Travis County Commssioners Court
December 3, 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 1
1. Discuss browning ferris industry (bfi) sunset farms landfill site development permit (#02-2714) related to a ten foot height increase, and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, judge, court members, I hope you had a good thanksgiving.
>> exceptionally good thanksgiving.
>> john kuhl, environmental officer of the county, I just wanted to bring this item in, I guess for the primary purpose of public disclosure, we at the t.n.r. Permit counter have had a permit come through that is a result of the Texas commission on environmental qualities approval of a 10-foot vertical height expansion for the browning ferris industry sunset farms landfill out on giles road in precinct 1. The permit that came through was, of course, the site development permit to initiate some of these improvements and in keeping with the October 2nd, 2001 floodplain, solid waste floodplain ordinance, we were examining this proposal and its compliance or non-compliance with that -- with that ordinance. As you recall, that ordinance requires a 500-foot setback from the 100 year floodplain. There is an unnamed tributary that eventually feeds into decker lake that runs along the northern boundary of this -- of this landfill area along blue goose road and does have a 100 year floodplain associated with it. The initial review of the site plans, which were just your typical blue lines, seem to indicate that -- that this would not comply with that ordinance and was within the 500-foot setback area. So in the first blush review it was -- the permit application was denied. After some additional materials were submitted to the department and the court members and county attorney's office that -- that clearly showed otherwise, the permit was issued. So in other words we feel like after furthermore detailed review, there is compliance with the solid waste floodplain ordinance that we have adopted. Related to this, of course, is -- is an expansion that -- that will add a little bit of -- of capacity in terms of time to this facility. B.f.i. Indicates that it's somewhere along the order of a year to year and a half. Their existing capacity is about 6.5 years, so all combined that gives them approximately 8 years capacity remaining in the operation of the community. There were constituent concerns, of course, about this increased capacity. And commissioner Davis has asked that I briefly review a letter that was submitted to tsec, which was a motion to overturn. As you recall probably from cap Texas and other projects, that there is an option when any of these types of permits are issued to have what's called a motion to overturn submitted to the commission. There's no guarantee that the commission will consider their -- their chief counsel makes that decision. And, you know, whether it gets on to the tsec commission agenda, I can't tell you at this point unless tom knows if it's already been accepted or not accepted. I couldn't tell you at this time.
>> no.
>> the letter -- the letter basically cites approximately 10 concerns that the constituent had related to the --
>> that's there -- that's the letter in the backup that everyone has, November 12 letter sent to tceq.
>> there should be a letter to the chief clerk.
>> yes, I have it.
>> anyway, goes through and says I guess -- the first three, four items on there relates to resident schedule mentation problems that have been documented by constituents by photo or video or visual observation. The remaining items of concern are trash, odor, dust and noise, exetsive smoke from their -- excessive smoke from their flare, the overall concern that the site is too small to do the kinds of I am priewmplts that they are contempt -- improvements that they are contemplating. Lastly the concern of the use of at cover over the past period of time, I don't know exactly how long, may have resulted in questionable structural integrity of the site. And there were other questions they had to ask there. That was submitted like commissioner Davis said, November 12th. We have passed the period for which a motion to overturn could be submitted. There was a period from October 22nd, which was when this 10-foot height increase was approved, until I guess approximately November 14th. So -- so that one slipped by me, I apologize for that one.
>> have the county district permit.
>> the county did issue the site development permit for the 10-foot height increase because from our evaluation it complies with all of the legal requirements for -- that we currently have authority to regulate for site development permits.
>> for whom is that permit issued? I heard it was approved, but I didn't know it was issued.
>> yes.
>> when was it issued?
>> November -- is that right?
>> November 20th? Just --
>> I heard it was approved on the 20th, but I didn't hear of anybody telling me was it issued. I want to know was it issued.
>> I guess that I will let either fred or stacy get to the technicalities of issuance. I don't know frankly if it makes a difference.
>> hi, I'm stacy she could kel with tnr, the permit was both approved and issued by tnr on --
>> on November 20th.
>> on November 20th.
>> what was the issue for Travis County?
>> what was the issue that initially had us deny it?
>> what determination did we have to make to decide whether to grant or deny.
>> > compliance with the existing Travis County code and --
>> that code being what.
>> our floodplain regulations.
>> the question for us is whether they requested an explanation -- whether the requested expansion area is within 500 feet of the floodplain. So if you are more than 500 feet you comply with it. If you are less than 500 feets, you don't comply. And based on maps that were submitted after that initial sunset commission, you all determined it was -- after that initial submission, you all determined that it was clearly within the 500 feet so you all issued it.
>> correct.
>> is that the permit that's numbered in the agenda item, Travis County permit?
>> yes, sir.
>> when I -- when I looked at the backup, what -- it seemed to me there was one question. Is the area for which the expansion is requested within 500 feet of the floodplain and if the answer is yes, it violates the ordinance or permit should not be granted. If it's more than 500 feet, it complies with the floodplain ordinance so it should be granted.
>> it's more than 500 feet. Therefore we issued the permit.
>> that's the problem. I mean, the ordinance is kind of specific and the issue for us appeared to be narrow. But if there is something else that we legally should have looked at, then we need to know what that is.
>> well, I guess my points, though -- my point, though, is that the letter that I received from the residents, I received that yesterday, even though the letter was dated and the motion was filed for return with tceq on the 12th, we issued a permit on the 20th, which is kinds of bothers me a little bit that I did not have this information in a timely manner because otherwise I would have probably made a motion here to probably hold back on this issuance of this permit contingent on the findings of the motion to overturn that -- the letter that was sent by trek english to tceq based on that and see what their ruling and their finding was. It's almost as if the cart got before the horse in this particular case. Of course, not having this information until yesterday, and then distributing it to my colleagues and of course staff, kind of left me kind of in -- in limbo. And it puts you in a pretty tough situation because if tceq comes back and they said, "look, we accept this motion to overturn and come up with a ruling based on the facts that they look and are looking at and we issue a permit, then we are in conflict with tceq, what do we do in a situation like that, legal? If tceq come back and accept this motion to overturn, dated November the 12th, you got a chance to look at it, what is the disposition of the [inaudible] at that point when we have already issued a permit? What's the deal, legal?
>> well, I don't know that I would characterize that as a conflict. The county would have issued a permit and as long as the permitee can meet the terms of the permit, then they are fine with the county. If tceq gave them an authorization that required them to do something different than what the county allowed, it would be a problem. For example, if tceq issued an authorization and forced b.f.i. To put waste within 500 feet of the floodplain, there would be a problem. But as long as tceq doesn't require b.f.i. To do anything that -- that runs contrary to the county permit, I would say there's no conflict.
>> are we not forgetting a step in between here? That is that tceq granted b.f.i. A modification to their permit to increase the height, which is whole reason they came to the county. Tceq started this. So we didn't issue a permit based on what if they get permission from tceq. Tceq has already said "you have permission." And they then sought the necessary permits at the local level.
>> > well, the reasons for requesting the -- that the state reverse its decision is not based on the county floodplain ordinance, right? The letter there seems to go to other reasons which we didn't act on one way or the other. It may well be true and they may well persuade the state to deny the permit. I don't know that we have any authority over the issues that are raised there. But we do have authority over whether or not this area is within 500 feet of the floodplain pursuant to the county ordinance, so I see them as being different matters. Administratively, the permit should have been granted by staff unless it violated the floodplain ordinance. And that's why in my view it was kind of simple. Are we talking about less than 500 feet or more than 500 feet. The maps that I looked at showed that it was a substantial distance outside of the 500 feet. So the challenge now is to make sure that whatever area is used is in fact the area that was pointed to on the map. And so we have -- we have a right to expect that. And the question is whether we have the capability to enforce it. But I would think that -- that we have a responsibility to try to in the future.
>> well, there's a little more to it than that. I had a chance to go on out yesterday and view the site, commissioner daugherty and I and staff member john kuhl. Of course there is a 10-foot expansion on the southern 10-foot requirement that's already there as far as base is concerned, but we are talking about not only that, but we are talking about a 10-foot vertical elevation, but that's probably may not where it ends up. If you look at this thing for what it's worth, looked at, we are probably talking about the maximum of probably about 25 year life capacity in expansions that may exceed, you know, 10-foot story building. So it's a lot bigger than what we are looking at here today. Of course they would then be constraints as far as our ordinance is concerned, that one thing. But I think the overall picture is very, very gloom in my opinion, as far as what the neighborhoods have been saying all along. Expanding the life capacity of these particular expansion projects that are going on out there that -- that you know -- that is monumental. I don't think it should be taken lightly as we go through this process. I think all considerations and all events should be looked at, as much as possible. And of course if they are within the -- if they are within that constraint as far as the floodplain ordinance is concerned, that's one thing. But then again we start talking about elevation, height, you are talking about maybe a maximum elevation of something over 800 feet, 800 some odd feet a possibility in the future, then we are talking about -- we are talking about mounds that will be higher than this building we are sitting in right now. That's what we are talking about. It's really significant. It is for the neighborhoods out there and of course I'm just echoing what they have been echoing for a while. Of course I can't gripe about that. But I am surprised that the issuance of this permit was approved and also issued at the same time without me not knowing anything about it. It kind of bothered me amounts bit from that aspect. And especially if there is a rule to -- to -- to -- to file with tceq a motion to overturn, with a whole lot of other amenities that really are looking at the big picture of what's going on out there. So that's my concern.
>> speaking of residents, we have some here today. Would you all like to give comments?
>> good morning, I'm trek english. Before I pause, I'm going to give these pictures to you.
>> ma'am, would you mind tell me your name one more time?
>> yes. My name is trek english. I'm the person who filed the motion to overturn. Now, there seems to be a -- I'm going to start -- I have a lot of questions on this application. But there seems to be a confusing issue about the filing of this motion. 7 the way this was filed at tceq, it was filed as a permit modification. Excuse me, so the -- so the chief --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I'm sorry?
>> did you give enough copies for the court to get?
>> no they are all -- I'm sorry, those are just single copies.
>> [multiple voices]
>> okay, I thought there was multiple copies.
>> no, I'm sorry. So when this was filed, we had -- we had a letter with the chief clerk at tceq to notify us of anything that was filed. Because it didn't go through the clerk, filed as a permit modification through the executive director, we were not notified that it was filed. It took me a long time to figure out where this permit was at in the tceq process. At one point I found out it had been sent back to the application with -- applicant with some revisions. When I came back from vacation I pound out that the tceq had approved it and at this time I provide proceeded to file a motion to overturn, that is the only process left for the citizens to do. Also, at that time the county had denied the permit based on the assumption that it is within the 500-foot floodplain. And it is my understanding that -- amy had called stacy, what's her last name? Had called stacy sheffield and asked her to please, please notify us if there was a change in the status of this permit because we were not notified by the county that this had been filed. I may not have given you something filed with tceq, but we are not notified by the county staff, either, when things are happening. I'm not talking about john, I'm talking about the staff, because I don't think john knew about it anyway until it was too late. We talk to john and I'm sure he would have mentioned it. At this point we weren't told that the -- that the decision had changed and that the county was going to proceed with permitting it because it had been established that it was within the 500 -- beyond the 500-foot setback, which is only 507 feet, not quite a distance, only seven feet. I would like to know who measured that. Who came up with the 507 feet. So my problem is how can we or you or anyone permit a height increase, I don't care if it's 10 feet, it's a lot more garbage, without having facts about has it been cleaned up? These are the pictures that I'm giving you. There's siltiation everywhere. Waves of garbage that fell off the west hill into walnut creek during November. It was still there in the middle of the summer. The landfill company had to apply from a special permit from the corps of engineers to clean it up. I don't know if they cleaned it up. We have never been brought up to -- to the status of what the cleanup of the creek is. In the -- in the new -- in July, there were additional very severe rain. In fact there were two -- two rain events that were major. One just at the end of June and then July 2nd. Now, when you have a two-rain events like that, these detention ponds do not hold the water that they are -- that they are basically designed to do. You have one rain event which takes on all of the water, the rainfall and then if you have a second rain event, before the ponds have had a chance to drain, the water just runs right off. They are proposing -- it's so small and narrow, there's literally no room on the west side to put these detention ponds, they are not built yet. Has anyone actually studied whether these ponds would hold two rain event? That's my big concern. And I can go on like this. There's a lot of other things, there's problems with what they are proposing which I would have gladly sat down with the county staff and reviewed these if I had known that it was being reconsidered immediately because it was in the 500-foot. Whether they were or not at this points, there's severe problems with this landfill, the slopes are too steep and they know that. It requires constant, constant, constant maintenance of the slope. Because they are too steep. They were designed like that from the beginning and there's something that -- that just does not work properly. And if you look at the pictures, not only were there erosion last year, but there was erosion this year in October, there's erosion every time of year it rains. So I think that permitting an increased height at the local level, whether it's the city, county or the state is a big mistake because you are not looking at what's happening to all of these creeks, I would like to show you one map.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> john, she needs that microphone.
>> as you know, this is what they are proposing. This is b.f.i. Landfill, the dark area is what they are proposing increase from what I understand. We have not been briefed by b.f.i. Even though they are saying they have tried to work with us, they've had meetings with the neighbors, they have not laid out their plan. Which would have been a big help, but they haven't. From what I understand this, this is an area, the dark area is what they are going to increase their height. This right now is the floodplain as it shows on the fema maps on the northeast side of the landfill. Now ...
>> where is the floodplain on that map?
>> right here. Now, here -- this is a '90-'92 floodplain map. -- '90-'93 floodplain map. I'm sorry it's barbaric, but it's the only thing that I have, this is basically your b.f.i. Landfill here. This is the floodplain I showed you on their site, this goes all the way to decker lake. So whatever you are permitting may be seriously affecting a recreational area. This is not just a small permit. You need to look at this in -- in -- in its entire form because it could be severe pollution going into decker lake. There's other things that are -- that you may not you may not have researched leak chait, you do have -- leachate, you do have outbreaks, co-mingling of waste, leechate into June off, you are going to have severe pollution because of hazardous waste into that site.
>> ms. English, would it help for -- for mr. Kuhl, ms. Walker to get with you and some of the residents and b.f.i. Representatives and look at this distance? I don't know that we are authorized to consider every factor. But our ordinance clearly sets out if you are within 500 feet we ought to deny the permit. If it's 500 or more feet away, we ought to grant it. Now, if there's some question about that, it seems to me that if you all put your heads together, we can reschedule this for next week and just deal with that issue. There are a whole lot of factors that we -- that we reviewed in part or whole over the last 12 months. But in terms of the Travis County ordinance, we really are a little bit more narrow. But if there's a fact issue about the distance, we ought to be able to resolve that. And seems to me that rather than argue back and forth here, it would make more sense for residents, county staff, b.f.i. Representatives to pull out those maps, look at them, see if you can make the distance determination or whether there's still disagreement. When I looked at them, to be honest, I'm relying on the map that I saw. It clearly indicated that the area was more than 500 feet from the floodplain. Now, in terms of moving the floodplain, I'm not sure what authority that we have over that, but I will think to the extent that it adversely affects the floodplain, we may be able to make a case for insisting that certain things be done. The time to do that would be seems to me, they say the work has been done, we go out and look at it. If the question is would it control the water after a heavy rain, it's impossible to make that determination after a -- until after a heavy rain. We could go out there after the heavy rain and see.
>> every time we've had a heavy rain there has been pollution happening in the entire area around the landfill. And --
>> but our work over the last year was to enable us to obtain authority that we didn't think we had. That was the agreement that's we were sort of working on. But we were told more than a year ago that we don't have the authority to regulate the operation of the landfills. But in the ordinance we can regulate how far an expansion area is from the floodplain.
>> well, I understand -- I'm not asking you to regulate the portion that is in the -- that is in the floodplain. That isn't in their permit. My problem is that if they are in violation of the clean water act, then I think any local entity has a right under the clean water act to step in and say until you prove that you are not discharging into federal waters, we cannot allow you any more expansion. If -- if the site has a problem with the erosion at every rain event, how can we allow --
>> well, am I correct in your position is not so much that -- that they are within 500 feet in violation of the county's floodplain ordinance, it's that there are other adverse impacts that ought to be considered.
>> at this point, yes, because I didn't realize that they were 507 feet, that will have to be calculated.
>> the question now is what entity is authorized to do that? And the question -- are we authorized, tom?
>> well, we have got a number of different enforcement options. Any county is authorized to enforce the tceq regulations or any tceq permit, trek mentioned the clean water act, it's possible that a local government could file a citizens suit under the clean water act. But I don't know that the clean water act would be the most appropriate vehicle here because trek, I don't think b.f.i. Has a no discharge permit. They are clearly authorized by tceq to discharge some storm water off the site. So I don't know that it's accurate to say since there's a discharge there's a violation.
>> we have to have a special permit, I'm sorry.
>> regardless, I think the position that the county is taking -- has taken heretofore is that we have the statutory authority here to enforce, but primary it's tceq that is staffed up and willing and takes on the very resource intensive task that enforcement is.
>> under the clean water act, the question is what's the evidence of violation? They may well be in violation, I don't know that we have -- the other thing is that we are posted basically to deal with the permit issue consistent with the county floodplain ordinance. So other matters that ought to be considered relative to the operation of landfill. This item, though, is not posted to give us that. If the question is whether we have the authority to take okay under the clean water act, then we need to post a separate agenda item and do that. But even then the question is what evidence do we have?
>> well, the fact that they publicly told you they had to get a special permit from the corps of engineer to clean up the creeks. And I'm sure the staff can brief you on how complicated that process is and no one wants to usually do that.
>> but even so, I hear the judge saying we are not posted to address that. And we want to comply with the open meetings law. We are not possessed for that. So -- we are not posted for that. Seems like in the process of having a meeting with everyone, that you all could address that question and try top find evidence or whatever.
>> without instay gating -- instigating a debate, may I clarify three quick facts.
>> may be too late to do that.
>> first let me clean up some fact areas here. First of all there's been a misstatement that is -- I led you out of control I guess. When I was discussing the distance with commissioner Davis when I first briefed him on the permit posted for today, I said by looking at a map where half an inch is equal to two hundred feet, a slightly less than half an inch distance between the buffer. So I said it is somewhere between 500 to 700 feet from the 100 year floodplain, which I think maybe was misheard to be 507 feet. That is not the fact. The fact is that i've never specifically measured it, surprisingly 3-8ths of an inch. That's a -- that's a distance clarification. It's 100 some feet outside of the 500-foot buffer. Secondly, this permit that was issued that was -- is posted here 022714 is for the height increase. Not for the ponds. The pond are related to another permit, I don't have the number in front of me right now, but that is related to drainage improvements proposed for this site.
>> that's an application filed with Travis County.
>> there's a development permit under review right now, mentioned in your backup in the background portion of the memo, it discusses those improvements. There will be ponds constructed as associated with the movement and reconfiguration of this drainage channel if that happens. That is an improvement that would ultimately help, perhaps, with some of these erosion sedimentation problems that the site has, [inaudible] actually seeing happen. The third item is that those erosion problems were duly reported by my office as soon as I got copies of the photographs and so forth to tceq, I don't know the status, but those processes are being dealt with by the appropriate agency. That -- I think that I am done on the fact scenario.
>> quick question. While Travis County may not have made the deadline for filing any kind of objections with tceq, I'm going to have to get used to saying that -- obviously the neighborhood did because their letter is dated November 12th. Do we have any idea when the state is obligated to act on any kind of motion to overturn? There's got to be an administrative process.
>> they have a 30 day response.
>> 30 days.
>> at that point they will let us know whether they will entertain the motion. There will be a hearing. I am sure mr. Gosling could give you more information.
>> that's cool. Secondly in -- trek in terms of your letter. You are very good at sending stuff. Did you let commissioner Davis know about your November 12th letter?
>> I -- I came here on the Friday -- I'm trying to think of it date. -- of the date. Before you posted the ordinance. I gave -- the commissioner was busy and I left a copy with his secretary and I actually picked up some material for the ordinance. And from there I went to see judge Biscoe and I told him that I had mailed this, because he was on my list. And I had given the only copy that I had to commissioner Davis' office. But then as soon as I got home that day, I faxed a copy. And I did not fax a copy to john.
>> but was a copy delivered to commissioner Davis before the deadline to be able to file any kind of objection?
>> for you, for the county? No. Because I -- by the time I found out, it was already -- I was already approaching the deadline for us. So --
>> clearly not because you filed yours on November 12th. The dead line was what the 20th?
>> the 14th.
>> the 14th.
>> I was approaching the deadline really quick.
>> at this time you -- at that time you had just denied the 10-foot expansion based on the fact that you thought it was in the floodplain. So I -- I thought that I would have enough time to meet with all of you and let you know what was going on. Things are going fast because we had labor day weekend and -- and I had just come back from vacation, election took place, everything one after the other. And --
>> well, two things seem clear to me. One is that if there is some uncertainty about the distance from the floodplain we ought to be able to resolve that. The second thing is if the county has an interest in calling to the state agency's attention other factors relative to their application filed with the state, we can submit something in writing in support of the neighbor's complaint. That would have to be a separate posting, though, see what I'm saying? So I don't know that we would have to appeal it. We can simply send something in support of the neighbors' appeal if we were to decide to do that, but that would require a separate posting, though, as well as additional backup. Do we think there's some uncertainty about the distance? No, I guess it's not 507, I was told it was 507. I'm having a hard time because they filed with the city, county, tceq, fema. I'm trying to -- to reconcile all four projects to see if they even match. And that's -- you know, I'm not an engineer, it takes time to get all of this stuff together. Compile it and see if it all -- if it all matches. There's development that's -- that's being applied right now at -- at the city of Austin.
>> on this other matter, if there's a permit filed with us, as john stated, we really can do a better job of keeping neighbors apprised of what we are doing and getting input, et cetera.
>> well, I'm talking about this increase in height here, would affect the whole side, right here there's -- there's a permit [inaudible] city of Austin, 200 feet right at the base of the landfill for development outside of the permit. And so -- so where are they going to put all of this waste, all of the rechanneling of the creek, if they are going to develop this, the methane collection, everything, if they are going to develop this. This map shows absolutely no buildings, yet they have to have all of these, where are they all? They told you several months ago there's going to be extensive landscaping being proposed.
>> those questions make sense to me. Would it make accepts for staff to get with you all -- make sense for staff to get with you all and b.f.i. Representatives and get those questions answered?
>> okay.
>> I'm not limiting the questions that can be asked at a meeting. But if there are facts that need to be clarified, I would go to the source, that's b.f.i. Now, I'm assuming that they would agree and in the past they have said that we would gladly meet with the neighbors any time the neighbors want to meet. If it will help staff to be present to get further and better informed, that makes sense, also.
>> well, they met with some of the neighbors, I guess that I will let john talk about this, john can let you know what happens.
>> but where we are now you seem to have a series of question there's that make all of the sense in the world to me. The people with the answers are b.f.i. Representatives. Some of them are in court today. Aren't they?
>> right.
>> so what I'm suggesting is, this item is not posted for us to consider all of that. It is posted for us to consider inside or outside 500 feet. But the other factors that have been mentioned today ought to be looked at. In fact john indicated that in order for us to rule on another application for a permit, the development permit, we have to consider these and other factors, too. If -- if you all have questions, then it seems to me that staff should get with you and b.f.i. Representatives and try to get them answered. For the court to consider the questions, those questions and answers, though, would require another and separate posting with different language than what we had today.
>> okay. For us to comply with the open meetings act.
>> if you are just considering [multiple voices]
>> when would it be convenient for john kuhl, any other t.n.r. Staff person along with you and the neighborhood folks to get with b.f.i. And work out the difference because right now I'm really not sure if it's within the floodplain or outside of the floodplain based on different maps that have been circulating. So -- so the city's and fema's and ours and anybody else's, I don't really know. I'm kind of concerned, in one in my mind to see if -- seven feet outside of the floodplain area, so I don't really know. 7 feet, I don't really know. But it was I guess kind of kicked around, 507 feet. But who is to say for sure. And whether that is compliance with our ordinance or not, is still a question in my mind it's up in the air because there's a lot of things that you can discuss and a lot of things that staff discussed, a lot of things that b.f.i. Discussed a lot of things that we have discussed this morning. So my mind, in my mind, when can you get together and get back here so we can post this on the -- on the agenda for the commissioners court to determine when this thing can be discussed if there are any differences at all? [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> we're not giving them a 10-foot increase. The state agency that oversees their municipal waste permit has given them permission to do the 10 feet. They've given them the permission. They then are coming to the local entities to then figure out what does that trigger locally related to moving along with that permission that the state agency has given them. And the city of Austin has already said there is no site development permit required for the e.t.j., And then the only other thing that's left on this piece is the compliance with the flood plain ordinance. And, again, as john said, it's not 507 feet. It is some number between 500 and 700, and it may be as much as 100 feet out of the flood plain, so they have met that. They've met the requirements of the flood plain ordinance. There will be other things coming to us on other site development permits on these other improvements, and that's a discussion for another day. But are they in the flood plain or not? At this point the determination is they are not, and the state agency is who you need to be taking a lot of these complaints about the appropriateness of going another 10 feet. They are the ones that gave them the 10 feet, not us.
>> I understand that, but I'm arguing the case under the health and welfare of the citizens. Are you aware of how they increased that height? Did they reopen --
>> .
>> I think this is the last time the automatic 10 is going to happen. The Texas 10.
>> well, I know, but the Texas 10, does that -- half the landfill is already capped. Do they reopen the cap?
>> I don't know that. That's a good question for the state to answer, and hopefully the 30-daytime clock is ticking after the 14th. We should be having an indication shortly, considering that we're at the 3rd. We should hear within a week whether they are going to open this up and get into a motion to reconsider. But that's a state issue.
>> should we try to accommodate the meeting or do you think that would not be productive? .
>> well, I don't really want to have a meeting until we meet with tceq. I would like to know what -- I can't just prepare for 500 meetings at one time and at the same time --
>> I understand, but for the county to address many of the other issues raised today would require a separate post, and I'm suggesting before it's brought back to the commissioners court, we at least have some of the questions and what b.f.i.'s answer are. I don't know that today is the time to try to delve into that. Now, b.f.i. Is here. You all would be willing to meet, right?
>> yes, judge.
>> in terms of agendas, judge, the 10th is a fairly normal agenda, but the 23rd and 30th are very abbreviated.
>> the 17th that is correct is a full workday.
>> I missed that one. Okay.
>> that's why I'm here, john.
>> thank you. [laughter].
>> I don't know that we can did more than that today. Now, there are always a whole lot of questions. At some point we have to try to find out what the answers are. And any action we take would be based on the answers. Which would constitute evidence. They may well be violations, but I don't know that we really a ut to assume that -- ought to assume that they are. To the extent we start taking enforcement action, not only do we have to have the authority, we have to have the facts to back up whatever action we take. And so if we can get those, I say let's go for it.
>> so we're looking at the 17th, judge?
>> we're looking at whether or not we do additional work between now and then. I don't know another conversation like this helps. If we had raise -- we had raised a whole lot of relevant questions. At some pointed we have to find the answers. As a governmental authority, we have to have the facts. We can try to get them.
>> they were taken by tnrcc. So their evidence is solution by the agency.
>> but I don't know that those pictures are relevant to this. They may well be relevant to the development permit that we are now considering. Which makes all of this timely.
>> well, if it's a drainage issue can be taken up at a separate time, that's fine, but the health and welfare is still an issue for me as giving an extra 10 feet mainly because you are still getting odor complaints which means operating 10 feet higher is definitely going to make it stink more and further it's not going to help our situation at all. So that was not taken into consideration either, I guess. And getting e mails on a daily basis. And the clouds of dust that we're getting, you know on top of public roads, how is that going to help going up 10-foot higher? That's what I would like to know.
>> yes.
>> I'm going to defer my comments to a later meeting as there seems to be some anxiety over sticking to the agenda. Thank you.
>> but there's also a legal requirement that we do so. Yes.
>> I would like to just -- I'm not going to read it to you. I just want to leave this with you.
>> melanie will pass them down.
>> thank you.
>> and I would just like to make one point, that we have come here many times, you know, [inaudible] of the problems. These landfills are like great big jugernots that are rolling down [inaudible] all these little regulations taken singlely, someone needs to look at the big picture. And that is not what I'm hearing today. And if you slowly do each of these one little things individually, we are just getting devastated. We have tried so desperately to make that clear. And if you slowly approve each of these little pieces, you are not looking at the total picture. And we desperately need someone to look at the total picture. I mean, that is not what I'm hearing today. There are so many things happening, and the letter addresses some of these. And they need to be looked at. So for you to just listen to the landfill with their one little thing that they come, that is -- that is the wrong way to look at this issue. So I hope you will take the time to read this letter and look at some of the other things on the horizon that are happening. We have a serious violation out here, and we need your help to -- if for no other -- if all that you can do is say we have heard all of these problems and we refuse to make any comment. That would be more helpful than the arguing about the 500 feet and say, okay, you are in it, go ahead.
>> but now we've agonized about the lack of authority at the county level since the issue of waste facility surfaced more than a year ago. One. Two is, by law, the posting is supposed to say what we will discuss. When this came to my office, I did the same thing I do with other agenda items, I put it on the agenda. It came from another member of the court. By law, that member had that right. What's clear to me now, though, based on what i've heard expressed today is there are other issues you all want us to consider. We can't do this under this agenda item. We can do that under a properly worded one. But why come in and discuss that when all we can do is just repeat questions? And why don't we try to get the answers? And then we can tell you -- if you come in with specific issues that we have tried as best we could to provide information, sort of factual context, we can get with the county attorney's office and decide whether or not we have the authority up front and let you know. And whatever the reason is, we can get that reason, even before the meeting. And during the meeting, I think we can be a lot more productive because we can focus on specific issues.
>> well, I have just heard very little about our health and safety and about -- a lot about regulations. And we are --
>> this is not a health and public -- this is not a health [inaudible] posted.
>> well, it is our contention that if this comes about, it will affect -- our health and safety is already affected. And this will definitely make it worse. And that is an issue. We need your help.
>> it sounds like there's some meetings to occur and some people to talk and visit, and when it's ready to come back, it needs to have a broader posting. But for today, I think we've -- we're at an end --
>> if we don't do the meeting, then I think that a list of the questions ought to be presented to some member of the court, and the whole court is probably better. Then we can get with b.f.i. And try to get the answers, give them back to you, and if there are questions about what we can do, then we really can address specific authority in a much more productive way than today. Then if the item is placed back on the agenda, we can have it worded where we can consider whatever we need to. So without the meeting that makes sense to me, we should at least get the questions, and we can take responsibility with getting with b.f.i. And try to get answers to those questions.
>> and john, if you will, as far as the information and stuff is concerned, again, the information that I got from frank, which I did receive yesterday, it would be good and advantageous for I guess your shop also to be involved in the receipt of information. I know you didn't get this either, but I think we need to have some kind of consistency as far as receipt of information. So as you've done in the past to continue to receive information from the industry and also from the residents.
>> I agree.
>> let's continue to do that.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> is there a motion on this item today?
>> sounds like staff direction to get the right folks together in a broader posting at whatever point it's ready to come back.
>> we can't make people meet.
>> no.
>> it may very well be one or the other, a meeting or questions to the court that we can get answered.
>> but a meeting would help me. If a meeting were held, it would help me a lot.
>> and if a meeting without county staff is better, so be it. And john and charlene probably have enough meetings already.
>> but by the 17th of December, it would be good to have some information here so we can proceed.
>> thank you.
>> judge, did we [inaudible]?
>> we sure did. Let's go back and pick up information here so we@ information here so we can proceed.
>> thank you.
>> judge, did we [inaudible]?
>> we sure did. Let's go back and pick up consent. Posted for consent are information here so we can proceed.
>> thank you.
>> judge, did we the answers? And then we can tell you -- if you come in with specific issues that we have tried as best we could to provide information, sort of factual context, we can get with the county attorney's office and decide whether or not we have authority up front and let you know. And whatever the reason is, we can get that reason, even before the meeting. And during the meeting, I think we can be a lot more productive because we can focus on specific issues.
>> well, I have just heard very little about our health and safety and about -- a lot about regulations. And we are --
>> this is not a health and public -- this is not a health [inaudible] posted.
>> well, it is our contention that if this comes about, it will affect -- our health and safety is already affected. And this will definitely make it worse. And that is an issue. We need your help.
>> it sounds like there's some meetings to occur and some people to talk and visit, and when it's ready to come back, it needs to have a broader posting. But for today, I think we've -- we're at an end --
>> if we don't do the meeting, then I think that a list of the questions ought to be presented to some member of the court, and the whole court is probably better. Then we can get with b.f.i. And try to get the answers, give them back to you, and if there are questions about what we can do, then we really can address specific authority in a much more productive way than today. Then if the item is placed back on the agenda, we can have it worded where we can consider whatever we need to. So without the meeting that makes sense to me, we should at least get the questions, and we can take responsibility with getting with b.f.i. And try to get answers to those questions.
>> and john, if you will, as far as the information and stuff is concerned, again, the information that I got from frank, which I did receive yesterday, it would be good and advantageous for I guess your shop also to be involved in the receipt of information. I know you didn't get this either, but I think we need to have some kind of consistency as far as receipt of information. So as you've done in the past to continue to receive information from the industry and also from the residents.
>> I agree.
>> let's continue to do that.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> is there a motion on this item today?
>> sounds like staff direction to get the right folks together in a broader posting at whatever point it's ready to come back.
>> we can't make people meet.
>> no.
>> it may very well be one or the other, a meeting or questions to the court that we can get answered.
>> but a meeting would help me. If a meeting were held, it would help me a lot.
>> and if a meeting without county staff is better, so be it. And john and charlene probably have enough meetings already.
>> but by the 17th of December, it would be good to have some information here so we can proceed.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM