're on no definite time line at all on that. We are basically running it through the system right now and we are trying to work with cog to get their input on it.
>> a lot of that is going to depend on what happens with respect to arterial a, what happens with respect to the green fill site structures that we are doing.
>> you just said the advisory committee will not get real serious until the application is filed with tceq, right?
>> that's correct, that's the process as I understand it. John, is that your understanding as well?
>> it just boils down to the tact that no formal trigger is pulled on the time line, that's all. Until it goes to tceq. We have already as I understand it, we've got a subcommittee lined up, we are getting ready to start the review process, right?
>> that's right. The subcommittee will meet on on may 9th, a full swac on the 12th. One more comment about the process, that is that the cog has questioned the stage at which the committee would take formal action based on the approval process of the regional solid waste management plan. That still has to be considered by the cog and tceq and the full swac. What I?m talking about is this -- the process that -- that was developed for reviewing permit applications was incorporated into the regional southwest management plan and then adopted by the swac in the executive committee at cap cog. Then it was submitted to tceq for review. What we are being told now that is that tceq is collecting from all of these plans from around the state, they haven't taken a formal action to adopt them yet or approve them. So the discussion on the swak was that the committee intends until further guidance is given, to act on the recommendations made and approved in the plan and follow through with the process. But it's unclear whether the committee's recommendations would carry the same weight after the final plan is approved. I?m --
>> I?m a little concerned about a lot of this. I have been given a list of a lot of the times these things 7 appeared before the Commissioners court way back in 2001 for an example, all the way up to 2003. We went through a delay process -- however my concern is still listening to what if I -- bfi, wmi folks have said as far as not aggressively pursuing any kind of permit if -- if, of course, the -- the southwest siting ordinance that -- that would -- that would oversee the -- the type 1 solid waste facilities which are landfills would not be adopted and, of course, that was something that I didn't agree with and I still didn't agree with, don't agree with today. I would like to see a solid waste siting ordinance adopted which is really 22 c I guess in this particular point. And my question to you is -- is that with those things said in the past, would you -- would you have any objections, I guess, for the court if they decided to go ahead and adopt the solid waste siting ordinance, governing type 1 landfills, be -- be pursued since you have now basically taken a position of seeking a permit for expansion purposes. So I would like to pose that question to you because really that -- that is part of the crux of what's -- was going on here.
>> the siting ordinance will affect the green fill site location. If you choose to do that, you will affect the sites that -- that we have -- that we are looking at. So yes, I would have. A problem with you passing a -- a siting ordinance right now, since it would impact where we were trying to locate a green fill site.
>> but you can't tell me where and when you are going to get the heck out of there. In other words, it appears that you are trying to get your cake and eat it, too. I don't think that can work in this particular regard. We have been dealing with you for a long time.
>> you asked me if I would --
>> you didn't --
>> you asked me if I would care about that, I answered the question. I can tell you without risk of contradiction that it will affect my ability, our ability to find a green fill site search which will directly affect our ability to relocate the northeast landfills in accordance with any time line that you might establish. The staff report, when you think these things will be coming to end or closure on location of site, stuff like that. We have extended 90 days, 60 days, da-da-da to come one the report. You have eventually responded I guess, I don't know. Is it --
>> we have consistently provided written statements about our progress on the green fill sites.
>> it still appears that you cannot come one a concrete answer or time. You are still, in my opinion, holding us hostage to your situation out there. In my opinion, I think fair at all.
>> I take exception to the use of the word hostage. I don't believe that that's anything -- [multiple voices] we are trying to do exactly what this Commissioners court directed us to do. To locate a green fill site and try to get it permitted as quickly as we can. That's what we are doing.
>> right. I don't take exception to what I just said. And I feel that you have been holding this community hostage. And I feel that you have held us hostage.
>> I disagree.
>> since we have had a chance to work with you and you have basically said we will hold up on expansion purposes provided that the Commissioners court do not go forward with adoption of those -- ordinances, which I didn't agree it.
>> that's exactly what we have done. We haven't filed an application with the tceq. We have given the community and cap cog the opportunity to review a draft application. That's what we have done. Those are the facts.
>> but do -- owe you are still considering expansion.
>> we are never told this court that [multiple voices]
>> one at a time, one at a time.
>> expansion on the tract. We made a commitment to the court that we would look for a green fill site in lieu of that, but we have never made any bones about the fact that we bought that wilder tract for an expansion, we intended it for an expansion, we have tried diligently to locate a green fill site though so that we can shorten the time period that we are at the wilder site if at all.
>> I think it's a matter of semantics as far as what you say diligently. I don't really know what that means as far as the way I?m interpreting the way you probably interpret it. I think that you've had an ample enough time to do a whole lot of things out there to bring your particular situation to closure and stop impacting this particular part of the community and who has really been under siege. I think for a long, long time, justifiable, you don't need to be under that type of predict anymore. I think that you would have to come up, in my opinion, with more concrete answers, binding concrete answers where one day you said one thing, the next week you said something different. That's not binding enough for me to convince me to -- to convince me that you are playing on a level playing field. I don't think you are.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> john, wouldn't a siting ordinance be better for you all given that you would know what you had to comply with to go out and find a green fill or am I missing something? If we came up with something and said okay here are what the siting rules or regulations, would that in essence make it a little more definitive for you guys to say okay we know kind of what rules we are playing under, we can go out and comply with whatever those set of rules? I mean not, I mean, when I?m talking about siting ordinance, I?m talking about more than this right here. Now maybe the rest of the court is thinking about something else that effectively I mean I?m talking about what do we view as buffers and that. Do I -- am I reading that wrong or do you feel differently --
>> [indiscernible] under the current draft, would render the site that we are currently looking at useless. So I think yes, it would be a help in a perfect world that rerealistically looked at a siting ordinance that said this is where you can put it, you can actually find the location. This one wouldn't -- this one would not work. Because the [indiscernible] distances are so great under the draft. But we have been trying to -- to fit ourselves within this -- as close as we can to the definitions, the draft, if you were, of the siting ordinance and having a very difficult time finding something that does fit, but we think that we have found something. Some of the property openers are absolutely not interested in selling. A couple of the property owners are interested in selling. We are negotiating letters of intent now with them. We plan to coming to the county with the rest of them, saying here's the rest of them can you help us. We think it's a good location, we think that it's a viable location, one that we could probably get permitted --
>> do you know about how much buffer you have around it?
>> well, it's about 1100 acres. So it's a pretty good sized piece of property. We should be able to come up with a pretty good sized buffer around that. I would love y'all's input into what kind of buffer you are looking for for nothing else except by way of suggestion.
>> that's why I asked that question. If we need to get someplace else in order to allow you all to meet it, it's to our advantage, I would think that's, you know, where we need to go, I mean, y'all need to know definitively okay here's what it is, we can live with that if we have zzzt amount of acres, we know our buffer, we can comply. That's where my direction would be on coming up with a siting ordinance. I mean, you know, having I?m sure that the neighbors would even come up and say okay let us help you come up with that buffer so we can for once everybody would be on the same team.
>> I think what I would like to do if it's okay with my client to submit the information to you, the actual property, show them on the map, have you look at them, see what you think about it and then come up with some buffers that might fit that particular situation rather than let's just shoot in the dark. I?m ready to lay it out. But knowing that if it gets south it's going to make it very expensive for us to purchase and i'll try diligently to get the letters of intent that I can get before that. Then you all are going to be faced with what you are going to be faced with as far as requiring the remainder.
>> time lines we are trying to come up with. We've been grappling, if you want a copy of this, i'll give it to you.
>> [indiscernible]
>> this is the time this stuff has been there before the Commissioners court.
>> I?m well aware of that.
>> so you've been right here with us, sir. Time lines are very critical. If you are coming to closure on the location of an alternate, another green fill site. If you are coming to closure on something like that, ready to close -- tom can you answer this question for me? The -- the ordinance that the Commissioners court were basically formulating, you know, we had different definition criteria, then we had not only that we had setbacks within the ordinance from receptors and of course from neighborhood schools, daycare, water wells all of that. Just a whole set of deals that was looked at for -- for this type of ordinance. Is that still readily available where they may be adjustments that may need to be made on the definitions as Commissioner Daugherty said that there may be -- the naikdz may want to get involved in this process as they were on this one before as far as setbacks if we can come to some kind of closure [indiscernible] getting out of that. Is that still available to us --
>> the ordinance that was adopted?
>> no. The ordinance -- well, what we had adopted at one time was just the ordinance that were non-landfill ordinance, like recycling, composting, operation, all of that. It was those type back then. What I?m talking about now is the one that the language that we had back then, when we were looking at the landfills at that time, as far as the ordinance is concerned, is that language still available and around for us to review?
>> I have copies of all of the old crafts of all of the different versions of the ordinance, if that's what you are asking me.
>> reaccept kels, all of that -- recepicles.
>> we have all of that. It's not possible to locate this in the context of the existing draft, last draft siting ordinance but we are looking without reference to that. We have got a site that we think will work. If there are buffers that you would like for us to consider, I would like to have those as soon as possible so that we can try to build those buffers into the evaluation of those sites. And i'll be happy as long as we can keep it as close as we can to assure the specific location with you -- the properties that we are looking at, knowing that we are trying to acquire them.
>> well, I don't think that it's -- that it's that necessary for me to know or us to know where it is. I mean, you know, my -- because I don't want to put you in a spot, put either one of us in a spot where we would end up having to pay more than -- I think that somebody ought to get what they ought to get which is, you know, fair market value but I don't -- that wouldn't help me john. I think that we have the folks in this room that can come up with okay this is a reasonable setback. We have a reasonable -- we have another operator in the community that has some setbacks and obviously, you know, pretty much lives, I mean, the people around them live with those seth backs. So we have a little bit of a -- set baks. We have a little bit of a model. It shouldn't be that difficult for us to go hey, here's what the setback is or the buffers are. Let's go forward. Although if john is asking a reasonable question in this sense in terms of is there any other kind of overlay that I need to know about that isn't already out there and it's kind of a subset of a question that I asked of robert schnieder the last time she was here about let's just say we can find this mythical piece of property. In Travis County, that's not over limestone, that has the clay soils, that's not near any kind of neighbor, established neighborhoods, on good transportation corridors, would you get behind that site? Well, here's the next piece, what if it's happened to be located in precinct 1? Are you going to have any other objections, if we could find a mythical piece of land that fits everybody's criteria, fits what we've had out there in a siting ordinance, what if it's in precinct 1, are we all of a sudden going to say thank you but not in precinct 1? Because if that's another overlay that somehow is out there, we owe it to at least three operators in this room, probably more to say oh, there's another overlay here that is being mentioned but not officially. I mean, is there another overlay here in terms of political considerations of not in precinct fill in the blank. Because that's not something in the siting ordinance right now. And we have already had some -- some letters written of people saying not in my precinct and not in my town. And that would knock out some properties that may be that mythical piece of land but it's currently not in anybody's siting ordinance that it says not in precinct blank. Help me out.
>> then on top of that, then how do we hold off any subdivisions from locating close to it. That mythical piece of land. We can't do that, either. That's basically what keeps to happen. No matter what it is, subdivisions are located where they want to locate, sometimes it's pretty close to that mythical piece of land.
>> the reality is the limestone is west, that means the clay is in the east, whether I like it or not. There's this big old thing called s.h. 130 that is fixing to come on line in 2006, 2007, if we think the subdivisions are popping out of the farmland now, boy howdy, I mean, i've got Pflugerville literally we were just up there for an economic development trip on Friday. They have gone from 5,000 people to 25,000 people in less than five years and they are going to double by the end of the sent terri. At some point people need to have some kind of sense there is going to be something there or not because then we can either allow subdivisions to go in or we will be recreating what these folks are complaining about, we didn't know at the time it not fair who basically has standing to say I was here first not you. I?m not happy.
>> the buffer is you would own it, you can control what goes on.
>> we have to know if the buffer is good enough judge. We have gotten comments from people saying I don't care what it is, not in precinct blank or not in jurisdiction blank. [multiple voices]
>> let me offer this. We would be willing to suggest that we would deliver letters of intent on the property has we can get letters of intent on within 60 days. The remainder of property to identify for the county so that you can look at it and see if you think that it would qualify from a land use standpoint. It is not in Travis County. It is not in precinct 1.
>> it's in somebody's precinct.
>> yes.
>> that was one of the stipulations. Because they -- that did come up. That did come up. When we were looking at that. What happened? [laughter]
>> we are just --
>> she asked if it was east of i-35.
>> huh?
>> not in precinct 1 but east of i-35.
>> oh, [laughter] is that okay with you? One of the things, regional concept, the arguments have been, the regional, this being a hub, we are looking at regional, I think you heard testimony coming from many of the residents about receiving waste from -- waste from the region and of course part of the argument has been that Travis County has been the hub of a regional effort. And of course they were saying it's in that particular vein we shouldn't no longer continue to be the hub. For regional -- -- that was something else that was brought up, I hope that you guys have taken into consideration. But -- but I think back to what -- what Commissioner Daugherty and -- had brought up, that is an ordinance itself, of course that ordinance is something that I think we can still look at. You know because we do have an ordinance that governs these other things, why not have an ordinance to govern landfills. Of course so that's another possibility here. I don't really know. I do know I?m not supporting any expansion at the 290 landfill. [indiscernible]
>> if you had to -- to guess the number of years that you have under your current permit, at waste management, what would that number be?
>> somewhere in the -- depends on what happens with the arterial a, but somewhere in that eight to 12 years range.
>> okay. Joe, do you want to update us on the arterial a? The work that you have done. Why don't we do that. I know the residents have been patient and quiet. And I know they want to address us today, so-- and we can give I guess we did not give waste management an opportunity to make any other comments that you want to. We will give b.f.i. An opportunity, too, before this is over, Texas disposal systems back there, also. And ms. English?
>> [inaudible - no mic] joe?
>> all right. Inture's last memo to the court, dated March 21st, we laid out a proposed alignment for arterial a. That would go through two of the cells of the permitted landfill that waste management currently has and -- and effectively displace you by 2 million cubic yards of future solid waste. They are moving from east to west, this particular area of the landfill is not currently being filled but -- but will be as you noted, they still have a life of several years before they get to this point? Basically on the -- western edge of the permitted landfill -- we made that presentation, you asked us to come back with -- with looking at two other alternatives, one that would basically bridge the landfill, presuming that the waste management would proceed to fill the permitted landfill as they are authorized to do. That we would build our bridge, that we would build the road over the landfill site and we have taken a look at that and basically built a roadway that bridges that permitted landfill site. Bridges are fairly expensive and you assume that the price of the alternative would go up. The -- the cost that I?m giving are three fold. One is for the entire section of arterial a from 290 to parmer lane, about half of that is -- is about 1.5 miles is inside the unincorporated area. The other portion is inside the corporate area of the city of Austin. So -- so of that alternative a, which we estimated to be about 50, a little over 50 hldz to build arterial a, the section between cameron road and 290 is about 36 million. So it cost us about $36 million, the county, to bridge the -- the landfill if it were filled up. And the -- the [indiscernible] has all of the assumptions we used in making those calculations. The other alternative was to --
>> so the -- but of that first option, the total would be 50 plus 36, 50 from the county, 36 from the city.
>> no, 50 total, of that 36 Travis County.
>> oh, okay, thanks.
>> now that's the portion that's over the landfill itself, correct? The other --
>> the portion of cameron road to 290, which includes the piece of the landfill.
>> it's over the landfill.
>> bridges right over, just --
>> right, right, right, right.
>> it was a stream bed or something. Basically borrowing into the landfill with pillars -- burroing in with pillar, 20-foot clearance so the operator can continue to get from one side to the other, truly a bridge structure.
>> that's almost as much as the old number on how much a bridge over Travis County would cost if we went between lago and volente.
>> joe, you are not recommending this option, are you? You are just telling us the cost.
>> I did not make any recommendation whatsoever in this recommend dumb. You asked for a comparative analysis, that's what we have done. Alternative b on the other happened tries to skirt the filled section of the landfill altogether. It's almost impossible to avoid cutting through the property at some point, but at least we avoided the -- the solid waste portion much the property -- of the property. What this means is by and large pushing the roadway into the 100 year floodplain area. There again when you start doing that, you are talking about channelization of the creek as well as building bridge structures to keep the roadway above the 100 year flood. That alternative for comparison purposes, between cameron road and 2090 costs about -- and 290, costs about $21 million. So about $15 million less expensive than bridging the landfill. By way of comparison, if we do not have a landfill there at all, just say there's -- their landfill was not an issue, we were able to build it in our preferred location, do not have to buy solid waste, did not have to bridge either the 100 year floodplain or this -- the landfill, your costs for constructing that road would range between 8 and a half to $10 million. So just a basic road, if we could do this without encumbrances, you would probably spend between 8.5 and $10 million to build arterial a between cameron and 290. If you avoid the landfill by going to the creek, that goes to 21 million, about twice as expensive as just your ordinary roadway. To go over the landfill with a bridge is 36 million, or about 3.5 times of what it would cost you to build a normal roadway. That gives you basically an order of magnitude on what it costs to try to avoid the landfill site altogether.
>> joe, have these numbers -- cross jurisdictional lines, county also city, has these numbers been run by the city as far as what their portion of that would be.
>> no, they have not, no.
>> I just wanted to know what their reaction if they haven't seen it --
>> I thought it was probably premature to talk to the city until we decide where the county is going to land on this thing.
>> yeah.
>> hum.
>> I mean, my sense is that this road is going to be fairly expensive. It's really a value judgment. I mean, we can do -- you can do anything for money. It just a matter of money. But whether or not the county would spend 21 to $36 million to avoid the landfill is really a value question.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... What was actually the purpose of doing arterial a was to avoid those neighborhoods. We could have used springdale road and that was what was in the plan many years ago. We decided that wasn't an option because we wanted to save the existing neighborhood so we moved it across the track to where we're proposing arterial a. So that's -- going west was not an option because that takes us back to where we were in the first which was not a desirable alternative. At least that's what we said five years ago when we decided to go with arterial a. On the other hand, you basically have a landfill question all the way back to tkpwaoeuls road. You have to literally move the alignment to giles road and then you are a quarter of a mile from harris branch. So if you are going to construct an arterial all the way over by giles, you've already got one and that's called harris branch. That road is designed as an arterial standard. It's got truck prohibitions on it right now and it's in the city of Austin. You wouldn't really go further east than harris branch parkway. It just doesn't serve the purpose at that point. What the arterial a is intended to serve is the area north, which is between parmer lane and 290. You've got the pioneer crossing, you've got samsung, you've got a lot of the area that's developing right now, most of which is inside the city of Austin, but generates traffic nonetheless that is headed into the central city. And for lack of an alternative route, they will use the existing roadways, which would include dessau road, harris branch parkway and then all those smaller two-lane county roads, and arterial a's purpose was to basically provide the capacity to serve that developing area.
>> joe, was there any consideration given to sitting down with w.m.i. And saying, okay, if we build this road without a landfill there that it's 8 to 10 million dollars, we know you've got value in the two sales, we know that you've got cost in securing the wilder tract, maybe by the time you add all these up and waste tells you that you can generate $14 million, you know, worth of business with the two sales and we might be there, but I don't know what you can generate, you know, income-wise out of that, have you had any kind of a conversation with them about, okay, what if we give you all some money here, we build an 8 to 10 million dollar road, does $5 million -- did you ask that question? Have we worked with --
>> well, we understood that waste management was willing to move the 2 million cubic yards to enable arterial a to go through and move that solid waste to the wilder tract but with conditions.
>> right. I mean is that appropriate, judge, to ask those kind of questions here so we know what we're dealing with?
>> it's appropriate to ask them. What waste management wants here. Waste management wants to know if we're tough enough to answer the question, -- ask the question, if we're tough enough to take the answer.
>> I didn't hear that.
>> Commissioner Daugherty says we're tough not to ask the question and take the answer.
>> I will say this. I want to build the road. Now, does it make me squirm to think about spending 21 million to 36 million, absolutely. It probably would everybody. But is there a place that we might be able to come up with spending a lot less money than that? I mean because given the most expensive part is is having to put it over a landfill. So what are we really dealing with? Tell us what our choices are with wilder.
>> well, we would be happy to consider maybe the two cells that are impacted on to a wilder expansion and dedicating the -- getting to the county the right-of-way both through the -- where the final plats run through and where the landfill, permanent landfill is. The devil is in the details. We'll be happy to discuss with you that, but it's pretty complex. I mean there's a tremendous amount of money associated with giving up that -- those two cells. There's a th e tremendous amount of money associated with preparing the wilder tract to take those two cells, but we would be happy to provide that to you in writing and consider it.
>> and would we still have blockage to the south of us? Because that -- is a far you've just talked about the right-of-way through -- you had to dedicate --
>> it goes through three tracts south and I guess it would be south of us, and one of them is owned by the williams family, one is owned by I think the brower family, and one is owned by pepper jones, I believe it is. That's the three tracts that are remaining.
>> that head towards 290.
>> that go to 290. Then mr. Wilkins --
>> we're really spinning our wheels.
>> mr. Wilkins is the owner of the property between -- is that blue goose and the wilder tract?
>> yes.
>> mr. Wilkins owns that. And I know -- I spoke to him the other day and he said someone is trying to buy that tract for development. But he said he wanted to visit with us about looking at the alignment for arterial a. I mean there's a lot of dynamics going on. We would be happy to discuss that and put in writing to the county an offer and flush that out. If it's the desire of the court.
>> let's cut to the chase here. Does that necessity taking it beyond 2018? Let's say the chest were to go to 18. Is that most likely going to take it beyond 2018?
>> it could without some compensation or some other way of dealing with the cost of permitting. I think we're willing to discuss every ramification and every possible permutation and say just simply take this.
>> if we were able to assist with the acquisition of greenfield tracts --
>> that plays into it as well.
>> relocation.
>> that could have a significant impact as well.
>> so what is our disposition for the plan on arterial a?
>> it is currently in the plan. It's in the current plan and it's recommended to continue to be there in the 2035.
>> okay. And again, that has not been any money associated with the total cost because I?m still looking for the bottom line of cost if is city, of course, would still have to bear or front some of the cost. When you start looking at just the county's portion of 36 million going over the tract that is owned by w.m.i. From cameron to 290, and then the other option $4 million off of the w.m.i. Property from cameron to 290 and not having on top of that the significant amount of money that the city of Austin would have to come up with, I?m just kind of leery of all these numbers, these big, big numbers we're talking about and in order for this to happen have to have other people to sign up with us. It is a big cost to the county, but, of course, my position is still that I would not like -- or prefer arterial a to go through the w.m.i. Property because, of course, again, I don't want us having being on contingent on anything to do with their expansion and I definitely don't want to give them the upper hand as far as tying the county's hands as far as going in front of tceq. It's a hardship situation for us because the county is coming through our property with arterial a. That's not a comfort level for me. So I just wanted to basically make sure that before anything is done, you run those numbers by the city and see what their reaction is on a whole pwufrpl of stuff, but my main concern is definitely not to allow this to go through their particular piece of property with arterial a.
>> as a court, do we want to see whatever written proposal waste management comes up with?
>> on the [inaudible]? Yes.
>> may as well see it. Since we -- as well as different options. Joe, if we were to proceed with arterial a, could we expect state, federal funds to help with the construction?
>> it would be eligible. We would be in competition with other entities for the limited federal funding, but it certainly is eligible.
>> do we think the other campo partners are -- have this as high on the priority list as we do?
>> it's hard to say. Everybody has their favorite project that they submit.
>> with local entities still responsible for, what, 25% match?
>> yes.
>> that would still be -- we don't have any dollars.
>> would that be an r.m.a. Project?
>> you would have to [inaudible].
>> but it would be eligible -- you are talking to r.m.a.
>> well, i'd have to go back to the law. This is not a state facility. And I think the central Texas r.m.a. Can do local roads, but i'd have to check on that.
>> [inaudible].
>> wants to build it and make sure -- [inaudible].
>> I thought it could.
>> and it does connect to state highways because parmer is 734.
>> and you don't have to get on it if you don't want to.
>> anything else regarding arterial a? Okay. Can we at least get out the mic, ms. Mcaffee.
>> melanie mcaffee, and on this discussion on the toll road plan, they don't even show arterial a as a point to get on and off, where tuscany way and giles are where the crossover points. It would be a concern to the county in their fixation to have arterial a that they look at those two other points. I have gone down to the tax assessor's and looked at every landowner and every lot and thought about those two roads with the toll road in mind, and I mean I have studied it for hours and it seems like that tuscany way could handle a lot of traffic and it lines up great with the toll road which we know is coming. So it does not go as straight, but, you know, it's already started. I would think it could save the county a lot of money.
>> is tuscany a lot closer to 183? Isn't tuscany --
>> so arterial a to get on and off, you are going to be doing all these funny loop deloops.
>> you have in your backup arterial a is supposed to have a interchange with 29d 0. T's supposed to have an interchange.
>> yeah, it's not in the plan. So you are saying the plan will change or the plan is wrong?
>> it's in the campo plan as we speak. And certainly adjustments can be made. I mean that's just an ongoing process with txdot to talk about where the changes will be. And I will tell you arterial a makes more sense than some of the other ones. The tuscany interchange is just miniscule.
>> I?m marv mcaffee and I have a question about the alignment and maybe joe can help. It appears there is enough room cutting in from the mokan right-of-way and looping more westward just before you get to the landfill if you are going from 290 between there and cone ial place there's a little room to rejoin with springdale where it's all businesses right where city produce is. And we are. And there is one house along that stretch of road. But basically it's the original roadway. I mean we located our business on the original roadway which could possibly be vacated with arterial a.
>> the issue is the geometrics of the roadway and arterial are a fairy high standard roadway. In order to avoid the electrical substation there at cameron and the mkt road right-of-way and swing back over and hit springdale, and swing back over, you are crossing the creek tries to get on that piece of springdale that you are talking about.
>> so you are talking going to the east of the substation? No, sir going to the west of the substation.
>> no, we're going east of the substation, and the way our current alignment shows and then straight south.
>> and there's residences in there -- there's not enough room to go to the west side of it?
>> I?m talking about just being able to maintain the gee metrics of the roadway to get from the substation back over to where you are talking about and then back over -- I?m presuming you are not suggesting we go through the walnut creek neighborhood.
>> no.
>> cutting back over again to the assignment we're proposing. I?m not sure there's any benefit to rerouting the road to get over to springdale and back again. It certainly will add to the cost of two creek crossings to get across to that.
>> right. And I guess when looking at these options and how much the bridges cost and how much existing -- just don't know how the numbers work.
>> it probably would be somewhere between the one that goes into the creek in the one flood plain and the one that bridges the landfill. You are probably adding some additional bridge cost to the alternative b.
>> I?m guessing 136.
>> I would think so, just off the top of my head.
>> and I guess depending on how the -- how things play out in terms of the landfill and negotiating how that arterial would go, then it might become a viable option.
>> you got to start looking at a cost benefit analysis at some point here. It's like we're using numbers as though these are like real numbers. Hello, we spent 90 million for all of the right-of-way for sh 130 for all of Travis County. We spent 30 million on what Travis County would need on sh 35 north. Good grief, the city didn't even spend this much on loyola or dittmar put together. You know, it's just -- these are numbers Travis County has never looked at related to one little roadway segmentment joe, what were we looking at in the bond election in t-rpls of dollars allocated to roads?
>> there is no specific amount allocated to one function.
>> we're talking about you could do one road in the bond election and that's pretty much it. There's only x amount of bond capacity, and you start looking at cost benefit to this kind of dollar amount.
>> anything else regarding arterial a? We will need you on the mic.
>> is it possible to -- mel me mcaffee. Is it possible to get a response from each on that response on whether -- how strong you feel about having the road or dropping it to give us a perspective of -- in the area? Especially those of us [inaudible].
>> the answer really kind of turns on the costs. At some point we have to cost it out. If we narrow down to, okay, here the three options, here's the best one, whether we can get it done. First available option to get it done, then we have to look at the other competing transportation projects, the available funding, you see what I?m saying? That's really where year trying to get to right now.
>> so 5 million, 10 million, what is everyone's feeling as to on this little road?
>> I have to have much more information and then weigh it all and then make a decision.
>> so you -- so 20 million might be okay in your mind.
>> it might be, maybe not. I need more information.
>> not me on 20.
>> just wondering.
>> when do we get to start beating up b.f.i.? That was a joke, y'all.
>> b.f.i., please come forward. [laughter]
>> landfill humor here. And then we'll still leave time for bob.
>> now, I guess you heard our discussion of the siting ordinance and the possibility of like a buffer approach. And whether that would be helpful. Now, to be honest, we did take our siting ordinance that now does not apply to type 1 landfills and we tried to put on a map dots indicating where receptors were and what land would be left for type 1 landfills and there's not a whole lot of them. Which is why we came up with the idea if you have an appropriate buffer around this site, maybe we can back off on some of the distances. How does that approach sound to y'all? We did not land on exactly what the buffers will be. Right, tom?
>> right.
>> we would basically -- if this seems to make sense to the court, at some point we would try to look at how large we think the buffer should be to provide sufficient protection is what it amounts to.
>> the general idea of having sufficient distance, however you want to define that, from the footprint of the landfill to the receptor is the magic question. So if you can have some of that distance incorporated within an internal buffer, that's got to be achieving the goal and be generally a good thought. It's going to come down to how large the distances are no matter how you define the pieces. And so the ultimate issue for both the landfills and for the county is how to establish still long-term potential -- potential long-term disposal capacity by not having a [inaudible] that you put the 10 in and you try to run your distance and find out there's only three places in the county that you could put a landfill. That's a problem, it seems to me, for the county as well as for the landfills. If there were 30, that's a different answer and that's all good-bye tore dependent upon the -- going to be dependent on the total distance. Wherever you divide it in terms of internal and external distances. We're not per se opposed to having internal buffers included. That's not a bad idea per se. Thinking about it in the same way that john spoke about it, we have i'll say a couple sites. One of them may be large enough that it might not be a problem. One of them would not be. One of them would be -- in all likelihood be a problem. Anything that's kph- the existing siting ordinance or anything even close to that would preclude it.
>> I think what we had in mind is a buffer as being like an alternative way to deal wit. So these distances are an internal buffer of a certain distance.
>> you need to have a certain -- it's so hard to site a landfill. Nobody is going to want to do this again soon. You need to get a big enough site so that you can have a big enough footprint. So you need to buy a big enough piece of property. And it either has to be far enough away from all other receptors, which in the map that mr. Shell did, there are very few if any places that would satisfy the existing distances in the originally proposed ordinance, or you have to be -- have such a big piece of property that you can squeeze inside that property a site that's still big enough and has a lot of buffer on the exterior of it. Very few tracts of land that are that big. It's not a bad idea. It really is going to depend on what that buffer is. And as you know, the state is looking at buffers and they've got a proposed maximum of 250 feet now.
>> 250 feet?
>> yes, and that is the subject of intense debate, but that's where I think it is at this draft stage. That is up from 50.
>> did you say a maximum or a minimum?
>> well, a distance, a proposed distance of 250 feet, which it would be the minimum, I think. I would also submit as a practical matter it will freakly be the maximum. -- frequently.
>> is that legislation or tceq?
>> that's tceq rule making.
>> can you remind me of the acreage that you would normally need for the operating landfill? The face of the landfill I guess is -- if you have 300 acres, how many of those you likely would have that a landfill operation on.
>> I think -- are you referring to the landfill footprint?
>> the normal site we would want and what kind of footprint we would result from that site. We're looking at the minimum acreage of a landfill sight of 500 acres as a minimum. If we have a typical 500-acre site, I think we could typically get 300 acres for the landfill.
>> that's about 200 you would not use tore the landfill that would serve as buffer.
>> it's used for buffer, drainage facilities, the offices, scales, roads.
>> 40% of your property is --
>> is not landfill. That's typically correct.
>> would that be true if it's 250-foot buffer? It would be even more would not be landfill.
>> that's right.
>> 250 wore more?
>> yes. If it was 250-foot buffer on approximate 500-acre site, more of it would not be landfill. 250 feet all the way around the site --
>> may be more than 30% is what you are saying.
>> correct.
>> so how do we get the feet from 200 acres? 500 acres, 300 acres for the landfill, 200 acres buffer.
>> if it was a 250-foot buffer, it would eat into the size of the available remaining space for the landfill by more than 40%. Probably be less than 300 acres for landfill.
>> okay.
>> I think typically under the current rules we end up with a buffer around the landfill of around 100 feet. If you put the 50 feet in the roads and the drainage and the other features that you have to design into it, you rarely result in buffer of less than about 100 feet. That's about what you end up with. So if we have to bump that up to 250 feet out of a 500-acre site we might only get 250 acres.
>> are you looking other than Travis County for relocation?
>> yes, we are.
>> this status report --
>> I?m sorry?
>> as far as the status of what you are doing is -- has been asked of you all and I want to make sure that you just aren't targeting Travis County.
>> no, sir, we're not just targeting Travis County.
>> an update on the search for green fill sites?
>> are you asking for one now?
>> this is a good time.
>> we have not purchased one. We don't have a site that we can bring to you to say can you buy half of these on. We have two very hot prospects and another one that's not as good, in our mind, but is out there.
>> so on the two that are hot, you believe you have two of the 600 or 700 achers to serve as buffer?
>> on one of them, absolutely. On the other, we -- I don't know. I guess I don't know the precise answer to that question. We would have enough space to have a sizable buffer. Certainly more than presently required by the regs probably by a 3 x kind of number, but it would not be a site that would be viable if the present receptor distances in the siting ordinance were kept.
>> I would think that if the county were asked to assist with acquisition, one, we would have to determine the suitability for type 1 landfill, we would look at the amount of buffer that was available to protect residents. And I would think that if -- in my view, what the buffer allows to be done is the same level of protection afforded year after year after year. And that would keep some of the encroachment from happening that development, you know, otherwise I think creates.
>> that's a concern of the county's that we understand. If we had a permitted landfill that was there fully noticed, everybody in fact permitting and operating and somebody wanted to come live next to us, that's all right with us.
>> can you also remind everybody because as tempting as it is to say let's shove it into somebody else's county, there is a magic number, and I think it's 25 miles, that you start getting too far away from where you are right now and everybody is going to have to start talking about transfer stations and the transfer stations would remain in northeast, and I think we have a lot of folks that are hopeful when you leave northeast, they leave northeast, but if it starts getting too far from where you are right now, you are dooming this area to still be a reexcept take cal for -- reseptember cal for transfer stations. I don't think going to have folks completing happy unless all of it goes and not, well, type 1 piece got left off but now the transfer station. Is it 25 miles? Is that the number?
>> yes, that's the number that we -- I think that's the number we use in industry. How this all plays out is still a mix and match. If the only site we can move to turns out to be farther away than 25 miles, we'll need a way to get our garbage there and still compete in the marketplace because it is important we submit to the citizens and county that there be a competitive marketplace. If the site is closer, it is unlikely we would need a transfer station. In fact, I think we have a number in the proposed agreement that says we don't need one.
>> and if it's closer, it's most likely going to be in Travis County.
>> it's very good geography.
>> everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
>> judge, I have a couple of questions. I don't know if we want to ask the neighbors to speak first. I think that I have said this. I?m ready to move to where we can get somewhere with this thing and maybe it won't be a popular vote for many people, but I would really like to know -- if the assumption that I?m going on is that there is some -- is there's a number between 2013 and 2018 is the america pheutd site that waste has -- permitted site that waste has, and I understand that b.f.i. Is going to want an expansion permit to get somewhere close to that, I mean if b.f.i. Would like to be there as long ago waste management is going to be there, and if we could get people to sign something that -- time specific that they would be gone come heck or high water, is that something that b.f.i. -- I mean since you all are the ones at the table, that you think you can get your people to sign off on about if that date is 2015 or 2013 or 2018, do you think that you all are going to get to a spot where you can say give us this much time and we will tell you that as a type 1 landfill, we will no longer operate there?
>> yes, that's a correct statement. We would sign off on that. I?m the district manager for b.f.i. That b.f.i. Has already taken into consideration, we could have gone for a much larger expansion based on the time, the space and things we have at our current site. We have come down more than half of what we could have gone for. So then it becomes economics, but yeah, we would sign off on drop dead be gone with type 1.
>> and with waste? Gone? Maybe you don't want to answer that. Would waste sign something that here's -- or are we going to get into the deal we need to decide what we're going to do with wilder where we're willing to sign something?
>> I think we need to know what's going to happen with arterial a.
>> wilder and arterial a kind of --
>> that is so tied together, so I think we need to flesh that out. But under the right circumstances I think we probably could.
>> I mean that at least gets one of us up here to the point of, all right, let's move the ball forward. Now it's a matter of, okay, maybe you all could sit down with the 2013 people and the 2018 and neither one of you move, but I would think that somebody might be willing to say give us a definitive date and we'll just know that. I mean the county has already suggested and committed that it will get behind and support it from tceq standpoint all the way to condemnation if need be in order to move this thing forward. Because quite frankly, I think that's where we really are. But at least if we know that there's a date there that we are moving towards, I know that that's not good enough for some, but I mean we could talk about this for the next, you know, four or five years and then find ourselves we need 10 or 12 years from that point. I?m kind of in a spot where I?m headed with it. Glad you answered that, both of you. And we certainly need to work with arterial a and slash the wilder tract.
>> even with that, it's 10 years out, 15 years out, that is nothing in the continuum of time that it takes for these kinds of issues to be out there. I mean I am struck by the deal that when mayor watson was the mayor, what when they secured the water rights for the city of Austin, they basically said, you know what, we need water and we need water for the next 100 years to secure it. And that's something that, you know, to talk about the waste needs and meeting the waste needs because whether we like it or not, we are going to be the major generators of the waste no matter how many regions we throw into this mix. We need to be thinking about how do we resolve these needs beyond just 5 years, 10 years, 15 years. This region is going to double in size and now is the time to try and make some of these hard decisions because it's not going to get any easier. The question is whether you are going to dump it on somebody else to make that hard decision.
>> I don't think there's any question that it's going to go towards somebody, and I do think the move that we make that we -- and I?m sure the industry is going to say fine, get us in a spot that for the next 50 to 75 years, we've got what it takes. I mean what I?m talking about the 2018s and these kinds of things, I?m talking about I know when these people are going to be gone, but I think it makes all the sense in the world, and I?m sure the industry would think this. We don't want to be out here in 20 years we've got the same fight on our hands. I mean I?m sure that if you all are going to -- the two folks that are moving, they are going to move and we're going the find the time or put the effort towards we're going to be there for 50 years or whatever that is. That's just a matter then of how much do you buy and you let people know this is where waste is going. I don't know, has anybody tried to buy caldwell county? Maybe we can just buy caldwell.
>> look at what happened in Williamson county. They thought they were securing their long-term, long-term garbage needs and it was this this little bitty place called hut kwroe. They thought they had the buffer and now the little town of hutto, which was a speck on the map, they are going to have a wal-mart before long and people are going what do you mean there's a landfill in my backyard, when did this thing happen. And it's like this problem is not going away. And if we don't make some hard decisions now, it is going to be caldwell county or something further east than that.
>> we're going to call t.d.s. Next. What's the timing on filing an application to expand?
>> we have -- I think we've been telling you that we've been in a stand-down position for sort of a really long time. As we had been in the past, we could file parts 1 and 2 tomorrow. We sort of have been this this mode long enough we would like to polish up some of this stuff we have. So tomorrow wouldn't be the way I would like to do it for the entire application, but, by george, I think we could if we had to, but that's a matter of we've kept -- we've sort of said, okay, we got it, we'll sit still and try to work something out with you, but at some point we've got to file.
>> what's the -- let's say that we try to enter into an agreement covering most of the basic terms. What's the shortest number of years for expansion that b.f.i. Would find acceptable?
>> don't look at the lawyer for that, sir.
>> judge, we could have been out there 2032. We brought that down to 2018. I mean we've given up about 54, 55% of the capacity that we could get out there in trying to listen to the neighbors and what's going on and work with the county and we would like to stick to that.
>> there's been some question about your ability to get an engineer to certify adding that ufp vertical expansion to the current site. Are you confident that you would be able to get that done?
>> yes. Yes, I am. [inaudible].
>> hold on just one second. Do you all have any other comments?
>> I?m only going to ask one question. This is trek english. Could you please rephrase your question and if them if they could certify an expansion of the size that mr. Edelblue is stating could be obtained at that site beyond the present 75 feet that they are proposing? That's what I would like to you ask.
>> the maximum term that he mentioned?
>> yes, the maximum term that he mentioned.
>> can you answer that question?
>> well, we can answer that question, but not in the form of a certification. There is sort of no such thing, to start with. But the second part of that is we've been asked how big could you make it. And the answer to that question is sufficient to be there till 2032. Approximately three years ago we came in with a specific proposal designed to ameliorate that potential source of dissatisfaction to the neighborhood, and that landfill is the one that we have stuck with. More recently we have now proposed to reduce 9 acres from our existing already permitted footprint and to take away the 14 acres in we had intended to expand. So it was from 30 -- it was from -- how many? 29 million cubic yards down to approximately 15 million cubic yards. Now down to slightly less than 10 million cubic yards. That's been our progression on this. To the extent that constitutes a certification, it is so certified.
>> so the engineers don't s-rt phi. They submit a design?
>> they submit a design and I will be on that as well as other engineers from my office.
>> but the position is you generally think you have the ability to design a landfill, the type 1 -- for type 1 waste to go beyond 2018.
>> yes, I believe.
>> 2032, did you say?
>> that was the geometric limits of the site.
>> what's the maximum height on that one, roughly.
>> I think it was around 900 m.s.l. Versus the 795 that we're proposing now. So another 100 feet is what it could geometricly be expanded to.
>> that was your question, ms. English.
>> yes, judge. I will comment on that after.
>> any other questions or comments of b.f.i.? We do have Texas disposal system. Any comments especially about the siting ordinance or any other matters that we've discussed today? Now, the residents' request was to go last for a change. I think we in the past have asked you all earlier.
>> I?m bob gregory with Texas disposal systems. It's nice to see you folks. It's been a while. I?m mainly here today to audit what work and listen in on what work you are doing on the siting ordinance. As you know, t.d.s. Has a large site approximately 1350 acres of which we have permitted to approximately 341-acre. We are very concerned and interested in if you are seriously looking at the expansion or the implementation of a siting ordinance. Also if the siting ordinance will deal with both type 1 landfills and well as type 4 landfills. You've mentioned several times today only in relation to type 4 landfills. We are now looking for another landfill site north of Travis County. Or at least on the north end of Travis County. And so we are concerned if there is going to be another -- if there is going to be a siting ordinance both from the standpoint of what target we can shoot for and also what expansion we could do at our current site. So that's our main interest, and will it only affect type 1 landfills. Because additional capacity is needed. We're not sure what others are going to do. We know what we can do on the our site. We've given you something back in 2002 on what the plans were at our facility. But that still is a distance away. And the 25 miles does kick in, Commissioner Sonleitner, it's pretty much a minimum. In other words, if you've got a landfill closer than 25 miles, you wouldn't do a transfer station. If it's further than that, then it justifies considering it. As you know, miles don't mean as much as time in this traffic. When you are caught up in traffic, it doesn't matter how many miles as you are sitting there a long time. That's the reason year looking at a north site. Mainly I just wanted to be here to audit and I would be glad to answer any questions any of you have if you would like.
>> on the type 4 -- let me ask legal, on the type 4 landfill, does that also include construction [inaudible]?
>> yes.
>> and the reason why I ask that because didn't we [indiscernible] didn't we adopt within our ordinance, facility ordinance, did we adopt type 4 landfill?
>> I don't believe we did, Commissioner.
>> I thought we did because I thought that -- I?m trying to remember that iesi or -- being considered and there was no what they card minor or major facility and at that time there was some discussion on that. And my recollection was that they were included -- I thought at that time as a type 4. Okay, so they weren't.
>> right. The current ordinance doesn't extend to type 1 or type 4 landfills.
>> okay. All right. They still have the adopted ordinance [indiscernible].
>> if I may, judge, if I recall, the two ordinances were running duel tracks. The type 1 landfill ordinance with greater setbacks as compared to the transfer station composting operation and type 4 landfills. However, when it came time to adopting the one siting ordinance, type 4 landfills were taken out.
>> taken out, okay.
>> so there was discussion of type 4s being in part of that.
>> at one time it was included though.
>> during the discussion.
>> during the discussion. Okay, all right.
>> and isn't iesi permitted as a type 1 even though they are acting like it's a 4?
>> they were originally permitted to type 1 and when the airport was located there they basically had to convert to a type 4.
>> it's a conversion, but it really -- the underlying is still 1.
>> actually isi was a type 4 originally. The city of Austin was a type 4 and it still is a type 1, but it's operating at their choice as a type 4.
>> got it.
>> so that one even raising other situations when you talk about a siting ordinance that deals with type 1s. Does that relate to a type 1 landfill that's operating as a type 4 or it can change back to a type 1. Just if you deal with a siting ordinance, t.d.s. Would like to have a place at the table. And we would like for you to at least weigh in on whether type 4's are in or out and if it's a type 1 landfill pretending to be a type 4 or what just so we know what we can do in planning our capacity expansion if any at our current facility. Which we've stayed back. We've not done design work, we're not ready to file an application. If you do an ordinance now with the other landfills having three years heads up notice, then as you know you have to give a-oath at least a two-week notice before it's put into place. So you can't file it today and have it effective today. You have to give notice. So we would not like to be the only type 1 landfill subject to a siting ordinance because you had given the others two years' advance notice on to have their application done and they could file it during that two-week to four-week period from the time you pass the ordinance to the time it was effective.
>> okay. Any questions for bob?
>> when you said you were going to be looking northward, is it so far northward that you would be over the Williamson county line?
>> yes, could be, yes. More than likely would be.
>> thanks.
>> take a good look at precinct 2 while you are headed that way.
>> mine is still -- mine is filling up fast.
>> it is filling up fast.
>> thank you, bob. Residents? Please come forward. Good morning.
>> good morning. -- good afternoon. My name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. And in looking at the proposal that has been put before you to discuss today, with regard not only to a memorandum of understanding or agreement or contract or whatever you would like to call it with b.f.i., but also some additional possible options, once again, the taxpayers who are neighbors to the northeast landfills are being disregarded so the county can make a contract with landfill operators who, to our way of thinking, have been deceitful. It's in comp pre hence I believe to me that you would want to make a deal with b.f.i. When what's been put forward has no enforcement requirements. You only require that they temporarily fix problems that are encountered and business can go on as usual. On an ongoing basis, the neighbors have provided you with photographic documentation of runoff problems that b.f.i. Has temporarily doctored but that any reason person could only understand are only going to get worse and will increase exponentially with the srert will will will will cal expansion they are proposing. I do have a number of photographs. Some of you have seen them. I believe they were e-mailed to awful them and I will just give you a verbal description. Fewer than six weeks ago the neighbors observed these conditions on the b.f.i. Site as a result of a lane that was not a large rain that fell quickly. Even with the newly con straubgtd drainage channel in place, the amount of watered that went into the channel was sufficient to blow out at least one rock berm and deposit a significant amount of silt along the channel. 12 hours after the event contaminated water from the landfill was still bushing at the primary outfall at giles road. There was evidence the torrent had flowed over giles road sometime the night of March 27 26. In addition to the contaminated runoff that passed through their newly constructed channel, much of the water never reached the channel and was instead standing in a huge lake to the south of the channel and also standing in two large depressions adjacent to the current working face. These two depressions are future garbage cells. If you doubt that they held much water, let me tell you for several days after the rain event a row boat was parked at the edge of one of the cells. Imagine what will happen when b.f.i.'s proposed expansion covers up those three lakes with garbage that is hundreds of feet high along with the runoff from the 75-foot height expansion on their existing cells. The channel that had difficulty handling the March 26 runoff will be completely use less. The burms have been repaired but the problems will continue. If b.f.i. Were certain that tceq would grant their expansion, why would they bother with the contract with Travis County? It would be use less. If, on the other hand, b.f.i. Is uncertain that tceq will grant their expansion, then a contract with the county could improve their credibility before tceq. The 2013 date tore closure of both the landfills makes perfect sense. A few months ago waste management filed information with tceq indicating that they plan to close in 2013, a date they now circumvent n January 2000, two representatives of b.f.i. Told neighbors at a meeting that they had 13 years of capacity left based on their volume at that time. That would have meant a closure date of 2013. That figure included two-thirds of the city of Austin's residential gary beige which they are no longer -- garbage which they are no longer receiving. They indicated the is 13 year figure had been filed with tceq the previous September for the closure date of 2013. We know from experience that these two companies will say whatever is necessary to achieve what they want. It seems to me we're trying to hit two moving targets. If you a I allow them to continue until 2018, the problems may continue on for 20 years after that. Why? Because they can leave a small amount of space after stopping type 1 filling and spend the next 20 years putting very small amounts of type 4 garbage in the landfill thus avoiding paying the closure costs. In the meantime, this court rather than having solved the problem will simply have handed it off to another court after you are gone. Your agreement to a 2018 date is a setup for a major expansion for another 20 years. You have only to look at the situation surrounding the fm 812 landfill to see the kinds of problems that ensue after stopping type 1 and allowing type 4 landfilling, including the possibility of two landfills phofrbing into one. There would be an even bigger mess if that were allowed with these mega landfills and the 21,000 bales of hazardous waste. At no time whether the county asked to us work on the siting ordinance was any mention made that the county would allow transfer stations on these landfill sites. Transfer stations can be located on land in any area of the city, any precinct. Why should we suffer even longer by the existence of more waste handling on these sites? Close both sites to all waste activities by 2013 when they have had average opportunity to fill their currently permitted capacity and also to locate new sites. Thank you.
>> do you believe that our decision not to oppose the -- in the tceq process is tantamount to approval of the expansion?
>> I believe that things would be inferred from that situation that may or may not be what you intended.
>> okay. Ms. English or ms. Thorson.
>> joyce thorson, walnut place neighborhood association. I'll try not to repeat anything that joyce best said, but my statement has to do with your question. The b.f.i. Agreement states that the county will neither support nor oppose the b.f.i. 75-foot height expansion. I submit that by signing the agreement the county is approving the expansion and therefore the agreement contradicts itself. If you won't help the northeast residents by opposing landfill expansions, at least don't do us harm by signing any agreements with the landfills. With regard to some of the statements waste management made, does anyone here really believe that waste management purchased a 100-acre tract of land not to file for an expansion? If arterial a is completely abandoned, does anyone really believe that waste management will not try to expand into the wilder tract? I think they are holding you hostage with that wilder tract. I don't think the county should help pay for any permitting that's going to take place anyway. Thank you.
>> you prefer to see us doing nothing rather than entering into a performance-based contract?
>> yes, because -- especially because this contract doesn't give us any more protection than we already have from existing laws.
>> okay.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...other related matters is where mr. Seldom comes in.
>> okay. [laughter] okay. And -- and but -- i'll talk on that in a minute. And second point, listening to -- to bobby talk about the possibility of looking for a north site, since we are -- we have earlier talked about let's go ahead and put everything on the table and the -- the filters that you brought up, Commissioner Sonleitner, perhaps we need to put on the table if tds found a north site, would the county be open to that being the -- another site instead of waste management and b.f.i. I would like to think that the county in wanting to have lots of competition and keep prices that there could be another idea on the table, which is to enter into a contract with tds where their prices would have to be held in a competitive manner and I?m sure that that attorneys could do some creative where Travis County and our region would not be held hostage by just one operator. Is that a proposal that can be on the table? Or is that a filter that we need to say is there and can't be looked into.
>> did you think that -- that waste management, b.f.i. Are just simply going to go away? , I mean, mean in tds goes and puts -- they are not. That's not -- that's not an issue. I mean, quite frankly there's enough business, obviously the reason that you have three of them here, albeit because we do take stuff from all over the place, but, you know, I don't see the relevancy in that. I think that tds has the right to do what they want and try to find a market or to go and fill a market because obviously they feel there's a need there, that's the reason that they are considering moving, but I -- to me it doesn't answer the question and the question is you've got two large businesses that are in the landfill business that aren't going away. What we have got to do is we have got to help them find a place away from y'all and because that's what we are really after. We are not going to close these guys. We just -- we're here trying to find out where can we take them and allow them to -- to do their business because that's what they are in the business.
>> well, if the county will condemn or help in a scenario of the perfect landfill spot that we have been talking about, the county is probably not willing to do that for all three landfills. I would think that it would probably be the -- the first man on the block because there are reservations and -- and my understanding the county is worried that there could be some liabilities for you, I would just think that you would not want to go through that process three times.
>> we agreed to move in that direction to assist our residents in northeast Travis County to help the landfills find new sites. Doing that, though, we do open the door. I think if there's a third or fourth one that would ask for your assistance in similar circumstances we probably would be duty bond to try to help out. Duty bound. When tds asked before if that same offer would apply to tds, may answer was yes. Once we start down the path, then I think we are kind of into it. Now, you have to address the requests on a case-by-case basis, but I think once we start helping out, if -- if we keep the field level we almost would have to keep [indiscernible] would be my response to the question. You know, we -- we kind of started discussing this about a year ago after two years of in my view not making a lot of discernible progress. Some would argue we are still yet to see that, I still think we're having to take action, really.
>> all right, thank you.
>> we have not forgotten recycling or mr. Sellmon, either.
>> good afternoon, my name is trek english. And I don't know where to start, judge. There's so many reasons why this whole scenario is not going to work. It seems to me that we are setting up a scenario for 2018 that we cannot handle in 2005. I am very grateful and I?m sure everyone in our group is also very grateful of the position that -- that Travis County is taking. On some of those issues. In particular, not to -- not to allow the expansion of the risk management landfill. I think there are many reasons why there should be no expansions in this location. There are at least 21,000 reasons that I can think of right off the top of my head as to why there shouldn't be an expansion at this location. Now for one minute follow the scenario, we are having the creek, the railroad tracks, the power lines, the Pflugerville water line, the -- the landfill, arterial a on top of it, and I don't know looks like the land of the liliputians there, all of this stuff going on at once. Arterial a I forgot, 290. Going on top. Them working underneath the landfill filling it in. It looks to me like we are setting up a -- a scenario here of the most toxic quadrant in Travis County, just right there. You couldn't possibly have so many -- well, the 21,000-barrels, I think we can top any county in Texas. So I think that you are going to need to look at this scenario you are putting forward because if you add the coke refinery to all of these emissions, all of these problems, we are talking about some serious problem that we are putting in one quadrant of the city. If you don't think the coke refinery has any problem, go to the toxic release inventory on the e.p.a. Site and you will see what I?m talking about. So ... I have a problem here with a scenario of a company that has been talking 75 feet expansion for the last four years. 75 feet, they have not changed their position on that. And if they want to try and -- and I?m sorry I have to laugh because they just received a 10-foot expansion in 2003 and all that we have been doing is documenting carnage after carnage after carnage every time it rains. They can't handle a 15 minute rain. Here they are telling us that they can go up, how many feet, 200 feet. 200 feet. Okay. So now let's go back to reality. At 795 feet, they are going to be -- 600 -- 140 feet higher than the capitol. The capitol is at 653 feet. The capitol has bigger buffers than these guys. If you really look at the realm of things for their size, they have managed to come up with bigger buffers in the middle of downtown and here we are going to expand this mountain of garbage with no buffers. They don't even have anything resembling the grounds of the capitol to where you could actually forget about the landfill, say oh, it's kind of pretty. Everything that they plant dies. So you need to look at realistically what they are proposing here because if they are going to be able to do it so good, that it's not going to cause any problem, then they can do it somewhere else. Are you telling us that these guys are so bad they can't go anywhere else or are we saying they are good companies, they can do it right, they are going to do it right if a new location? That's what I want to hear because either we have landfills are okay or landfills or not okay. Commissioner Sonleitner, you said the magic word, filling up fast I mean as far as space in the county. You know, it is filling up fast. If we don't deal with it in 2005, what are we going to deal with in 2018. There may be some strong federal rules in 2018 that they cannot even meet and that 250 feet, what are they talking about, the 50% of the site? They have got 300 acres, 350 acres here acknowledge they are use -- and they are using 300. Suddenly now because you have put 250 feet you are going from 500 acres to less than 50% capacity. They are playing with these numbers so loosely, nobody is making them account for it. I would say that at the most 25% of the five acres could be lost to buffers. But not 50%, now, come on. I would like to take on mr. -- mr. Gosling, on a game of chess, let's go and I can bet you that you cannot prove to me that you would lose 50% of capacity with a 250-foot buffer. I mean, we could make it a game with, you know, pieces. And see. Where we go on this. But I don't think that there should be allowed to just voice these statements and have no accountability. I would like to remind you that we have a written paper -- an agreement, with a company, with waste management, that said they would not enter the expansion until 2006. Here we are in 2005 file for another scpaption. It boggles the -- another expansion. It boggles the mind why do we keep setting them up for making cases for expansion over and over and over. If we give one an expansion, we don't give the other one an expansion. Why is b.f.i. Who is taking in twice as much garbage going to be allowed to keep bringing in twice as much garbage just so they can stay here as long as the other company? I mean, are we going to restrain how much garbage they can bring in so they have enough room? I?m not sure this I understand how this whole scenario is going to work here because there are a lot of details that are falling on the wayside. I -- I would think that we have talked about this for five years. I know that you are tired of it. In five years they could have permitted a new site. They knew know it. Instead they are sitting here waiting for you to accept what they are proposing over and over and over. And never changing their mind and just remember there are two companies that -- receives 10 violations or more each, then when the violations were issued, enforcement went in, they reclassified themselves to avoid the violation and not even six months have gone by and here they go filing for an expansion, which would reclassify them as a major source. There's no accountability. However, they save half a million. So we have this game that they are playing. Another thing that you need to realize, when you say 2018 or 2013 or whatever, that's not the end of it. It takes years just to bring in all of the dirt to close the site. So you are looking at at least two years or more to finish the closing the site. Then you have vegetation. Vegetation with the kind of gases they have coming out, you are looking at three, four years before it even gets established. When you are looking at a greenhill. You are not looking at 2018. You are looking more like 2025, which would be 20 years from now before you could see a greenhill on it. You need to realize this is a long process. John kuhl [indiscernible], if there's a problem at the site, you have others, you also have to realize that these companies, b.f.i. Generates and sells over 20 million-kilowatts of -- of electricity. Wait, I don't want to misquote myself because don't worry, they will make me remember that one. I took that from their form that they filed. To generate and sell 21 million, over 21 million of kilowatts. And they use two million. Which -- so they generate 2 million. They generate 23 million or more. Two million they use 21 they sell. That's good money. Five cents kilowatt, you are looking at what, a couple million dollars right there, a million dollar. So that's -- that site is not dead for them. They are looking at lots of money from 2013, another 20 years of -- of gas generation. They are looking at a lot of money for a dead site for them to do that. I know there are costs that are going to be incurred for closing the site, but they have money that's been put aside for that. Isn't that what they think they have to post -- what is it? Bonds to say that they have the money to close? Don't they have to put a certain amount of fees that they collect foreclosure and post closure? Isn't that money there somewhere? Superintendent it time for them to use it? You are granting them technology that is dead, they are going to -- when you go up you don't have to meet [indiscernible] a line there, a collection system. So why are we allowing this old technology to keep going so we can have more odor problems for the next 20 years? And by the way, if you want me to start, I know you are going tired of my articles, but I can send you more articles showing you that putting type 4 on type of type 1 landfills causes more odors. Especially if used as a cover. It just -- type 4 landfill generates a lot of h 2 s. And unless it's mixed with dirt and unless it's got so many things that you have to do in order not to generate odors, so the odors that you may think may be a problem now may not go away, but allowing type 4. We are totally dead-set against type 4. Mainly because the odors will still be there. In fact probably worse. When you get that heat, you have these -- anyway, I don't even want to get into it. If you want to discuss it further, we can do that. I?m just saying there's many good reasons why type 4 on top of type 1 is not a good scenario. I don't want to bore you to death. I have many more arguments to give you as to why this is not a good scenario. I think 2013 is a reasonable time. There's no reason that they cannot close in 2013. And still -- I mean to where they stop taking waste. It's called stop taking waste. Not necessarily close because you have several years after that to close to actually close the -- the landfill and put dirt on it and whatever, whatever. So if they can stop taking waste in 2013, we are looking at 2020 before we look at a greenhill. Considering they have been here -- we are looking at 40 years for us to look at a landfill. I think -- I think that's enough for us. I just -- I honestly do not understand why you don't think that 40 years is enough for one area of Travis County. As I said, if you separate them, you won't have half of the problem that we have now. That is the biggest problem that we have of anything that I can tell you right now. It's the biggest problem is that if we have only one landfill it would be much easier to -- to negotiate anything and that agreement that b.f.i. Is putting forward has nothing in it for us. Absolutely nothing. I know it's between you and them but if you get into the agreement, they don't have to do anything for us. That's basically what's going to happen.
>> let me take a shot as asking a question I have asked before, but it's time to ask it again. You have been very clear about what you say no to. You don't want them in the northeast, you don't want new technology overlaid over areas that have old technology, you don't want stuff piled on to where there's new liners.
>> actually it's not new technology.
>> you don't want stuff going on top of where there's no liners. You want buffers. You don't want it in neighborhoods, you want it out of the floodplain. There's reasons for it not being anywhere near a creek. If we violate the 25-mile rule we are stuck with the transfer station. I've now got not one, not two. But with mr. Gregory's statements, three companies now actively looking for sites. Do you I know what you are saying no to. What do you say yes to? Do you know of a mythical site here in Travis County or within the magic 25-mile distance that would solve all of these problems? Everybody knows one of my favorite shows in addition to law and order is west wing. They spent a great deal of time talking about everybody can come up with a clever, snappy 10 word answer to everything. I have come up with the 10 words. No more landfills or transverse stations in county. What are the next 10 years. You have told me what you will say no to. I have yet to hear what you can say yes to and I don't think we are all at cross purposes here. I have got three companies now saying we need to figure out we need to figure out where to find another site. You are saying that. Do you know of someplace we can stick this to relieve your neighborhood not only of this site right now but for transfer stations. We all keep saying the same stuff but where does it go? Because it's got to go someplace, we are not all going to stop generating trash.
>> well, Commissioner Sonleitner, if I may answer your question, one of the things that I have not been or we have not been put in charge of is finding a new location for these sites. However, I can bring you two realtors here that have dealt with me for the last year and if you don't think that I can find them a site, just ask them. In fact they are working so hard they probably don't want to hear from me again. So I wasn't looking for a landfill. Let me clarify this. I wasn't looking for a landfill site. [laughter]
>> we have three companies that are looking for stuff and they have got good real estate folks looking for stuff, it's like help us out here. If you know of someplace --
>> mr. Hilgers gave three pages of 500-acre sites when we were looking at the ordinance. Today I have never seen where any of those sites were eliminated and why. Never, that was number one. Number two, capco --
>> that's not true. Mr. Joseph is saying that's not true that there were issues.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> all three, all of them?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I know what you are talking about, I know what you are talking about, they are two different things.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> she's talking about a series of -- a list of tracts that mr. Hilgers put together when he was on the solid waste what did we call that? Work group. Before you got into the fray.
>> okay. Because I responded to [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic]
>> two different things.
>> again, 500 acres, I now have three folks times three times 500 looking for either one big mega site or two or for three. Just I have three separate ones. Can you imagine us going through these green fill siting --
>> you work on an ordinance during that time they can find something. Why haven't they found something? Why they are waiting to sit there and cry that well you passed this ordinance and --
>> I don't know how much I can tell you. They are actively looking for stuff. They have brought in maps, every single time either somebody didn't want to sell, they weren't interested or there was some kind of thing that killed the site because it was floodplain or near somebody or there's a neighborhood, well that won't work. It's always well that won't work. Please, if you -- I beg of you, if you know someplace for goodness sakes tell one, two or all three of them because we have now got three companies that are saying I need something beyond where I?m at and --
>> well, I didn't hear where -- where tds was saying they couldn't find a site. I?m sorry, maybe I missed, I didn't hear it. From what I understood they just wanted to be there when the ordinance was addressed. Now looking for another site in addition to the site he's already got, more northern, it can be in Travis County, but it might be over the Williamson county line. He is looking for another site and they are going to be stepping all over two other companies that are doing the exact same thing.
>> well, I heard that, too, but I didn't hear where he was having a problem finding a site. You are saying there's a problem. I don't understand -- Commissioner Sonleitner, I don't -- I?m trying to be very nice about this, I?m not being --
>> me, too.
>> [indiscernible] or anything. Flippant or anything. Can you please tell me, if they are having such a hard time finding a site in 2005, what makes you think they are going to find one in 2018?
>> I agree with you. I so agree with you! Which is why we have got to like get beyond this that somehow this is a five year problem, 10 year problem, 15 year problem. It's a 50 year problem and we do need to focus all of our efforts here. But everybody is kind of like dancing all around it and we are not getting anybody to say I volunteer my 2,000 acres. I volunteer my 1500 acres. I volunteer whatever to be a volunteer in this army here. Everybody is --
>> the difference would be in the plan. 2018 or with the expansion of the current permit for waste management, they would be gone from the northeast Austin site. If they had a new site to move to, fine. If they didn't, it's their business. But it's far enough out to impose a much higher standard. Now, we would have a contract agreement with that with b.f.i. But with tceq it would be whether or not they basically just turndown a request for an expansion. So -- so the beauty I thought was that we would have a final date locked in. Granted that final date would be longer than 2013.
>> yeah, but that's too long, judge.
>> I understand, I understand. I heard you. Mr. Macafee?
>> she addressed most of what I jumped up here to say. I think that I will just reiterate very shortly, I really think that we shouldn't feel too sorry for waste management for not having some land already, you know, being out in front of it. Here bobby has got 1350 acres he's already looking for a new site. These guys should have been looking a decade ago for a new site. If they would have spent half as much time trying to find a site as they have spent trying to get this one through, they would have found something. And certainly with condemnation powers, you answer to this, this mythical spot for a landfill, well, I think it need to have a really nice, large buffer. Not 250 feet. We all know that's less than a football field. You can come in, like it's sad. It also to reiterate what trek said, it is not 40% of a 625 perk tract. It's less like than [indiscernible] to have a buffer 250 feet. Again that is not enough. Not anywhere close. Basically. You know, these things are -- they are really major, they are major facilities and they hnl every kind of chemical basically known to man. And they need to have adequate buffers. The -- so if the condemnation powers of the county, I guess, the mythical tract you need to condemn more than what is necessary, than what you think is necessary so that there is not a house, no the a school, not a daycare, not an historiccal structure within range. Get a big enough tract and make them stay within a certain -- in the middle of it and obviously you have to own the -- the -- the buffer or it's not worth much. Either own it and have it completely set aside forever, you know, because here part of what we talked about as a buffer between us and waste management is now going to be a road. So perhaps -- and I guess in terms of b.f.i., I think that I?m just going to say that the buffer, you know, I?m -- a 250-foot buffer is absolutely nothing. We are close by these facilities. We are a mile from the operational face basically roughly of these facilities right now and you can't believe the noise that 3:00, 4:00 in the morning. It is really loud. So ... That's just the noise. Again, the chemicals are -- are a lot of what I think -- that requires a bigger buffer than the noise programs.
>> how much difference would it make if we got b.f.i. To agree not to operate around the clock? But to have specific hours?
>> yeah. I --
>> for me, I?m not operational at 3:00 in the morning, you know, so it's -- but for the neighbors I?m sure that --
>> think about that.
>> that would be better. But really this area was just not cited for a regional -- sited for a regional landfill, it was sited in the ways that landfills used to be done. Which was 20 years tops in one spot and then they moved on. The problem is they ain't moving on. So -- so the -- the neighborhood was there first. We were there first. There are -- certainly there have been some others that have come in later, but the fact is that this area is just way too populated. Way too much infrastructure from businesses, you know, to -- to have this burden remain. It's just the wrong spot.
>> but mark, we can't close them, we cannot close them -- get over it. We cannot close them! What we are talking about is let's identify a year. That we can live -- I mean if it's not 2018, it's not 2013, that's the reason I say get together and let's come up with a time because I?m convinced that they will buy property, I?m convinced they will move that industry because they make a lot of industry, but we have got to come in.
>> I realize they are not going away. I just want them to go to another spot.
>> I know you do. So does everybody. That's the reason that we really have to get to a date where -- where we go that is the time if they are willing to sign it, they both said we would be willing to sign it, they have to work out some stuff, they have some negotiation like that, if we can come up with the date then that is the thing that moves them. Because then they will.
>> except for the thing that is we cannot satisfy the 25-mile rule we are still going to have a transfer station in that neighborhood and bobby could you come up to the microphone just for a second. There's a little bit of history we just need to like quietly remind people of. Would you please let us know when did you start the acquisition and permitting process on your site off of 1327? What year was that? When did you start it?
>> 198 -- early '85.
>> '85. When were you finally permitted by whatever the name of the agency was at the time --
>> Texas department of health.
>> tdh at that time. When did you get your final permits from tdh.
>> September of 1990.
>> took you a good five years. Did you have --
>> you were out in the middle of nowhere back then.
>> it may have been '89. That's pretty bad that I wouldn't remember that.
>> but at that time that was a pretty remote location.
>> more remote than now.
>> and did the Commissioners court at that time say it's still not remoment enough for us. Did you have a Commissioners court, I don't think anybody here -- well maybe one, but opposed your site?
>> there are no members of the current court that were members of the court then. But I was opposed by the county.
>> this is not easy stuff.
>> unanimous vote.
>> even back in '89, I will grant you '9, you are looking -- '89, looking for a site in a more remote place we are talking about now, you had difficulty, still had oppositions, had to go through at least a five to six year process.
>> it was a five-year process.
>> we previously indicated that we will not take action today.
>> damage -- one more statement. I just would like to tell Commissioner Sonleitner what I told you before. County-wide transfer station, Commissioner Sonleitner, transfer station can be put anywhere in Travis County. Anywhere. We don't have to think just landfill. That's what you intended, why didn't you tell us that? Let's not even work on this ordinance. We are going to put him there no matter what. Why did we work -- I didn't see any other -- any other Travis County resident working on that on that ordinance, none. Just us. Why were we working against ourselves, I?m not sure that I understand that one. You made us work on this ordinance, now you are saying that's the only place we can put one.
>> that's not what I?m saying. I?m saying if we want to meet the dual goal, I think that you have a dual goal of not only no expansion, but no transfer station, it's -- that's a pretty hard -- that's hard to do and I?m just simply saying we need all of the good thoughts, all of the good --
>> why are you saying no transfer station -- [multiple voices]
>> if you have no issue with the transfer station remaining in your neighborhood, then we have just cut off one of the requirements in terms of the 25-mile circle here.
>> there are plans for a transfer station in this area of town. Not necessarily at the landfills, but in this area.
>> somebody knew that it's a transif her station as --
>> that was mandated by the city of Austin in 1999. That the transfer station be built. They actually sent out a directive asking for a location to be found and a transfer station to be built.
>> where is that location.
>> I?m sorry.
>> where is that location?
>> I don't know. They didn't tell, they are not telling me. But they can tell you. You can call them and ask them.
>> I don't think so.
>> we indicated previously that we would not take action today. We would have that matter back on the dag on March 17th -- back on the agenda on March 17th.
>> may.
>> although March is sounding good.
>> we would love to come back on March the 17th.
>> may 17th.
>> trek, we really are not at cross purposes. If you do know some land, for goodness sakes, tell one, two, all three companies.
>> if they want us to work with their -- I cannot hire a realtor to work for somebody else. You know that? The realtor is going to say you are out of your mind, when am I going to start looking for -- somehow I can work with their realtors if they want me to because I can look for tracts of land until 3:00 in the morning, you know that. I can find --
>> three in the morning?
>> we will have another matter on the agenda at a time certain that day at 9:30 in the morning. So it looks like afternoon would be the only best time for -- for a time certain. And we are looking at probably 1:45 again. Now, my motion y'all is for the county judge to work with county staff come up with specific recommendations on a buffer. On the siting ordinance, an internal buffer. That be shared with the residents and landfill operators, hopefully a week from today. We can get that done, can't we? That will give them a week to look at it before March 17th. How is that? Now that way we can figure out whether we think the internal buffer makes any sense as an alternative to -- to the distances from various receptors or not. That's something a little bit more specific to work with than 22 c today. The other thing is ms. Mcginty fee, if we have not worked out the recycling neil sellmon matter, it be specifically listed in part of 22 e for action on that day. All right, remember what you told me about mr. Selmon being out of town.
>> okay. As out of town on the 22nd through the 24th and the 15th through the 20th. So the possibilities are either very, very soon or the week of may 30th to June 3rd.
>> if this passes, melinda molier and I will get with you again and try to bring a specific recommendation or a recommendation with specifics to the Commissioners court for approval. Therefore we would need some time after may 17th, I think, in order to implement it. So we would get with mr. Selmon on a specific date, try to like down the other specific requirements, try to come up with a written description of exactly what this would be for the court to look at and act on on may 17th.
>> after today, what I have heard I think it is of extreme importance to get him here quickly. What I have heard today is a lot of talk about buffers. What I think mr. Selmon can bring to the court are additional ideas about buffers and how they can be economically utilized to bring in more money. I think when you talk about all of these buffers, and I think everyone's vision is all this expensive vacant land around the landfill, which -- which we know where that's going to go, it's going to be too expensive to do and to be too hard to achieve. I think what you will see and what mr. Selmon will bring in is how we are so concentrated on the landfill, the papers that I gave you are examples of landfills that have brought in other companies to be with them that can serve as a buffer. And that can be composting other things that would -- that would keep waste out of the landfill and start moving us toward a zero waste policy. And that -- that -- talk about all of these --
>> we have to figure out a way to reduce that to writing to give the court an opportunity to respond to us on may 17th.
>> I can tell you that I have talked a year to mr. Selmon, I have already given him quite a bit of money thinking that he was coming. I think he is definitely starting to feel put out. I felt like I have basically spent the money that I have spent in my conversations in this past year dealing with him and he's kind of hurt our little story as it's gone along for a year. I feel like I have about pushed him to the edge that, you know, he's heard a whole year of our history and I feel like if we are going to get value of what he can bring to us where we are right now, before these decisions are thought out and made, it needs to be soon. He works with landfills and siting all over the country. I mean --
>> I?m not sure the other four members of the court are alone --
>> expertise.
>> you and I are out in front of the other four members of the court. I believe. Let's get this to writing between now and may 17th to see if we can get them to join us. That's what it's down to.
>> I know people's calendars fill up. If we -- I feel like it's his -- if we don't get him that last, that may 30th to June 30th, June 3rd range, that the issues will --
>> instead of me holding things up, if you -- can you and ms. Molier get together and work this out?
>> well, so do another agenda than what I have or -- I?m not sure what you are asking me to do.
>> I?m asking us to have a specific proposal that we can give the court under 23 e will become 22 f next time. E will be a specific neil selmon project posting.
>> 28.
>> or whatever number it is next time. I?m saying we will specifically post the neil selmon project to give the court the proposal in writing before that day and give us a chance to meet and act on that date.
>> dealing with government is slow, ms. Mcginty fee.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir?
>> I mean, I?m -- I fear that -- that management or the industry is about -- about at wit's end on this thing. I just want to know can somebody tell me where you are going -- we are either going to get this deal done or we are filing our expansion, I mean, is anybody willing to say that? I guess silence --
>> depends on two things.
>> silence is deafening, I mean, --
>> I said earlier that we would like to -- we will bring our letters of intent to the court within 60 days. Before the 12th we will make a proposal to the court on our moving forward. With respect to arterial a. We are anxious to get it resolved, get it resolved quickly and those are the two time lines that I?m operating under. I?m going to be gone from the 12th to the 22nd, back the 23rd. But I?m going to get this to you before we leave on the 12th. It would be nice if I knew like a range of buffers in dealing with the sites that we had in mind so that we could just deal with them and consider --
>> next Tuesday, we ought to get a team before you leave -- get it to you before you leave. We ought to have it by the 9th or 10th. That way you can give a response to us before you leave hopefully.
>> okay.
>> plus we will give you tom nuckols cell phone number.
>> I have gotten that. [laughter]
>> I know you want to say something, paul. But it's not like I have got to have mr. Selmon here to tell me that, melanie. If you can get him to say here's the range of buffers, 250 feet, it can be, you know, from here to lockhart, I mean, just give us something so that we know what to tell these folks. Obviously what you want y'all have already said. We have a mile buffer with you all as you exist. That's not enough.
>> we don't have a mile. We have a half a mile.
>> half a mile. Well it's not good. So -- I don't think anybody thinks that 250 feet is adequate, I mean,, you know, what you really get to is, I mean, because, you know, eventually feet equates into acres. So I?m happy to hear a guy that makes his living doing it. But these guys do need to know okay well here's kind of what we are thinking about and if that's 500 feet or let's give ourselves --
>> I think he's going to introduce a new piece to this puzzle that instead of just trying to site a landfill, you also site, you allow other industry to buy next door that is compatible with the landfill, you end up creating a buffer of sorts, that's good. Delete that out is --
>> remember if it's compatible with the landfill, it also has to be compatible with the neighborhood because I think b.f.i. Wound up getting kicked out of east Austin because of incompatibility issues on what was a recycling center. We still have neighborhood compatibility issues. It's just not good enough to say that it's compatible with the landfill. No it still needs to be compatible with the neighborhood.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...on the proposed performance based agreement. The idea that ms. Mac afee is proposing seems to be the appropriateness of buffers and the appropriateness of use within the buffers, that's a siting ordinance issue. That is not similarly concerned by the timing of an application by either landfills.
>> you would like to know come may 17th that's what we're going to do.
>> very much.
>> i'd like for us to know that we're going to come may the 17th with the intent of giving you all some idea as to what we're going to do.
>> very much so, yes, sir.
>> as a level playing field, I think they did bring up a report that it needed to have, if I understood it correctly, a chance to look at this and see if they can discuss and come back so everybody can maybe get a jumpstart.
>> tds should have full opportunity to participate their part of the industry. They need to have an understanding of how it would affect their future and everything else.
>> I?m trying to see the gist of the motion because I definitely don't want to see the neighborhoods not including, and especially neighborhoods in the community now. And if they don't want landfill at all in precinct 1, the outlying neighborhoods also. Again, I just think all that -- judge, you did your motion. I can maybe look and see what you're saying there.
>> the motion is that tom knuckles and yours truly flesh out a specific internal buffer provision and make any other appropriate changes to the current siting ordinance between now and next Tuesday, may 10th. That we share those with the residents and with waste management, bfi and tds. And that we have those recommended changes back on the court's agenda for action on may 17th. Further, that we list a specific agenda item that will allow us to consider a written, fleshed out proposal regarding the expertise, using the expertise of neal. And that linda be authorized to work with ms. Mcafee to get that proposal together between now and three or four days before the 17th. And that the county judge and any other member of the Commissioners court be engaged to the extent necessary to get it done. What I?m hoping is that on the other matter let's at least have that by the time of the agenda backup distribution, which would normally be the Thursday or Friday before the Tuesday. We back up about four days, may 14th? May 13th or 14th. May 13th by noon. That's the motion.
>> second.
>> now, we have the direction that we have it back on time certain at 1:45 for the other items, so anything we get done between now and then on those would be posted also.
>> judge, we listed three specific companies, but if we are talking the other types, we need to list ii and also the city of Austin -- isi and even the city of Austin since they are a type one holder. We want to make sure we have no other conflicts.
>> if wur listening and want a copy, we will share this with you too.
>> so if we look at the agenda today, today's agenda, it really just acted on 22-c. And maybe 22-e for other. Is that correct?
>> yes.
>> so those other items, a, b, and d we discussed earlier.
>> on d, it's not part of the motion, but d, if they would put together points regarding arterial a, so if they could do those outside the motion, share those with us, we would share those with court members or before may 17th.
>> that's correct.
>> on the neighborhood involvement on this, would y'all beafkly be prepared to -- basically be prepared to be the recipients of what's being discussed here today. And especially looking atom, the ordinance as it existed sometime ago where the neighborhood created the buffer that are part of the -- the language that -- it wasn't adopted, but the setbacks were supported. If we still have that information, I definitely would like that information shared with the neighborhood, along with whatever else. So would y'all be in receipt?
>> Commissioner, i'll go to my files and pull out every version of the draft ordinance that i've got and deliver it to your office.
>> that would be fine.
>> how about the latest?
>> the latest is the one that was adopted.
>> no, he's talking about the one that was not adopted.
>> I?m going to give to Commissioner Davis the adopted ordinance and every version of the ordinance I have before that, back to the day the earth cooled. [ laughter ]
>> this is a young man that has a lot of storage, thank goodness for that. So trek, if you would like that information, come by my office as far as it's concerned you can compare the buffer.
>> (indiscernible).
>> that's for mr. Jacobson, mr. Joseph, I refer to that period as before jj. I know they're not getting the point, but that's okay. Both of you were not here when all this started, so I refer to that period as before jj.
>> if you want to get that, you'll have something else to go on.
>> thank you.
>> judge, can I get clarification? Maybe you're not finished, but did you -- does your motion contemplate taking up 22-b on may 17th? I don't think I heard you say that.
>> we will have all of these listed.
>> were we supposed to sit down and talk with somebody any time according to what you -- I?m not part of the motion, I?m just asking this question. I realize that Commissioner Daugherty had said something about we've got to sit down and discuss this. Is that going to be part of it also?
>> I mean, in my opinion it can be. You're certainly not precluded from doing that.
>> (indiscernible).
>> if we frame it in next time as far as a and b is concerned, and also b of today's item, does that mean that there may be possible action on a, b and d and the whole nine yards for next week?
>> our delaying action today is intended to respect the request not to take action.
>> okay.
>> so I think these ought to be posted in a way that we can act on -- really posted in a way that we can act on them today, but we got a request not to act. So our action could be to take no action, but I would think next time we would be more in a frame of mind that we would take these issues up one at a time and act on them. And if there's an order that's better than this, i'd be happy to do that too. The Tuesday before.
>> so trek, y'all understand? Everybody got an understanding of what's happening?
>> I don't know. I?m sorry. It's getting very confusing. I?m not sure what the plan of action is. I understand what we're going to deal with on the 17th, but between the third and the 17th I?m not sure what's going to happen. I understand you're going to work on something.
>> fleshing out the proposal, trying to work on the internal buffers and any other changes to the siting ordinance that would be appropriate for type 1 and type 4 landfills. And any progress on the other items that are listed today. And on other related matters, if there are specific things that we need to bring up and act on, we can do that too.
>> are you saying that -- what happens to a?
>> I?m saying all will be back' next week. We might not do anything besides having discussed it already.
>> not next week.
>> may 17th.
>> is there any discussion between now and the 17th?
>> I mean, discussions can take place, we just don't discuss it in the motion.
>> I guess the only thing we're really dealing with today is as far as the motion is concerned is actually 22-c and 22-d, and that's what was discussed. I want to make sure everybody understands that. I?m definitely not supporting any expansion, i'll let you know that too. I?m not going to change my position on that.
>> all in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much. See you back on the 17th of may at 1:30. Make that 1:45.

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.

Last Modified: Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:33 AM

May 3, 2005Item 22

May 3, 2005
Item 22