Travis County Commissioners Court
January 26, 2010,
Item A2
A 2 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following.
a, applications for site development permits for txi hornsby bend ease and west, txi hornsby west mining sites, permit applications numbers 08-2430 and 08-2431 respectively.
and b, roadway improvement agreement with txi operations lp.
good afternoon.
all right.
staff.
>> good afternoon.
anna bowlen and teresa caulkens, Travis County tn r.
prior to this last time that this application was here before the court, we had been notified by the army corps of engineers with a question as to whether or not there were waters of the u.s.
present on this site.
since that time there as been a site visit with the army corps of engineer personnel and some tnr personnel and some of the txi developers people out on the site.
after that the corps found that there were no waters of the u.s.
present on this site.
I have teresa calkins here, and she actually was one of the people from the county that went on that corps visit of the txi sites, and I would let her discuss the site visit.
>> okay.
>> judge, Commissioners, just a brief summary of our visit.
we did visit the txi east and west sites on Wednesday, January 20.
members of tnr staff were present, specifically myself, tom weber and john white.
we met with u.s.
army corps of engineers fort worth district staff jennifer walker, chief of the regulatory branch, and her staff and txi representatives and consultants.
we did visit the areas that jennifer walker had expressed concerns about, particularly a trib tore to gillahan creek on the east site and a strip of woodland area on the west side.
jennifer walker confirmed that waters of the u.s.
were not present in either locations, and outside buffer zones have already been set.
in addition we visited five culvert locations where the road crosses waterways and jennifer found activities were likely to be found by a nationwide permit or otherwise corps permits were not warranted.
we have received a letter dated January 21, 2010, from the corps of engineers confirming their findings that they found no waters of the u.s.
present in the areas of pro proposed txi minimuming activities.
at the time that roadway construction plans are submitted for review for the improvements on dunn lap road and improvements at fm 969 we will be asking for txi to also submit these plans to the corps of engineers for on determination at the time whether any section 4 permits are warranted.
>> when does that site visit occur?
>> it occurred on, it was last Wednesday, January 20.
>> yes, the 20th.
>> okay.
>> ask the judge at this time and staff, we have had several correspondents coming from the community.
you know, when I made that motion per se for this to go before the armies corps of engineers, it was supported by the court the allow jennifer walker to review the particular permit application by txi, it was actually in a situations where by since she was the chief regional of permits for the united states corps of engineers I was hoping that we would have got a specific response from her.
however, I understand that she was a part of the party of persons that actually came and looked at the site.
I guess my concern was that, of this nature, and I guess y'all may not know exactly the Commissioners background.
I'm one of those grassroots type elected officials.
in other words, the grassroots that I got here on was inclusive.
I wanted to make sure that everyone involved in the process is sitting at the table.
my concern even from the folks that received their e-mails in regard, was wanting to know, well, why they were not included in the review process.
they felt that they could have actually maybe showed some things, pointed out some things that may not have been pointed out by staff.
I really don't know.
but I do know that inclusiveness has always been a top priority for me, especially when it comes to neighborhoods.
persons that are being impacted the most by what we are doing.
of course, I'm in the chewing nobody out per se, but I'm just bring--not chewing nobody out per se but bringing it to the attention of the public and of the united states corps of engineers along with the county staff and txi, that I am really not comfortable with the community being left out of the process.
again, there are some very significant questions that I think still may be permeating from this process.
I'm quite sure the residents, and hopefully they will get all of their e-mail requests responded to because we made sure that we got that information to them as quickly as we possibly could have gotten the information.
but if you look at the letter that came from the txi representative, talking about some of the things that actually transpired, it does not mention the person that jennifer walker, who was there.
and I had no idea.
the only way I knew that she was there, I made presence because I talked with staff, teresa, and she basically told me who was all there.
which I appreciate that very much, ms. Calkins.
but the community wasn't there.
and they are major stake holder in this whole operation.
I just want to bring that point across.
and I have several questions.
but I'm going to maybe yield to those that have continued to send e-mails and they want some answers.
>> just so you know, Commissioner, I talked to darvin metter, the project manager who signed the letter.
>> I understand.
>> yesterday.
and I told him that I would like something from jennifer confirming that she visited the site and she was in agreement with the statements made in the letter.
and I did get an e-mail yesterday afternoon at 4:130 from her that said that.
but I did express to him that I had thought that probably she would be the one that signed the letter.
so I did get an e-mail from her confirming that she was on site and she agreed with the statements made in the letter.
>> okay.
I guess my point, though, is that it appeared that the community didn't have an opportunity to participate.
and that is what just drives me up the wall.
I have always been open to the point that community input, in my opinion, especially those folks impacted the most by what we are doing here, is available.
so I had no idea.
I had no idea that these folks were coming down last Wednesday or Thursday.
no one called Commissioner Davis's office and said, Commissioner Davis, hey, by the way, do you know that jennifer, mr. Medder and all the other folks tide --tied in with the armies corps of engineers are coming to Texas?
neither my staff got an e-mail regarding that.
automatically the flag would have been where is the community.
right off the top.
again, left the community, the Commissioner of this precinct being left out of the loop, not knowing what is going on as far as them coming down here.
because I thought they were going up there to take the application and process and everything to fort worth.
I didn't know they were coming here.
no one told me that they were coming here.
so it just in my opinion is just a way that we have ended up not communicating properly on what is going on.
and I just feel that my office and the community basically have been slighted, in my opinion, as far as the process is concerned.
again.
so that is what I'm saying.
I'm not fussing at nobody.
I'm just laying it out, like I said.
thank you.
>> how did the inspection come about?
I don't think I was invited either.
I don't think the county judge of that precinct was invited.
>> judge, I'm glad you asked that question.
after hearing the concerns of the citizens and the concerns of the army corps of engineers, I called txi.
I said I need access to the site.
I want to check over a few different locations.
they agreed to meet me there on Wednesday.
I invited ms. Calkins and of course mr. White.
and I actually found out that the corps was coming out there when we were driving out there.
I think teresa had heard word as we were on our way out there that the corps would be there.
so basically we had certain business we wantd to take care of and needed access and went there.
and it did turn out that we had what I view as fortunate, that we were there and the corps was there and looked at the same thing so we could hear more directly some of their concerns.
that is how it came about.
>> what is ms. Walker's relationship to steven brooks and marvin, darvinmesser?
>> if we may, dar vin metzer is the project manager and he works for jennifer walker.
and jennifer walker works for steven brooks of the regulatory branch.
I asked when I talked to darvin yesterday, I asked him about him signing a letter that had steven brooks' name and title.
he essentially signed for steven.
and dar vin indicated to me that in their organization, determination letters such as this go out typically under steven brooks', under his name, and that it's not unusual for the project manager to sign the letter for the project, because my question to dar vin was, why didn't jennifer sign this, because that is what I expected.
you know, just because she is the one that raised the concern.
so, that is my--
>> so steven brooks is--
>> he is--
>> ms. Walker's supervisor.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
any other questions from the court?
>> yeah, I have some.
I'm going to wait, judge, if you don't mind.
>> no, sir, no problem.
>> all right.
>> we have residents who have come down on this item.
>> I want to hear from the folks right now.
>> if you come forth we'd be happy to get your comments.
if you would give us your name, we'd be happy to get your comments.
and there are two more chairs available.
yes, sir.
>> judge, exist, morris priest speaking on my own behalfment I did have the same concerns that Commissioner Davis previously mentioned.
as you are aware I brought up the fact that information was told to the public that would be provided on this table over here.
I had made myself available all day the last time I came down here from 8 a.m.
I guess until 5.
I have yet to receive the information.
I have contacted not every Commissioner and you judge, but what I have in my hands is what I received from the court.
this has been even after times that you have said please be sure, to your staff members, to get that information to mr. Priest.
so I haven't received anything.
another thing.
I know legally it's probably not a significant thing.
but morally I think it is.
we have seen a large number of minorities that didn't speak english, but there are people in the area that are on time warner and they are able to look as I looked to see if this is on the channel 17 website.
I know the previous week before last month, I guess it was, they had the previous weeks, which I have never seen in my life.
sometime in December they showed the previous week's agenda instead of the present week's agenda and I didn't even know this was going on until I talked to Commissioner Davis.
and that was for the meeting that we had last time on channel 17.
there's some people that don't have computers and this is the only way that they know.
they watch that when you do just like you do employment or just like you do the agenda, they watch channel 17 to see what is going to be on the county's agenda.
so there was error there.
and this week I didn't see it on there at all.
and I didn't know about it until I saw it in the paper.
but I do know that I watch the agenda on 17 and it wasn't there.
I know it caused, that it's an add add item.
and when they have this bold print that it will be called up at one, it really shows up real clear on the channel.
you know, it may have been not on there the first time I saw it.
then later added because that usually comes out over the weekend.
and I don't know if it was updated at a later time.
but, and I know that this is what we actually go by as far as the legal thing.
but I think that there's probably very many people in the public that don't know this.
and the only other thing I have to say, even though I think it's add infinitum things that are going to be coming up on this issue for years to come, there's so many multiple agencies that I have talked to that I still don't think this is going to be something that is ever going to happen.
but I think that the county is obligated to get necessary permits on and to, before they sign off on this.
and with tex dot and the city and fema and parks and wildlife and other departments looking at these things.
I think that it's going to be a situations where, before giving a permit, I think there's such a basic question as how is txi going to end all this, bring all this material to their processing site such is the basic question before I think the county should sign off, whether it's a conveyor or whether they use this hardship agreement, this road agreement on the face of the permit to get a hardship variance to get around their waivers or various requirements with tceq or the city.
the only assurances we have is it either be the road or other conveyor.
but I don't see why they wouldn't, since it would be cheaper for them to take this agreement now in hand from the county with that on the face of the permit and ask for a hardship variance and a waiver from tct to have a conveyor since it would be cheaper.
but there are so many issues that I really do, you know, I just want to say again that this is what I received from my county.
this is what I received from my county government.
even when the county judge has said on the record on channel 17 tape, be sure to get, you know, that information.
and I have called and I have talked to staff.
and this is what I have received.
documenting confirm.
I'll swear in court, make a swear out an affidavit today, take a poly graph, whatever required to let you know what citizens of this county have received.
I have not received anything.
so this is something that I did want on the record.
and if someone wants to bring a bible, I'll swear on it.
I haven't received anything from the county.
thank you.
>> thank you.
mr. Cohen.
>> yes, I'm kenneth cohen, psycho therapist, military retired, research scientist.
I'm here a little tired today because I worked on a communication that each of you received this morning at 12:50.
I didn't go to sleep right away.
and I had plans this morning.
psycho therapist gets tired and I get tired of having to be here trying to represent the community as the president of a neighborhood association.
and to also have written to colonel steven hill, the chief of staff at the u.s.
army corps of engineers.
I called their staff inept.
relative to the question that you asked, judge Biscoe, what do you, my staff, know about the visit.
I called steven brooks' office and asked for him personally.
he is not in the office.
passed to swang hard, swihart.
steve said, mr. Brooks is in Austin.
oh, he is.
I bet I know where he is at.
no, you don't know where he is at, kenneth.
he is not down there relative to the inquiry that you made on January 5.
no, he is not there for that purpose.
well, I think that there is some lying going on inside of the u.s.
could of engineers--corps of engineers.
I think somebody is being paid off, and that, yes, I asked for you to hold off on any vote, please.
please hold off on any vote that you as a court makes until we get a clean bill of health that I have had requested through colonel steven hill, chief of staff, u.s.
army corps of engineers headquarters, washington dc, as of January 23 at 11:30 p.m..
that is when finally the fax was able to go through and followed by e-mails.
now, you know that this morning you saw a full two-page e-mail from kenneth cohen at 12:50 a.m.
copied to the headquarters this morning in washington d c.
I ask that you reexamine that, if you haven't taken note of it, that they were copied with my statement of this morning.
and that is, I don't want to belabor this, but it's very essential that the court has in its testimony to date that Commissioner Davis when he went and joined us at the east Austin service center auditorium with 400 very strong spokesmen, private citizens of the community, judy, richard, mr. Nez, I can turn here and I don't see one person that wasn't at that meeting.
yes, we did ask.
richard and I asked for a copy of the roster that had mails on it so that we can make contact am we -- contact.
we had a lot of hispanic people there and they wanted to stay in the loop and they have not been able to stay in the loop.
now, the executive order of the president of 1964 says that community, its elected officials will attempt to involve the citizens.
and we were denied a request for the e-mail addresses.
in fact all the addresses and phone numbers collected by the county that night.
and there have been other times when we could have participated, particularly the hispanic, spanish, all spanish speaking people.
there was a possibility for this Commissioners court to talk to its citizens through e-mail.
and we were denied this.
now, that is an obstructing justice offered through an executive order of the president.
and I think y'all are competent to review that.
it's google prepares that easily.
89 percent of the community, at least 89 percent of the community, have not been able to speak to this because they don't know about it.
but there is, there are seven churches where we have gone and spoken in english and spanish.
and there is now a fervor in the community.
some of them are afraid to participate because they don't want to be humiliated.
and why would a person be humiliated coming here?
well, sometimes when you talk about natural water holes that are present in the community and quite possibly one or two where jennifer walker says there's no water effects, quite possibly on that 2000 acres, there is some cultivated land where the normal process of a tractor driver can to close the holy hole--hole that has water that creates a ball and you can't driver through it.
that is a practice.
I grew up on the phone.
I drove a tractor.
I know that my dad, my mother wanted to be able to use all of our acres.
these people in this community and on that site also wanted to use all of their acres.
and those natural water holes quite possibly on that 2000 acres have been filled in and did not reevolve and be found by jennifer walker and others from this, spending our tax dollars to go out there.
but steven swishart said no, they are not going to that property.
I think there's some lying going on.
we presented on the 12th, mrs.
navan and i, the american indian descendent of the cherokee fribe presented indian arrow heads.
those arrow heads, we went from here to the Texas historical commission.
and mr. Potter said these black tips have an age of 30,000 years.
now, if you do permit this application by txi, and if they carry from that property sand and gravel that has arrow heads in it, they are taking milestones that were set down 30 000 years ago, according to mr. Potter, the regional archeologists for the Texas historical commission.
I urge that the txi does not want that on their record, and that they will withdraw their application if they really will examine their timber, as they call it in mexico.
la matera.
yes, I lived in mexico seven years and I'm respected for my work there.
I don't want to have to be at age 70 challenging txi.
it makes me shake in my skin because I shouldn't be doing this stuff.
I want to get out of here.
but it bothers me that this court had a possibility of communicating more effectively with the citizens by giving richard or myself or ms. Nava, who has a telephone tree and for all spanish speaking people, an e-mail list that is being worked.
I guarantee you that if that native american lady is not tumbled by some angry person wanting to, greedy angry person or corporation, if they tumble here, we have got copies of that stuff and we're going to be able to keep it going.
we are going to be able to keep it going and get the people to act on this.
let me get out of your hair.
>> thank you, mr. Cohen.
>> mr. Cohen, let me correct you on one item.
and that is the accessibility of that list.
that list was, that you are referring to, was asked of me that night via a note.
someone passed a note and said may I please have that sign-up sheet, Commissioner Davis.
I said of course, by all means you can have it.
and we end up giving it to a person by the name of richard franklin, who has that list.
he wanted to make sure that all this information was communicated at that time.
so there was a list made available.
and if you want a list, I can provide you with another list.
but that night there was only one request made for that list, and that was from richard franklin.
and we obliged him accordingly.
richard frankly does have the original list.
>> I have been to richard's home and we talked about the reality of all of this.
I'm not challenging your word.
>> he does have it.
just ask him.
we gave it to him.
staff prepared it for him right there on the spot.
he has that list.
ed you to know the list has been made available for those that requested.
>> well, I was the one that wrote the note.
>> you wrote the note?
>> I wrote the note and conferred with richard.
I went to his home.
we worked together.
we are attempting to get you an answer to, you mentioned in the last, on January 12, that the school district del valle had not responded.
we have a communication with every school board member.
>> right.
>> we have a brand new for the first time community pta working in the area, where families are, they were told that it was not going to happen in that school district.
this takes a lot of stamina to keep doing it.
I'm here to keep doing it.
>> I hear you.
>> thank you.
>> no, thank you.
>> mr. Cohen.
ms. Hole holman.
>> my name is judith holman.
I'm a farmen and pecan grower on what they are calling hornsby east.
what I would like you to do this morning or this afternoon is to consider the colorado river from the perspective of longhorn dam.
above longhorn dam everything is green and pristine.
there are city parks, lady bird lake, lake Austin, some more of the river, Lake Travis.
below long horn dam is the real river.
there is no river above long horn dam.
it was below longhorn dam.
it is scarred and pitted.
I belong to a group called the Austin bass trop smithville recorded association that meets with hornsby with kevin anderson once a month.
and we are trying so hard to establish paddling trails, walking trails, beautify the river.
we make canoe trips and invite anybody that wants to to come on those trips.
the river is a beautiful beautiful resource.
but it is becoming just a ditch.
a ditch to take water down to the people in south Texas.
gravel pits on both sides of it.
I find that very unfortunate.
the other thing that I had to say was I heard mr. Davis, Commissioner Davis comment on citizen input.
any time any of these people are out there on hunters bend, we could be there in a minute.
we live out there.
what I do is I stop when I see people.
I say, what are you doing?
and usually they will tell me.
the last time I stopped to see some people, they were looking at that little sliver of gillehan creek, I believe.
I have to ask.
I don't mind asking.
anyway, I just hate to see another section of that river just mute lated.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
mr. Mcdonald.
thank you.
>> a little section of hornsby bend in the plan in there that I made a copy of.
what this shows is a crossing of elm creek by an existing haul road that according to what teresa told me from my e-mail the other day, is considered a jurisdictional water of the corps of engineers.
just so it's made clear there are jurisdictionel waters on this property.
but according to the plan because this creek is in the critical water quality zone, it is outside their mining view.
outside their mining area.
and according to what teresa told me just the other day, you know the plan pretty well, I think, that because txi has said they are not going to improve this road, that they won't be needing a permit.
it's the same reason why they weren't required a variance.
and it took them a month to convince the city of Austin that a variance wouldn't be provided.
according to some e-mails I received there was a lot of back room meetings.
they hired a brand new lawyer to come down and discuss this with the city of Austin.
my point is that because this, I'm bringing this up today because I think this is the prime example of how, although the county is sitting here saying they don't have the authority to vote against this thing, here is things that come up that it seems like a blind aye is turned because here is this jurisdictional water, a roadway crossing a water quality zone, and because txi says they aren't going to improve it, no permit is necessary.
this is the other thing.
they have said they are going the mine all that land east of there, 600 acres they are going to pull out with 250 trucks a day once they get going full speed.
that is information we have all been given.
I brought along some pictures here of this little road.
this is existing haul road.
this is right across the street from my house.
this thing isn't--
>> media?
>> can you not see them?
I can see them.
>> there we go.
>> okay, there they are.
there is the little existing haul road.
as you see on this plan here, they put in 40-foot haul roads everywhere else on the plan.
but those haul roads stop and end at the limit of construction where the critical water quality zone is.
and they say they are just not going to improve this road.
and because they say that, no more questions are asked.
my question is how are they going to bring 250 trucks per day across this 20-foot wide dirt road with a little gravel on it, without having to improve it, without destroying it in the process.
apparently they are going to be allowed to do maintenance.
here it is now with the rain and the mud, full of water.
that is elm creek there, the jurisdictional waters.
and teresa confirmed this.
the only reason a permit and variance from the city isn't required is because txi has said they are not doing to improve this road.
but then they come back and say later, well, we're doing to mine that area.
we're going to use 250 trucks a day.
so where is the disconnect here?
I don't understand.
I understand that you don't have the authority to maybe tell them how to do their mining because it's outside the mining zone.
here is the little road from a distance.
how are these big gravel trucks going to negotiate this road, is what my question is.
and this is just a perfect example.
just like along with the, why the permits aren't tied together.
last week anna bowlen said, well because it's on a different property, it could be two different permits.
well, who decides if it could be or whether it should be again, who decides this road is not going to be destroyed by 250 trucks a day?
going across it, this is not a 40-fool haughthaul road.
where are they putting 40-foot haul roads in this plan wherever where else but they don't need them to cross this creek?
this is an example of how it seems like there's a disconnect.
well, I understand the staff gets told, and I'm not blaming the staff for this necessarily.
they get told well, we're not going to ip prove this road, so it's not in the jurisdiction.
well, they are also told they are going to use the 250 trucks.
they are also told that they are going do this 24 hours a day, you know, going to be allowed to do maintenance only on this road.
okay, this is my question, which I would like answered.
how many days of 250 trucks is this road going to take before maintenance is required.
and that going to be just more and more gravel dumped in this road?
is that not pollution?
>> can we ask staff to address that.
>> actually, I can confirm that in the plan txi, I'll read the note actually included on the east side project that relates to that roadway.
it states regarding the existing road in the critical water quality zone.
access within the critical water quality zone at this location is limited to the use of existing drive only.
no improvement or development of this drive an authorized without an approved variance from ldc-25-392, referencing city of Austin's environmental code.
the existing drive must remain in its current configuration and maintenance of the drive is restricted to the limits of existing drive only.
the owner contractor shall notify the environmental inspector at 974-2278 of any maintenance to the drive within the critical water quality zone two working days prior to commencing maintenance activities.
it is true that in the permit for this roadway within the critical water quality zone, txi is limited to the existing roadway in its current configuration.
knowing that this was a concern of the neighborhood, I did speak to darvin medder about this roadway crossing specifically.
he did confirm to me that for the existing roadway in its current configuration, maintenance activities of that roadway would not require any additional authority I'dation--authorization from the corps.
no permit required specifically.
I asked him if it turned out that txi wanted to modify this roadway in any form, you know, about corps of engineers authorizations that would be required at that point and we discussed that like any other roadway crossing of waters of the u.s, that 404 permitting would need to be addressed in the appropriate fashion.
the nationwide permits are also available like any other roadway construction, that would also be available for this particular roadway, which allows a disturbance you have up to one half acre underneath the nationwide permit, notice required for any disturbance greater than one tenth of an acre.
so we did talk about this specifically.
but txi has limited themselves to the use of the roadway in its current form, current configuration.
>> let me ask you this, because I think what mr. Mcdonald is going to is if they are using it in its current configuration but their use uses the tar out of it and results in entrainment that then results in some sort of fouling of the creek bed, what is the remedy at that point?
my understanding, and correct me please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the city and county have some regulatory authority to go on site.
and my understanding from the city is that it is their practice to go on site on a regular basis to check for these sorts of runoff issues.
am I off base here?
>> no, certainly would be true that any discharges into the creek would be a matter of enforcement from both of the city of Austin and Travis County.
txi is required to provide two days' notice ahead of any maintenance activities.
certainly as you mentioned, it would be true that city of Austin inspectors and Travis County inspectors would have the right to go look at this crossing.
>> so we would have the right to go on and monitor the condition of that road and the effects of the traffic on that road throughout the mining operation.
>> that is correct.
>> and that should there be a discharge from runoff on that road, we do potentially have prosecutor authority.
I don't mean for you to answer that question.
that is a legal question.
>> thank you.
>> I think this question is really twofold.
that is one of mr. Mcdonald's questions.
I guess he is also looking for what event has to take place for the army corps of engineers to get involved on that road.
especially if it harms m creek.
because it is a jurisdictional situations there.
what will invoke, what will cause the u.s.
army corps of engineers to get involved.
>> if txi causes the road to be in any configuration outside--
>> outside the configuration that exists today.
>> that.
>> and the question is--
>> as to the current level of what it's like now?
>> let me address something about the runoff and our authority in troored this.
tom weber with tnr.
we have added after reviewing this application a note into these plans that require that we receive here at the county the stormwater pollution prevention plan, which we will expect to see how they are going to manage this crossing as well as anything else that is being disturbed in the mined area.
that is something that is subject to our remove.
there's notes in this set of plans as well as what was put in the by the city of Austin, that they will be directed to modify their pollution prevention plans at the bee hest of our inspectors in the field if we note that inadequate or improper practices are undertaken.
so there are, we, with construction sites for development all around the county, it's typical for our inspectors to go and look at the kind of controls that are in place so that trucks running around, whatever property, aren't causing a lot of excessive runoff, erosion, sedimentation.
so this is well within our authority as a ms 4 operator to look at disturbed sites under construction.
>> has that been invoked at this point?
I mean as far as the plans?
>> the stormwater pollution prevention plan has to be provided to us before they undertake their construction activities.
at this time the application materials just discuss generally how they are going to put in place best management practices.
the specificity usually comes later, closer to when they are beginning construction.
there's preconstruction meetings to go over these kinds of things in the field.
>> my question is, when you said with the slide, what happens with this road, 250 trucks a day rumbling through here.
we have already learned these are 55-foot long trucks.
you know, they weigh how many pounds, I don't know.
but I mean, how many days can they run 250 trucks across this road when they are mining phases two and three, which is all in the plan, how many days will it be before they have to maintain this road.
whan will the maintain exist of?
dumping more gravel on there?
another layer?
where does that gravel go down the three days of use that is before it requires maintenance again?
you know.
my question is, you are not connecting part a of the permit to part b.
here ut says, oh, there's no authority over that road because they are not going to improve it.
and yet how can they not improve it?
how can they operate the mine as they say they are going to do if there was a conveyor, and this is what I brought up before.
you were asked how the conveyor is going to be built, how is it going to work.
okay, how is this road going to work with this string of trucks coming across when it's wet like this.
that is my question.
why isn't that question asked.
why are they letting slide on this.
>> mr. Mcdonald, we discussed this before.
I'm with you on this.
the devil is in the details.
I readily admit, some will call this speculation.
I would say the facts support this statement.
that txi has been acid uouk at slanting the permit so that it doesn't invoke authority over this existing road.
and I also readily admit to a high degree of frustration that I cannot blink, dancing on a head of a pin, to any regulatory authority that I possess in advance of the permit being approved.
however, I can draw a very strong, strong link to authority that the county and the city has if they are dancing on the head of a pin projections about the use of that road end up to be as unrealistic as you suspect and I suspect they are.
if they end up being reliant on that haul road to the tune of 750 trucks a day, then our regulatory authority after the fact, our regulatory authority before the fact is abysmally small but our regulatory authority after the fact is comparatively --robust.
>> this is a private or public road?
>> neither, basically an internal haul road.
>> it's one of them.
>> farm road.
>> farm road on the property.
privately owned by txi.
>> it's not a publicly maintained roadway.
>> so it's private road.
but the county under the stormwater management act may have authority if there are drainage road related issues that generate environmental problems. Is that what I'm hearing?
>> that is correct, sir.
>> okay.
>> do we, can the county assess a fee when they go out there to inspect?
>> we don't have any such fees established.
>> so if we have a potential site like this that is problematic, then the taxpayers are going to be paying for county staff time to monitor this for the next 15-30 years.
>> we--
>> apparently.
>> do we have the authority to set a fee.
I guess that is a legal questio.
>> well.
>> there's legislation about stormwater runoff.
and the court addressed the issue of fees recently.
but as to your specific question I have to do some research.
>> I believe those fees were in relation to platting.
correct?
as opposed to this, which is--
>> yeah.
the county court established fees on development permit applications.
and we also provided you some other varieties of fee that would be inspection or reinspection related.
but you may recall that we decided to put those on hold and do a little bit more research over the next several months before coming back to you on that.
>> here is another point of research.
>> if txi would make a note of that issue and address that for us.
basically it's what if you use this private roads to the extent that they become in a state of disrepair and cause drainage issues, is the question, I take it.
mr. Mcdonald?
that is what you were asking?
>> well, I think that is the question according to the county and the regulatory authorities that you seem to have.
but my question is, why isn't it obvious that they are going to use the road when they have stated clearly that they plan on mining all that property to the east of that and that the level they plan on mining it, because they presented all this information about the roadway improvement agreements, so why isn't it--
>> the roadway improvement agreements--
>> public roads.
>> deal with public roads.
these are private roads internal these are private roads that a privately owned and will be privately used if used by txi.
>> right.
>> if they are used to the extent that they create drainage issues, then under the stormwater management act, the county may have authority that we would not have on the permit application before us at this time.
>> but don't they, haven't they already said that they are going to use it to create drainage issues because they have said how many trucks?
>> they are not saying they are going to create drainage issues.
they are saying they are going to use the roads with trucks to transport gravel.
whether or not they create drainage issues is the question.
I don't know that we can answer that today.
poor roads today doesn't mean poor roads tomorrow.
it means poor roads tomorrow unless they are improved.
that is why we need txi to address that issue.
any other questions or comments mr. Mcdonald?
>> mr. Mcdonald, I want to say, to get you to the proper person that can maybe get you some answers, at least we flushed it out as best we could.
thank you.
>> the only other thing that is like I said, to me it's an example, along with what I brought up last week, the roadway agreement is what they have done instead of getting a permit to transport their material over to their processing site.
and what we were told by, annan and teresa last time, was that they had separated that into two permits because they could.
and did they request that?
and did the county just say, oh, okay, you know, in other words, while the court is sitting here talking about their limited authority and how they can't vote this permit down, the staff seems to be, there just seems to be a going along with txi because they request a separate permit down the road instead of know--no, you're going tear up this road.
you need to do something about it, stibblize it or something.
no, this isn't fair for you to not get your pe mitt for the roadway improvements so all the people down the road have a chance to input, so that all the other questions be answered.
that is what I'm saying, if that makes sense.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> good afternoon.
I'm ryan mas, residents of (inaudible).
whether it be hindrance or promotion, today you will take action that will effect the betterment of a blossoming unique community.
what you have seen before you during previous hearings is what you see when you visit our area.
people from all walks of life living in harmony.
the diversity within our community is unparalleled.
I have lived in central Texas my entire life and sadly, I have seen plenty of evidence that shows we not too far removed from the big trithat scars our nation's history.
I am proud of the strides that we are making, beginning the see people for people our client is an ideal example of the achievement that can be made when hate is removed from uneducated beliefs.
our achievements stand threatened.
most of you have expressed opposition to the idea of a Sunday and gravel mine operation add gistant to residences, schools and churches.
we have heard repeatedly about the lack of authority provided to the county by the state, regulation of land use.
we understand these limitations but we also have been misled to a certain degree.
we have an agreement that assures no mining will take place until the roads are capable of enduring the heavy loads carried by large trucks.
in the last page of the last attachment to the agreement, we find that there is an allowance for txi to receive deliveries via large trucks the same type of trucks that these roads are incapable of with standing.
the agreement authority s txi to conduct excavation and fill activities with large noisy machine that has to be brought to the site by large trucks on roads incapable of with standing these vehicles.
the agreement allows txi to billed dirt walls and begin disturbing our lives before they have a design in place to accommodate the transportation of mined materials.
the last time this item was on the agenda we were told by tnr staff that the mining permits were sprated from roadway improvements to allow for a quote/unquote, summer permitting process.
why would the county provide txi with a summer permit--simpler permitting route?
Commissioner Eckhardt pointed out this was outsood the flood plan and as such this warrants separation.
actually each section lies partially or completely within the fema 100 year floodplain.
what is the real reason?
why was Commissioner Eckhardt mic misinformedment the mining tracks are sprated by dunn lap road.
txi plans to gop the east west and dunn lap which are contiguous, in other words, one site.
why the county allowing txi to separate this project into sub projects?
dunn lap road will essentially become the driveway for the mining site.
does the county not usually require driveways be included in site development applications?
sure the county will legally own this road.
but who are we kidding?
with 250 semis a day during ten-hour period, that is about a 18-wheeler passing by every 2.4 minutes.
txi's trucks will dominate that road and impact the county residents living nearby.
please do not assist txi with get go ahead start on destroying our community.
it is reasonable and logical to require txi to have a complete plan in place before allowing them to proceed can with the pladge of this magnitude.
the east west and dunn lap are all connected by the elm creek floodplain which triggers compliance with chapter 64 of the county code which requires all applicable permits be obtained prior to approval of the site development period of time --permit from the county.
the roadway improvement is applicable to the project.
to reiterate mr. Mcdonald's points, dunn lap road is a two-lane county road.
it's well documented that it's not capable of with standing the truck traffic yet this small gravel road passing through a creek, it is not going to be improved whatsoever to accommodate these same trucks.
how about the fact that in order to get to the other side of this creek they have to use this road to carry not only the mine materials back but they also have to use this road to carry construction materials and machinery to the site to start the construction.
how is that outside the limits of construction?
they are using this road to carry construction materials and machinery.
that is part of the construction process and sequencing.
if this were on a public authority fare--thorough fare there would be a traffic plan.
parts of the limits of construction and should be shown on the plans as shutch--such.
a simple motion to require txi to submit one complete permit application is our request.
why not make sure these roadway improvements and other improvements are feasible before allowing txi to impact so many for the sake of so few.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> hello.
my name is karla bright.
I sell the new homes.
we have about a hundred sold and we have 400 to go.
I'm back again to talk to you guys, telling you I have lost more sales again.
and txi has not even come to town yet.
I have got the most affordable housing in Austin.
I have 89,000 new construction homes.
I'm selling them to cute little first time home buyers with little babies trying to realize the american dream.
I just don't understand this txi thing.
I don't get it.
I don't think anybody on this board would want txi next to their personal residence.
I don't know anything about your powers, but I'm told that you guys can't regulate land use.
tie the permits together.
tie the road improvement together.
with txi's mining project.
it's like they are making their own parameters for their permit and telling you guys what to do.
what happened to the conveyor belt?
it became too difficult for them so they scrap it and you guys say, okay, it's cool.
I just don't understand.
it's like you're going to take these guys' word for it on this road improvement.
they haven't even put it up to Texas dot.
when it gets to the corner of 969 and dunn lop, that is Texas dot turf.
they are telling you guys what they are going to do and they don't have approval from tex dot.
you say you have no power but you can tie the permits together.
when I sold jeanette kin cade her house she had this little baby.
now she has this little two-year-old trucking around the neighborhood walking.
when I see her outside my mold home walking her little baby around and I look in the distance and see this gorgeous farmland and think about 250 trucks barreling down that road, I mean, I don't understand.
when is the discrimination and environmental racism going to end in east Austin?
when does it stop?
does it stop with you guys?
this Commissioners court?
or is this the next guy's?
when does it end.
when are you guys going to stand up to txi.
I know none of you think it's a good idea.
but y'all are smart.
I mean, come on.
it's got stop somewhere.
and it will.
is it going to be with you guys?
it's like the tail is wagging the dog.
if I were txi and this is the kind of road we are going to do, and this is what we are going to do and we're going to tell you guys we're going to make these road improvements before mining, but once you guys give them the green light, how do you know?
I mean, it's personal.
you know?
these guys, why does the property values never appreciate in east Austin?.
they have gone up all over town.
why not east?.
why are there only $1 00,000 neighborhoods in east Austin, not $200,000 neighborhoods?
because you got businesses like txi coming in.
and the property values never go up.
I hop it stops with you guys.
I hope it stops today.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I have a question.
>> okay.
>> I just like to see a show of hands in this courtroom of anyone who would like to live in a subdivision adjacentant to a gravel and sand mining operation.
if you would like to live next to it, raise your hand.
let the record reflect I saw no hands raised.
>> not even from txi.
>> not even from txi.
>> big surprise.
my name is nancy goodman.
I live in the subdivision east of the 969 dunn lap road intersection.
every morning I leave for work in town at 6:30.
the gravel haulers don't stay in their lane.
they are going east to webberville and I'm going west to town.
they will have to improve that road.
no doubt in my mind.
I have been out there for ten years.
there have been as many wrecks in that, at least one a year.
until they put up the things on the side, the guardrails.
and they went flying into decker creek.
there is no way that they can handle that intersection can handle that.
nor do the trucks stay in their lanes.
it's a blind curve.
absolutely blind both ways.
I don't think they will get the approval to widen that road mainly because some of it is privately owned.
they would have to take enough over to widen that road that other property owners might not sell that.
that is in conjunction with what everybody else has said.
but I would also like to remind the court, these are contract truck drivers.
txi has no control over what these drivers do or don't do.
so can they come back to, we say the truckers have ruined this private road.
they can say, can they come back to us and say, oh, no, they are contract truck drivers.
they ruined dunn lap road.
oh, these are contract truck drivers.
do we have any authority after that?
they are not destroying the roads.
it's these contract truck drivers that are destroying the roads.
who is responsibility?
that is all I have to say.
>> the traffic impact analysis take into consideration only txi truck drivers, or the total impact on the road irrespective of whether the driver was a contract truck or txi truck?
>> it included all traffic on fm 969 including the txi traffic.
>> comments from anybody whether has not spoken yet?
let's get txi to address, I guess, the questions.
(change in captioner.)
>> but the road, there is a road that crosses from capital assets over to balm road at 183.
that road has a bridge across colorado river.
the u.s.
army corps of engineers and other permit approvers raised the dickins about that bridge across the colorado river, which does not serve any public citizens, and the violations that are established relative to it, I think, apply with regard to the question that sarah Eckhardt was addressing.
I think that the precedence is there, and I think that you have some history in the community.
judy holden raised the question about the land above this being corps up and that you're moving in on a new area.
, and that your crossing a creek if you remove this permit.
your previous people dealt with a permit and questions and enforcement regulatory questions relative to that bridge across the colorado river that you can see.
look at the google, google it yourself, bring it up.
you see the bridge in the google maps.
now, you cannot even ride a bicycle across that river bridge today because you will be castigated and run off.
now, if you think you will have citizens being able to monitor this creek, I want it written into the very fine -- very clear, that bicycle riders will be able to ride across the bridge across that creek.
thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Cohen.
in response to the issues raised about the truck traffic --
>> judge and Commissioners for the record, I'm henry gilmore representing the applicant.
first of all, let me say that we have addressed the 404 core issues that were raised by the court last time.
we've had a site visit.
you have a letter from the chief of the regulatory branch of the corps saying that there are no jurisdictional issues.
we met all of your county requirements and all of the other requirements.
we have addressed roadway issues through a roadway improvement agreement that was negotiated with your staff in pains-taking detail.
we meet all of your requirements.
this is our fifth time up here.
we respectfully request approval.
and I'll let johnny address the internal roadway issues.
>> thank you.
my name is john joseph.
I'm an attorney with clark, thomas, winters, and one of the attorneys representing txi.
the application has been reviewed by the -- both applications have been reviewed by the city of Austin and it meets all the applicable city of Austin ordinance requirements.
with respect to the internal roadway issue, I have to agree with Commissioner Eckhardt that the issue really is an issue --
>> dear god, don't say you're agreeing with me, john.
>> it is a regulatory issue, not a permitting issue.
>> but it's not a permitting issue because txi put down in their plans, and I applaud mr. Mcdonald for pointing this out to me, it's a 40-foot road based on what you all feel you need.
but then it goes down to a dirt road where you feel you would call down upon the regulatory authority as you cross elm creek, then goes back to a 40-foot haul road on the other side of the creek.
the only implication that could be reasonably be drawn to that is you all really feel you need a 40-foot haul road but because it would bring down regulatory authority you're going to leave it as a dirt road across the creek.
>> but we have to, nevertheless, operate that road in a manner that is consistent with the city of Austin applicable and Travis County applicable regulations and we do that.
>> to that extent I agree with you.
we have a hammer to bring down if it turns out you really need the 40 feet in that dirt road space because if you really do need the 40 feet, the city of Austin or Travis County will be able to detect that rather quickly.
>> and that's what we intended.
>> so I think -- let me ask you --
>> in other words, it appears to me this is the way it should have been laid out a long time ago.
>> it hasn't changed.
>> hold on.
we have had discussions about this for a long time.
there have been community meetings held at hotels out at the aba.
there have been community meetings held at the -- at different times and phases, and none of this stuff was ever brought up.
what happened here today is the discovery that citizens have raised and brought it to the attention of what's actually going on in some of these instances.
you did not volunteer and bring this information to the court.
you didn't.
now --
>> what information is that, Commissioner?
>> well, may I ask another -- may I ask another question?
I mean, I agree with Travis County staff, that we do not have, and I dealer wish we did, and I know that this is completely unacceptable to the citizens and frankly it's unacceptable to me, that I don't have the authority to -- the permitting authority we have is with regard to whether you all are going to increase the probability of flooding on this piece of property.
it's not about your internal roads.
I really can't -- I can't really question your internal roads, except to the extent that Travis County and the city of Austin with regulate your use of them afterward.
but still, you've essentially answered the internal haul road question, not that the answer thrills me, but it is -- I can't change the facts.
but I would like to know -- I would like you all to tell the court, as well as the citizens, your intentions with regard to the conveyor belt.
because that has a bearing on these haul roads.
>> it does.
>> what's the question?
>> what is txi's intention with regard to pursuit of the conveyor belts, particularly as it pertains to this haul road and the use of this haul road, but generally as it pertains to the operations of the site?
now, I'm asking this question, but I want to manage expectations here.
no matter what your response is with regard to your intentions on the conveyor belt, I can't base my decision on the floodplain wermt on your -- perr response with your intentions to the conveyor belt.
>> do you want to answer that?
>> let me -- whatever changes were to occur in the haul road, on the haul road, or whatever changes in the site plans that were required or requested, it had the effect of affecting the critical water quality zone, would have to go through a new permitting process, and would have to meet applicable development regulations with the county and the city, and if that required a variance, those would have to be obtained.
and so I would imagine that the intention of txi would be to comply with the applicable rules and regulations for the use of their property, whether it be with an expansion of the haul road and it required a variance, or a conveyor if it required a variance.
>> mr. Osborne, what are the intentions of txi with regard to pursuing a conveyor belt?
>> Commissioner Eckhardt, we have discussed this, I think, with you and probably a couple other Commissioners on several other occasions.
and our position at this point hasn't changed.
we haven't made a decision in that regard.
the conveyor system is still under consideration, as are a couple of other options we're looking at and we're not at a point to make a decision on that right now.
>> so a full five-mile conveyor belt -- let's go backwards in time.
one time you were considering the conveyor belt, very strongly, and of course, what, four or five mile -- how many?
I can't recall the exact --
>> about four miles.
>> about four miles, conveyor belt.
and of course then I ask staff, and, staff, if you will help me out, when was -- what time was it considered, and then it was not considered?
when was it not considered as far as -- consideration as far as the conveyor belt is concerned, for txi?
only brought to our attention?
>> I believe it was like towards the end of last year.
>> toward the end of last year.
now you're telling us today, well, you know, we don't -- I'm having a lot of -- lot of concerns here because of inconsistency about what the communicate is saying, what you're saying, and looks like it's a lot of flip flopping going on, flip flopping from one position one day to another position, you want me to make a decision -- I'm going to vote no again on this issue.
but let me say this -- let me ask a couple of questions.
and the -- I'm concerned about emissions.
today we got a very good, thorough overview from the epa -- well, not epa necessarily, but recommendations that we've got to take back to the epa to hear what we can do as far as some of our ozone emissions here within the region.
but there is some concern that I brought up, and concern that don and judy holden brought up some time ago.
they talked about particular matter, the microns.
they talked about that.
and how they can be ingested, you know, it's a health -- it's a public safety thing.
it's a public safety issue we're talking about here.
we've heard testimony coming from churches, we've heard testimony coming from the persons that have children attending schools.
we heard testimony that future schools will be built in this area, and yet we are also looking at the emissions of particular matter, and especially if the standard of those particular matters at 2.5-microns, which is the standard, which really poses a health problem, especially in proximity.
we also talked about emission of diesel trucks who emit noxious oxide, which is particular matter and something that messes around with the ozone.
my question to you, do you have a site in operation today that -- whereby you have monitoring devices that can determine the particular matter, especially if it's in close proximity with residents such as a subdivision, a church, a school?
I think about the young lady that spoke earlier, and she talked about the houses being lowered down to $89,000, but she talked about some children also, vulnerable persons.
I think about those children out there that are subjected to probably bad health conditions because of matter, those microns, dust and other things, those things that can enter the lungs and cause some very, very serious problems, fine solids, that's what it is, fine solids.
my question is: do you have any site right now that you monitor the particular matter of those sites in the state of Texas?
>> Commissioner Davis, are you representing aggregate science or any sites?
>> any site.
>> any, whether it's aggregate or otherwise?
>> I'm talking about just what I've stated, the particular matter.
>> I'm not aware that we have any aggregate sites that has that type of monitoring.
we may have, but if we do we're not aware of them.
but txi does have other operations that are monitored, yes, sir.
>> but the current site right now, does it have monitoring capability?
>> the Austin sites?
>> yeah.
>> are you asking if it's monitored or --
>> yes, right now, for matter.
>> I'm not aware that it is, no, sir.
>> okay.
well, my concern is what the residents are concerned -- have a great concern, and a lot of these things are under public health.
even the epa is looking at lowering standards, to do what?
why do you want to lower standards to parts per billion to jows ozone?
but also, with that particular evaluation, also, the particular companies and the particular industries that are here involved in this are going to have to take this very seriously.
and -- but it all resolves around public health.
the young lady also spoke about racism, a term that I'm very familiar with.
refer end benjamin chavez came up with that term years ago, and part of that came from the -- an example, the tank form, the closure of that.
I'd like to express to that young lady that spoke.
we looked at all of the unwanted things, undesirable things, that are happening in Travis County.
precinct one has more of those undesirable things, landfills, regional solid waste type situations.
txi, a whole bunch, array of things that wouldn't even be acceptable in anybody else's area in this city.
but precinct 1 is leading that category, even with the treatment, treatment plants.
so what we're saying to you is that I can understand their position.
they're wondering about their quality of life as they do anywhere else in the city.
and it's up to us, I think, to protect the public health of the people of this county.
that's my job.
that is my job, just as it is your job to represent your clients.
I feel very strongly about mine, as you probably feel about yours.
and I'm just as committed to do what I need to do.
and I'm not going to support this that's the first thing I can do is not support it.
so I'm just wanting to lay that out, as far as at the missions.
I'd be very curious to know exactly what those particular matters are around the site, and also the 250 trucks that would be leaving going up and down those roads, emit noxious of course I'd, which is a particulate matter.
so you can understand why folks feel so strongly about this.
Commissioner Huber asked a question, who is this and you is audience would like to have this next to them?
and not one person in this building, in this room, raised their hands.
not a one.
not a one.
thank you.
>> is there a need for us to -- do we think we've already had all of our legal questions answered?
>> I've had all my legal questions answered but I just have one other question of the txi representative.
>> okay.
>> we had discussed before, both publicly and in meetings, the possibility of a third-party mediated -- what's called an interspace negotiation between the txi -- between representatives of txi and the neighbors, and perhaps the establishment of an ongoing relationship between txi and the neighbors, should this mine go in.
and I wanted again to ask txi, in this case I would ask mr. Osborne because although I respect the lawyers hired by txi, it is really txi as an entity that I'm asking about the commitment to an interspace negotiation, perhaps in a time-certain time frame, and then subsequent to that, an ongoing relationship throughout the mining operation.
>> judge, could we have just a second?
>> yes, sir.
>> do you need with chat with lawyers or have you got our legal questions answered?
>> I think most of the questions have been answered, not only about this, this particular project, but about other projects that come across the desk.
all of them entail us not having the land use authority and the ordinance making power, that we go to the legislature and ask for every time the legislature is in town.
and so this is not something new here.
and -- but I think it is -- it's clearly the lack of having that authority creates a clear example of a conflict that doesn't give us all of the tools with which to make -- know the best decision, but the fact that it's conflict, though, calls on the county, as well as the neighbors and the participants to kind of sit down and negotiate a real long-lasting solution.
and so it's not because of our lack of trying to talk to the ledge legislators.
I've been with the county since 1973 and all of those Commissioners courts have gone to the legislature asking for this authority.
for some reason, they never thought -- they never have given it to counties, whether you're a small county, a large county, whether you're a growing county, and they just kind of all put us all together.
so I think that what I have found from my experience is that we have a true conflict, and the only way to handle conflicts is to sit down and negotiate a solution that is long-lasting and will apply to all parties.
>> Commissioner?
>> I've made a misquote.
precinct 4 has significant of those things also.
>> sure.
>> I wasn't trying to slight you.
>> no, I didn't feel slighted.
>> I just wanted to let you know, east of i-35, let me put it like that, we've got both of us right there.
I just wanted to let you know that.
>> yeah.
>> yes.
I'd like to respond to Commissioner Eckhardt's question.
and first of all, txi priedz itself in being a good corporate citizen, and I think our history shows that.
we certainly are concerned about our neighbors and working with our neighbors.
I think the exercise that txi has gone through in this process also points that up, the public meetings that we've had, the website that we've set up, the direct lines we've sipt, we've gone far beyond what was required of us either by the city, the county, or the state in order to try to address concerns of the citizens.
as I have talked with a couple of you in the past, and also in a letter that was written to this court regarding continuing discussions with our neighbors.
txi is certainly willing to continue that communication and address concerns or questions from the community.
and we certainly are willing to sit down and visit with those neighbors, representatives of the court, or whoever might be designated in that respect.
and we're certainly willing to look at solutions.
we're not in a position to make any commitments at this point until we know what that's parameters are, but we are, as we stated in the letter, certainly willing to continue discussions.
>> you --
>> question?
>> the answer is the answer.
multiple multiple.
>> we'll come back to you, the Commissioner day of the.
>> you said you're good corporate citizens, and your interpretations of the law are skewed in your favorite.
when you've got 250 to 750 18-wheelers a day contributing to the ozone county, which translates roughly to what's coming off mopac today, are you going to be good corporate citizens and work with this area to deal with our nonattainment?
>> we will certainly do our part, Commissioner Huber, and we are aware of those potential issues out there.
we also have a record of being compliant.
we intend to be compliant, and if it is determined that there is issue with us, we're certainly willing to address that.
>> okay.
mr. Davis?
>> judge, the last session at the legislature, state legislature, house bill 4175 that was sponsored by belinda bolton, buffer tony parker of tf legislation.
it kind.
gives us a projection of where things could locate as far as industries separating themselves from residential or whatever, it's just giving us a more hands-on buffer type scenario.
that particular bill went through committees, and it ended up on the calendar, but it died in calendar that really would have helped the counties have some type of say as far as where things are located as far as buffering is concerned.
you heard me mention the churches.
you heard me mention the schools.
you heard me mention the residents.
you heard me mention the health concerns of the citizens of this community, which -- but at the end of the day, it would be very, very, very helpful, I think, for you to understand that the county does not have the power to bring off such protections unless it's blessed and passed by this legislature.
hopefully, this coming session it will get out a calendar and there will be a vote on land use -- granting land use to counties, most of them we have now.
hopefully.
it's going to take a lot of hard work to make that happen.
I know there are persons that are involved in making sure it doesn't happen.
but somewhere along the line in this business, the voice of the people are going to be heard by elected officials who will grant authority, all the way down to the local level where the government is the closest to the people, is the local government.
somewhere along the line, the people are going to be heard in this business.
somewhere along the line.
and I hope it's during my tenure or tenures that I need to see that come to pass on this travis Commissioner's court.
I'm very concerned about it, and again, I've said all the things I possibly can say about this.
and still in the vein of opposing such a situation because we don't have -- we don't have authority to dictate a lot of continuation that need to be in place.
thank you.
>> thank you very much, txi representatives.
>> where does the city of Austin stand today on this application?
>> it's my understanding that the city is ready to approve this application, pending for them recording some drainage eastments, that as soon as we take action here, my understanding that those easements will be recorded, and then the city will be able to sign.
>> and do the applications before us meet county policy?
>> yes, sir.
we believe these meet all county policy.
>> okay.
we have had this matter on the court's agenda with citizen participation four or five times.
before that, we were briefed by our lawyers two to three times, and almost every time since we've had it since, except for today.
the lack of this authority became clear scores ago.
and we've debated it for at least the last 15 or 20 years, and every time the legislature has come to town, we've got over and asked for additional authority.
so the lack of authority did not surprise us.
it was clear, it seems to me from the beginning, that we did not.
several issues surfaced that involved other agencies with a lot more authority than we, i.e., the, you know, u.s.
army corps of engineers, and we didn't know what the situation was with that.
and I think it was prudent for us to wait and let them make their call, and they have made it.
and so in my view, part of holding this job is doing stuff that I don't necessarily like to do.
but the oath of office says that I will follow policies and I will follow the law.
and it seems to me that every legal opinion that we've gotten from in-house and outside lawyers has basically been to the conclusion that we don't have the authority to deny this and hold it.
clearly, we can vote against it, but we cannot make that vote stick, is what we are told.
and there is a good question, I wouldn't like for this to be next-door to me.
but I can say that about 99% of the projects that come before the court, that I don't like.
and the question every time is, have county policies been met?
we put policies in place to regulate the authority that we have, to let people know in advance what standards will apply.
we have to look to the state government, federal government, and see if there are restrictions placed against us.
and more often than not, there are.
and we have to comply with those.
that comes with the job.
and so, unfortunately, though, in my view, you know, this is a pretty clear case of where the county policies have been complied with and nothing in state law gives us the authority to turn it down and make it stick.
and, you know, I hate to say that, but it's a fact, and I think it's a good statement of legal standings that we have to comply with.
with that, I move that we approve the two applications before us and the transportation agreement.
is there a second?
>> second.
>> I'd like to make a substitute motion.
>> yes, sir.
>> substitute motion is to deny the application, 2a and b.
>> second.
>> substitute motion is to deny the site applications in a 2a and, road improvement agreement, and second.
any discussion of that motion?
procedurally, we would vote on the substitute motion first.
any more discussion of that?
all in favor of the substitute motion, please raise your right hand.
Commissioner Davis in favor and Commissioner Huber in favor of it.
all against the substitute motion, raise your right hand.
Commissioner Eckhardt votes against, judge Biscoe votes against, and Commissioner Gomez votes against.
we're back to the original motion which is to approve the applications in a 2a and the road agreement in b.
any discussion of that motion?
all in favor of that motion, raise your right hand.
Commissioner Eckhardt votes in favor, Commissioner Gomez votes in favor, the county judge votes in favor.
all against, Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Huber vote against.
>> mr. Davis.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Commissioner Davis votes against, Commissioner Huber votes against.
>> thank you.
>> sorry about that.
in fact, I can't remember what I said, but motion carried by a vote of 3 to 2.
now, notwithstanding the fact that we do not have the authority to block the application, it does seem to me that we have the authority to do some monitoring, and Commissioner Eckhardt has been studying this matter and has met with the city of Austin representatives and my motion would be for us to indicate to the city, Commissioner Eckhardt follow this one, that we think we ought to do this and ought to do it generally speaking but with an intention to apply it to txi as soon as possible, at the appropriate time, we decide whether or not we want txi's involvement and if we do, we'll communicate with them.
and with not, we'll get this done on our own without txi, but working with other governmental entities willing to do it.
>> yes, sir.
>> I think also that this letter that's on this monitoring item, the letter itself came from the assistant city manager.
you know, we are elected officials, and I like to hear from other elected officials that's over the city government.
my take on this is, why can't the city council itself, an elected body who's accountable to the people of travis -- well, the city of Austin, this is in their etj, it appears to me this should go before the city council and get a letter from the city council, you know, just to what you're trying to do.
not that I'm necessarily agreeing with it.
but I just think I would like to answer to a city council person, not a city staff person.
>> yes, sir.
you're absolutely right.
it's an excellent suggestion.
I have spoken with most of the city council, and have gotten nothing but enthusiastic response from them.
my choice to go to management at this point was actually to facilitate moving forward even in advance of any city council action.
and sue edwards sent me another e-mail this morning, again communicating city management's willingness and enthusiasm to participate.
and our thinking was that it would be most expeditious to go to city management first, since we do have a joint office, and we already have regulatory apparatus in place at the county and at the city that could start working immediately together in putting together protocols for monitoring.
we will be moving forward with a brainstorming session between Travis County staff and city staff, and my thought was simply that we could be much speedier, and it wouldn't impinge upon the city council.
but it's a point exceedingly well taken, and I will make the request to city council members to bring agenda items, and would welcome the support of the other members of the Commissioners court in absence of that.
>> well, it seems to me that the motion really is to pursue partnerships, and I think it's so general that at the appropriate time in the future when we have something more specific, it will be the time to go to city council.
but I do think we should go ahead and put this in place.
and there are some things that we can do, really, to address the complaints that were raised, and I think we ought to.
and they will cost.
and to me the biggest question is, does the partnership include the regulatory -- the regulated industry, or does it simply include the governmental entities that are impacted by the operation?
and, you know, on one -- there are advantages to each.
I think at some point we do have to address that before we act on it.
but the intention here is for us too good and start moving in this direction and try to do something that would help us.
okay?
>> excuse me, judge.
could I comment on the -- this item?
>> okay.
real general.
it's just to pursue partnerships to monitor.
>> yes, sir.
>> go ahead.
>> as you know, we discussed opportunities for outside funding, even though I don't consider tax money free money, but, you know, that scott johnson brought up at the last meeting, instead of intending county funds or city funds, look for other funds through the feds or state to address the funding of this.
but I certainly would oppose spending any city or county dollars on something that's caused by a private industry in our community, especially with the devastating effects that Commissioner Huber brought up with them being possibly a cause of us not reaching attainment.
but I'm just saying on the record, I'm opposed to the city or county spending funts on this matter, but I do think that there there are funds that they can get through some of the multiple agencies and programs out there that I would prefer the county to exhaust all efforts to use other funds.
thank you.
>> the point about getting money from elsewhere is well taken, and I think we certainly ought to do that.
but I don't rule out spending city and county money.
in fact, if you want an objective, untainted monitoring process, often you've got to fund it yourself.
in my view, it makes more sense to monitor up front so you can avoid or diminish devastating consequences, makes more sense to do it up front than it does behind.
yes, mr. Cohen.
>> yes.
Sunday, the tenth, I spoke with lara more morrisson, city council lady.
she said the city of Austin does not make decisions about what happens in the county.
I admire the fact that this motion is before the commission right now.
there needs to be -- if one -- if one city council person, if it's only one, and I think that there's about four that don't believe that the county is making -- the city is making a decision about what happens in the county.
>> does she -- was she clear on --
>> exactly.
>> you including the city etj?
>> yes.
yes.
yes.
and I urge that you -- that you take that into consideration.
I spoke with this city council person at the first unitarian universalist church that's been a public forum for 50-something years, and lara was there addressing the forum and the tv audience that goes with it.
it is urgent --
>> this is to pursue monitoring.
so your point is well taken.
we'll keep that in mind.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
any more discussion?
this is a general level, let's pursue getting partners to monitor.
we don't say where we'll monitor, we don't say what, but we do have in our minds objections that were raised by residents and it seems to me we ought to start with that list and do the best we can.
>> and this will not be the lat --industrial user that is attempting to locate in a preexisting neighborhood or near some other sensitive receptor.
so this has a broader -- certainly txi would be a site right for monitoring.
>> I apologize.
I know you're trying to put this to rest.
just food for thought.
there is currently at txi operation, the harold green facility.
it's located about 500 feet west of our current neighborhood.
it would be a great place to get this monitoring project off the ground and get going.
>> excellent suggestion.
thank you.
excellent suggestion.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor.
so Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber voting in favor.
let me ask, in the discussion earlier that we had, one thing I did ask was if this monitoring was set up, could it be set up around the current site?
because this is where all the activity is going to take place.
so my point of view is still that is it going to actually take place right there at the current site?
that's my question.
secondly, I need to see particularly something in writing from the city council persons, and I know you said it's not an issue, but it is an issue for me, city council persons agreeing to this particular movement.
and that's definitely two issues that I need to address.
so I want to make sure that you all understand where I'm coming from on this.
not that I'm not agreeing with you, not -- but it's just some -- it's some loose ends.
>> we understand.
are you abstaining?
>> I'm abstaining at this time until it comes back with an official city council persons who's all for it and that it's located at the current site.
>> okay.
>> until those things are done -- 1,
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:
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:41 PM
