Travis County Commssioners Court
December 17, 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 13
Number 13, discuss and take appropriate action on restrictive covenants for the maintenance of proposed flood plain modifications on the iesi site at 9600 f.m. 812.
>> john kool, environmental officer. This is a drainage project proposed by the -- the Travis County landfill actually owned by the company i.e.s.i. On f.m. 812 in precinct 4. It's located just immediately west of the city of Austin type 4 landfill. This is also a type 4, which means they only take construction debris and other inert materials. They don't take household gar page.
>> what did they take before they started taking construction debris? They didn't always take construction debris, did they? In the history of that land full.
>> it's always been type 4.
>> it's always been type 4.
>> yes, sir. Now, the city of Austin, on the other hand, took -- they were type 1 as well. They took [inaudible] and converted to the type 4 landfill. With us today is john day, the attorney representing i.e.s.i. I'll just go quickly and tell what you the project is and tell you what we are proposing and then to questions. There is a tributary to cottonmouth creek that comes in just before it. It comes into onion creek and it's across from moya park, one of the county-owned facilities in precinct 4. What they are desiring to do there, their facility is sort of bifect devment by this national tributary. They are seeking -- and push that over to the western boundary of their site. They came to us, gosh, I know that they've gone briefings for -- done briefings for t.n.r. Staff as well as some of the elected official staff, and really I think t.n.r. Professional engineering staff and the flood plain administrator view it as an improvement that is not in conflict with any of our regulations; therefore have negotiated a restrictive covenant with them. Typically these come up in the case of subdivisions or other things where we can attach it to plat notes, but in this case a restrictive covenant was negotiated. This improvement on the site does not add any more capacity to the facility and it does not come in conflict and our interpretation is it doesn't come in conflict with our solid waste ordinance that pertains to the 500-foot set back. Because this facility was operating prior to our adoption of that ordinance on October 2 of last year.
>> what does that mean legally? In other words, but yet they are coming here for a development permit.
>> right, because this development permit -- their application does not request or does not -- they are not seeking authorization for disposal of additional waste. All they are applying to us for is approval to relocate the flood plain. So it doesn't trigger the flood plain ordinance.
>> right, but I guess I'm trying to get all if ramification. This is the first time that I think we've ever dealt with a landfill as far as a maintenance agreement is concerned. I don't think we've ever done it before. This is a precedent-setting situation here. I just want to make sure that -- I have not been briefed enough detail-wise through our permit that we issue or will issue in the future -- I don't know what we're going to have to do on that, but there's still a lot of, lot of questions that I'm going to have to ask because they are talking about [inaudible] and they are also talking about reducing the flood plain, shrinking a flood plain [inaudible]. That's coming into cottonmouth. I don't even know the tributary that's feeding into cottonmouth creek. We're talking about a landfill that's been around for a long time. By shrinking it, not for expansion purposes, but by shrinking the flood plain and also channelizing the water, of course there will be berms, there will have to be flow of water have to come off of this thing, and I'm looking at the clean water ac a lot of other things. Just a lot of questions. I'm not really fully prepared, judge, to act on this today. I really am not.
>> did you get a chance to meet with them?
>> no, no one met -- no. No one ever met with me. But I did get a chance to talk to staff, I did get a chance to talk with staff briefly on the telephone and [inaudible] at this time ready to move on this. I would like to have more details because one thing I want to make sure that we do, in my mind, is see what the overall impact this will be to our water and everything else. Like I said, I really don't know exactly what they intend to do, put there in this new area, if they are just shrinking the flood plain, they need a development permit. So there's still a lot of unanswered questions that I need to resolve and it is a precedent -- again, a precedent-setting situation whereby we're looking at a maintenance agreement with the landfill. We've never done that before. We're chartering new waters and I don't want to rush through anything if I'm not sure what I'm doing. So I'm not ready to vote on this, but I'm not going to support it until I know what's going on.
>> one thing, commissioner Davis, you had mentioned earlier in connection with another landfill matter, you wanted to know the benefits to the community n response to those earlier comments during the lunch break I did a side by side comparison of the current situation that exists with regard to the existing permitted facility under existing authorizations and I did a side by side to show the benefits derived from this particular request. I would like to show this to you and distribute it, and I also have a map.
>> [inaudible].
>> I'm sorry?
>> I'm not ready to act on it today. You can share it with you, but I need to be briefed --
>> I can show you a map.
>> I want to be briefed by staff on this item in detail.
>> would you care to take a look at it?
>> are you saying you were not contacted by them? You are saying they did not call?
>> I'm saying I wasn't briefed by them. I don't know if they called or or not, if they did, I didn't get the message. In other words she that's just like not calling.
>> we did make several attempts to schedule a meeting, but I think commissioner Davis was terribly busy, unable to meet with us, and we did send some written materials. We didn't get a response to that so we just assumed it was fairly straightforward or at least he hadn't articulated any concerns. Let me also distribute a map. I'll go through this rather quickly.
>> you may want to leave an extra one for commissioner Gomez. We'll make sure that it's taken by her office.
>> before john gets started, I would also like to pointed the court to number 2 in the restrictive covenant which defines who shall maintain the drainage in perpetuity and that is the owners, and it does transfer to success tors soars. In addition, there are a series of requirements including proper storage, maintenance and so forth of any wares and ensuring they archt commingled with any of the discharge. No, that's fine, judge. So staff is basically saying didn't kick in the variance at this time and these are the assurances we have that the maintenance will be undertaken by this party, not the county.
>> and i'll attempting to through this very quickly. This is our existing facility. This is highway 812. Currently the flood plain, the natural flood plain works its way right through the center of the facility. As we are currently permitted today, we have the authority to construct this drainage channel. So we already have full authority to construct a channelized flood plain pursuant to development permits issued by the county, city of Austin, fema, and tceq.
>> we haven't issued that permit, right?
>> yes, we currently hold that. We currently have the legal authority today to go out and construct this permitted channel here. What we have requested to do is in look of running this -- in lieu of running this, and subjecting to sides of the facility to erosion, we have proposed, I'm not sure if this mike is working, we have proposed to instead run the -- instead of running where it says permitted channel, we're going to run it around where it says proposed channel. This is going to do several things. First of all, and this is on a list of benefits. The net result of this particular request is it will reduce our permitted landfill capacity by in imes of 200,000 -- in excess of 200,000 cubic yards. Our facility gets smaller in terms of capacity as a result of this request. It does not get any larger. This area in here reflects the lawsuit capacity within 500-foot of a flood plain, 208,000 cubic yards. So the total loss of capacity as a result of this particular change short term is approximately 300,000 cubic yards. The other advantage we have here is by moving from a channel in this location to a channel here, we actually increase the buffer zone between our facility and the off-site premises. We already have a very good relationship with our neighbors. Our facility has not been the subject of any complaints. We've not been the subject of any enforcement actions. Our neighbors showed up at some of the public hearings you all held and voiced expression of support for our facility because of the fine working relationship we have with our neighbors. The other advantages I mentioned is we're working the drainage around the perimeter of the facility, thereby getting it away from the active operations which you could imagine would create a host of various hardships and create a two-hump landfill and the need to jump over this particular area. And then I think one of the other advantages is currently there is no maintenance agreement that exists with regard to this particular authorization. What we have agreed to do is enter into a maintenance agreement so in addition to all the benefits i've described in terms of reductions of capacity, in terms of moving the drainage to the perimeter, in terms of reducing not only the amount of waste that's going in immediately adjacent to the flood plain, but the overall capacity of the landfill, we are also entering into an even forceable obligation to ensure that no waste gets put inadvertently in here, blows in here. We have obligations, I don't have the exact language in front of me, but we've got monitoring object gietionz and responsibilities to to make sure as a result of rainfall events, significant storm events, we undertake monitoring activity, we make repairs in an immediate basis as we possible can given climatic conditions. So if you take a look at what the current authorization is and what we're currently author authorized by state law, we think there is substantial benefit of move to go this particular project. Ly highlight again as reflected on my benefits analysis here, there is absolutely no increase in landfill iet and there is no -- height and no increase in the footprint of the landfill. It's a contraction in the footprint. This is a very important project. It's one we put on hold in excess of six months based on the gentleman's agreement reached between the landfill operators and the court not to take any action while the county undertook efforts to develop these various ordinances. We think that this particular request is fully in accordance and really shows the purposes of your flood plain ordinance. We don't believe we are subject to it because we are asking to take waste out of an area within 500-foot of the flood plain. We think we're fully advancing the purposes of the ordinance. We held off a period in terms of securing various approvals including some at tceq. But we're reaching a point we're running out of capacity. In order to develop this portion of the landfill, we have to construct either this channel or this channel. This channel makes so much more sense environmentally as well as from an operational standpoint that we would like to move forward. We've got the tceq permit already in hand to construct this much more favorable channel in leiu of this one. If there is any substantial delay and we're really getting to the point now where my landfill manage certificate telling me we're really upon ourselves here, we're going to run into some capacity issues. We don't really have much remaining capacity before we have to really fish or cut bait, so either construct this channel or this. We prefer to do this, we think it's much more beneficial and our view is that your staff also supports that same position.
>> to make a correction to a statement that you made earlier and also you, commissioner Sonleitner, as I checked earlier with my staff, no one has contacted me about that issue. Again, I'm pretty prompt about that stuff, but no one contacted my office from your office.
>> well, there may be some lack of communication, but -- [multiple voices]
>> I want to make sure that's a part of the sure.
>> sure.
>> because you made that statement and I want to correct it.
>> and I sent it rather personally with your office with copies of the various. [multiple voices]
>> I just checked with my staff and we didn't get it. Again, I have no opposition as far as I just want to be informed in more detail on what is going on here. I don't know what the full ramification of all of this is. I'm just looking at this today -- well, I looked at the backup, but this is just now coming before us today, and I really would like to ask staff to go into detail with me on a lot of stuff that's involved in this particular project.
>> well, we've made the offer. We'll meet with you any time. We were on last week's agenda. We were item number 8 on last week d agenda. We waited until 5:30 last Tuesday. We didn't get to the item. We thought maybe it would be old business. Here it is 3:30. We've been here for two consecutive Tuesdays. We're really desperate, we think it's a favorable project. I would be happy and our company would be happy to meet with you and discuss any aspect of our operation. I would like to -- we would like to work with iew how close is this to the city landfill where they have to close it because of the new birds and the new -- because of the birds and the new airport.
>> essentially next door.
>> and that's my concern. Because what's out there is still out there so there are still -- and when we're talking about reducing flood plain, we're talking about channelization and water flow and on whole bunch of this stuff, flood plain issues, there's a lot that still needs to be asked, in my mind, and I would like staff to brief me on a whole lot of stuff. So --
>> I have here with me mr. Keith moody, our drainage consultant. So if you have any questions.
>> I would like to meet with my staff also as well as t.n.r. It's also detail situation that I haven't seen.
>> our recommendation is to approve.
>> yes, sir.
>> but you need another week.
>> at least, judge. I would like to be more informed of the present situation.
>> we'll have you first after consent item next week. You've been gaining support. You haven't seen it, but you've been gaining support in the last two weeks.
>> [inaudible].
>> we'll have you at another time next week.
>> I want to make sure, commissioner Gomez, believe it or not, is keeping track of this stuff and passing on a note through her staff, that she has been meeting extensively with the applicant and working with the county attorney's office so make sure everything is in order. And when I met with this group, I want to say it was about three weeks ago, at least three weeks ago, yeah, sometime in that time frame, I specifically asked to make sure that they met with every single member of this court or at least they made the offer of meeting with every single member of this court and I was assured that was going to happen. It may be under the name that you looked up, that you just need to see that they -- but they assured me they had already made contact with your office.
>> that's not true and I want to make that publicly known. [multiple voices]
>> I'm not going to get into it right now.
>> you shouldn't have brought it up then.
>> [inaudible].
>> if you didn't want to get into it, you shouldn't have brought it up.
>> [inaudible].
>> I just checked with all my staff up there and --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we're willing to meet with you.
>> I just want to make sure that the record is correct in that particular regard. My staff just let me know by telephone that there has been no attempt from your office to meet with me on this issue.
>> i'll be happy to [inaudible].
>> so that's where it is. All right. Thank you.
>> we'll have you back on next week.
>> thank you.
>> that's next Monday, not Tuesday.
>> last week I do recall you being around. We kind of went on until about 6:30.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM