Travis County Commssioners Court
November 19, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 2
2. Consider posting of notice of intent to adopt an ordinance regulating
the siting of solid waste facilities, excluding certain types of landfills,
and take appropriate action.
>> yes, sir. Judge, as you know, we have -- this has been
before the commissioners court, this particular item for a number of months.
We have invested a lot of time and staff, this commissioners court, and of
course I don't know -- there was an article I think in today's money market
magazine about Austin being one of the leading cities, I think number 8 I
think as far as one of the places to live. But ashly because of the quality
of life. Essentially because of the quality of life. We have struggled with
trying to ensure that Austin tips to have a high level of quality of life
throughout all of Travis County. Just not Austin. But throughout all of the
county. Of course we are looking at this ordinance, how it will affect the
unincorporated areas of Travis County. And of course in doing so, I felt that
it was time necessary -- the timing of this to go ahead and place this particular
item back on the agenda and the only exclusion with the particular ordinance
as it was drafted before and where it came before us, as we fine tuned it
as much as possible, the absence of landfill the language has been deleted
from this particular ordinance. So basically we have brought back the -- the
information which is inclusive as far as adding minor facilities are and also
major solid waste facility and at this time if staff can basically just go
through briefly where we are with what we have here before us as far as the
posting of the around and the things that are contained -- and the things
that are contained in this particular ordinance, if staff could briefly walk
through it. If you would allow staff to do that at this time I would really
appreciate it, so they can just proceed and go forward.
>> I have some procedural questions here before we get into
this.
>> okay.
>> Margaret, do you want to go first?
>> well, I guess -- yeah, I feel like i've spent nine months
on this issue and I guess I'm still at a point where I wonder how much of
this we really need. We started out with an ordinance to address the -- the
sludge in all of those folks who had -- were trying to come on board now.
And that's what we were -- I think started out to address. And what I want
from staff is some kind of explanation as to where we are headed, what was
-- like what is the latest material that we are looking at, tom? So that we
can -- we can, you know, know where we are after nine months of -- of deliberation
on this thing. And the other thing that I guess I'm kind of fuzzy about is
-- is what exactly are we addressing here and do we need to include the landfills
that are existing already in order to -- to come up with -- with an ordinance?
I have this feeling that we threw everything into the mix, and -- in an effort
to address landfills when we started out trying to address something else.
That doesn't make me feel very comfortable. I kind of feel like we -- we need
to go back and see what it is -- what was the original purpose for this discussion.
And we move everything that makes it fuzzy. And let's address what really
needs adding. And I -- I don't want to spend another nine months on this.
So I don't think that I'm prepared to -- to jump into this today. Until we
get a briefing from staff, both staff and county attorney's office as to what
exactly happened here -- we have going way out this way when we were right
here trying to address sludge. And some of the other new businesses are coming
in that were -- in -- in contrast in conflict with the fema ordinance and
the health and safety code. I really think we went way out there somewhere.
And so -- so until I get that kind of information, I would suggest that we
table this discussion. And -- or this item and that we do that sometime after
January, once I'm clear as to what we feed to do.
>> -- what we need to do.
>> I respect your comments, commissioner.
>> thank you.
>> however, let me -- let me tell you what's going on. From
my perspective -- at this time, this county is growing, it really is, and
facilities solid waste facilities grow -- we have been piecemealing different
swayings with the sludge, I can still remember the time that dr. Lawless came
here with the group that were composting dead animals in -- [inaudible] pretty
close, the place was full of folks down here testifying, what can you do,
what can you do about these things. I have had occurrences piece peeled in
isn't -- mealed in precinct 1, on a piece male by piecemeal basis. There has
to be orderly development regardless of where you live in the unincorporated
areas. There has to be those -- order developed. Meaning this: when we talk
about this particular ordinance as addressing this, landfills, but this particular
ordinance does not landfills, per se. You have said excluding certain types
of landfill, that's on the agenda's language. What that means is that we have
done some solid waste facilities such as recycling facilities, a setback from
a number of feet those units in the boundary line of those units from the
defined areas that we define such as schools, park, places of worship, historic
sightings, things that health care facilities, because they are coming, this
growth is coming, and so -- but again it has to be orderly to define development.
This ordinance will, I think, goat us in that direction. -- get us in that
direction. Whereas we look at major facility, which are those type of facilities
that basically deal with registration andments identification -- and also
identification, those are the ones that the composting operations that your
precinct, the precincts that I have been dealing with, in precinct 1, and
we have had to continue to piecemeal and piecemeal and piecemeal and piecemeal
as we go through this process. This ordinance is addressing those type of
facilities. And I think that it is a step in the right direction to ensure
that not only the recharge zone at barton springs is protected, from such
type of -- of facility operations as far as setbacks are concerned, but [inaudible]
aquifer, we are talking about the northern parts of the edward's aquifer.
So we are talking about not only that -- not only are we talking about water
protection, we are talking about protection of our public water wells, we
have to do something to give the people insurance of where you locate if you
want to locate in the urban, in the unincorporated area of Travis County,
here you are here, there's your home there, you are living in a subdivision,
there's a school there, right next door you get a composting operation that
-- that processes dead animals, that is not compatible. This ordinance will
at least bring some type of guidelines and regulations as far as setbacks
to -- to ensure that we have orderly development within all of Travis County.
I know we spent nine months on it. But we have to end up somewhere. If not
now, then when? If not now, then when? I think we've all had a long time to
look at this ordinance. We went through this orders, we looked at the definitions.
Businesses in there were deleted out as far as giving them the kind of protection,
but that was deleted. We defined worship places, that was redefined. So all
of those things that we have done as far as definitions have been done. Another
thing to do today is continue the effort and get something on the books, get
something going whereby the posting of the ordinance itself should suffice.
I think the folks in Travis County and the unincorporated of Travis County
need some type of relief or assurance that if they design or build a -- structures
in the area, they will be guaranteed that there will be certain setbacks that
they can be comfortable with. Otherwise, it's not compatible.
>> did you all remember those questions and answers?
>> from commissioner Gomez?
>> right.
>> yes, sir.
>> and any answers?
>> certainly. Certainly. This is your golden opportunity
there, john.
>> thank you, john cool, environmental officer, Travis County.
Good morning, judge, commissioner. Everything that commissioner Davis has
gone over is accurate in terms of the drafting of the language that you see
in front of you. In terms of history and where we went one way or another,
I guess I will remind you, it's been actually about 12 months. On this particular
ordinance. Did you have a question, commissioner Sonleitner.
>> I'm curious about something that you said there in the
drafting of this ordinance, the last time that I checked there was a vote
of this commissioners court and a majority of people who said what direction
to take in terms of the drafting of the next version of this. And I don't
remember a vote of this court saying take out the word landfills we are only
going to concentrate on major and minor facilities. I don't remember that
direction coming from this court. So that was the biggest shock for me is
that there is an ordinance being put forward which is in direct contradiction
to the last instructions and now mr. Daugherty coming on board I have to respect
the fact that there is a new member coming on board here and this court needs
to again speak with its voice and votes to say what direction we are going.
But this was none of the above and didn't even have a staff memo with it that
explained how this was consistent or as it turns out wholely inconsistent
with the last instructions, last time I checked, three votes is what it takes
to get direction moving on something. This is none of the above.
>> you are absolutely correct.
>> thank you.
>> the vote of the court was basically for us to try to --
to work out agreements with the landfills.
>> that's right.
>> and to be honest, the county judge took a leadership role
in that effort. And worked with the landfills and county staff up until we
got heavily involved in the budget process and then we got involved in the
vacations, then we got involved in the election. And so the big question is
whether we go back and try to pick up those negotiations and if so when. At
the same time there is a right to post an agenda item.
>> thank you, judge.
>> this item is not a follow-up to action that we took.
>> that was not made clear, judge. It reads as though it
is the movement of this court to move on ahead with what people thought was
the next logical step and it is none of the above. I think that was not only
unfair to the public, but also very unfair to members of this court in terms
of -- of going in different direction and not giving us any notice that this
-- that this was being opened back up for discussion.
>> the problem, though, commissioner, with that is that it's
-- it really has been a stagnant stalling point in the placement of some guidance
from this court on the agenda to get those type of equally of life issues
that we deal with. Now, we have not -- as we speak here now, there's things
that are going on out there that we don't even maybe not even know about.
But I do know that we have to continue to address things in a piecemeal setting
whereby an ordinance would take care of this. Now, I don't know what happened
as far as the -- as far as the agreement situation, whether it fell through
or whether it would be something that we can deal with or not. But I do know
that I did not support the agreement. By law I can elect to put anything on
the agenda that I feel is very important and very pressing to protect the
quality of life and I think it's very important to me. To protect the quality
of life for all of the residents of Travis County. Of course these things
here that have been placed as far as the ordinance is concerned did not even
address the operating agreements, anything like that. That's something distinct
and apart, that's why it was excluded off of this here. In other words the
things that we are looking at now we basically had agreement on. We did not
disagree with what we have here now in this particular ordinance, there was
no disagreement in that.
>> we never really, to be honest, though, we have not taken
action on the changes that were negotiated and it seems to me that -- that
the question now is whether there is a motion for us to consider an ordinance
that pulls out landfills and enables us to get with other matters. Is that
your motion?
>> yes, it is, judge. In fact I would like to even maybe
go with the language --
>> okay.
>> this language here.
>> all right.
>> the language would be to post the notice of intent to
adopt an ordinance regulating the siting of solid waste facilities, excluding,
excluding -- certain types of landfills for 30 days and that a public hearing
be set for -- for January 21, 2003 at 9:00 a.m., At 214 west 11th street,
the granger building, that's -- for the public hearing. And the reason for
this -- is that -- when we went through this process, if you go through this
particular ordinance and as we have gone through it many times, these are
the things that this court has agreed on. We have changed, we have modified
the definition, the concerns that were brought to us from the public, the
setbacks, the number of foat and all of these -- the number of feet, all of
these other things for recharge zones, from schools, from daycare center,
all of these setbacks from neighborhoods have been agree odd this court as
we went through this process. The things that we disagreed on is the concept
of the landfills. This is why it's excluding landfill language. This is just
the reason why this is. It's been proposed this way, not to go against basically
what the court has been saying, because there's a lot of things that were
not agreed on. But these are the things that we did agree on. These are the
things that we did agree on as far as what I'm asking to be posted. I can't
see why -- if not now, then when? And I think the community needs to have
some type of guidance from this court, it's been a year, to say, look, are
you taking us serious when we talk about the sludge operations and the --
the -- the quality of life that we have to endure out of the -- the unincorporated
area of Travis County? You have an opportunity to do it. And I think that
the community needs us to answer and we -- you know, these are things that
we agree on. Since we agree on them, why can't we go forward on it.
>> that's the motion and an explanation. Is there a second?
Is there a second? Thank you.
>> thank you all.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM