Travis County Commssioners Court
March 11, 2003
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.
Executive Session
According to my calculations, we have come to executive session. Did we miss one? 40 is to approve, discuss and take appropriate acti regarding real estate issue of office space for various county departments. 41, receive briefing from county attorney and give direction regarding Travis County subrogation claim in the matter of deke pierce and take appropriate action. Also consultation with attorney. 42, receive briefing from county attorney and give direction regarding Travis County subrogation claim in the matter of bobby brown and take appropriate action. No relation to what's her name houston. Not that battleground. [ laughter ] consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We previously announced that 43 would be postponed until next week, March 18th. 44 is receive briefing from county attorney, discuss proposed settlement and give direction regarding collection claim of Travis County versus jc evans construction company, incorporated and take appropriate action, consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 45 is to receive briefing from county attorney and authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counteroffer for settlement and/or take appropriate action concerning the matter of helen lodge, eeoc claim number 360 a 30151, consultants with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 46, receive briefing from county attorney's office on Travis County's legal enforcement and compliance options to respond to complaints about violation of environmental laws or regulations at landfills in Travis County and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. And our final executive session item will be number 47, receive briefing from county attorney regarding potential litigation for recovery of damages to the Travis County medical examiner's facility for Travis County's non-insured losses and consider pro rata agreement with the zurich american insurance and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We will discuss these items in executive session and return to open court before taking any action.
>> judge, can I ask you to announce 7 for executive session too? I get the feeling from y'all's discussion this morning that the ordinance and enforcement items may intermingle, so I want you to have the flexibility to talk about both, announce 7 under consultation with attorney.
>> in the name of flexibility that the county attorney wants us to have, we will announce the number 7, discuss and give direction on the proposed drafts of chapter 62 Travis County code relating to the sighting of solid waste management or disposal facilities to be discussed in executive session also, if necessary, under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We will go into executive session before another item is placed on the list. We will discuss these and be back into open court before taking any action as previously announced.
>>
>>
>> we're back.
>> we have just returned if executive session where we discussed the following items. Did not discuss item number 40. That will be back on next week just in case we need it. 41, we discussed. That's postponed two weeks to give the lawyers a chance to chat. We'll have it back on on March 25. Item 42 involving the matter of bobby brown, I move that we agree to reduce away part of the county's entitlement and to accept the amount of $7,365.83 and authorize the county attorney to prepare the necessary paperwork to conclude this matter on these terms and present both to the commissioner's court at an appropriate setting in the future.
>> second.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did discuss item -- no, we did not. Item 43 we postponed until next week. We'll have it back on. Item 44 involving the collection claim against j.c. Evans, I move that we counter the counter in the amount of 4 payments of $45,000 each paid quarterly between the first and tenth of the month, the first payment due April 1, that if any of these payments is ten days late or not received by the morning of the 11th, of the first month in the quarter, that that constitute as breach for which the county may sue for the full amount that we're arguing about right now and that amount includes about a half million dollars of interest.
>> second.
>> big time.
>> and we would anticipate if this is accepted that there would be paperwork presented to us in the future to contain those protections. Anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 45 involves the matter of helen hodge, I move that the county attorney's office be authorized to send an appropriate counter offer in the amount of $12,500 to indicate that this is the commissioner's court's final offer, that any other appropriate language setting forth the reasons why I believe this is more than sufficient to resolve this matter is shared with miss hodge's lawyer.
>> second.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On 46 we did get the legal briefing, had an opportunity to ask our questions. We discussed that in conjunction with item number 7 also. In my view no action required on number 46, but on 47 in my view we really ought to go ahead and ask that we put together an ordinance that exempts or excludes type 1 facilities which are landfills, that we prepare that expeditiously and try to get something in play in three to four week, by then we will know what the situation is with landfills and be prepared to take whatever action is appropriate with them. And that's my motion.
>> I second that. And judge, that was option number 3, today, the one that you just brought up. We had option 1, 2 and 3 and the motion you just made actually covers option 3 in today's backup that john had submitted to us.
>> can I ask a clarification question...
>> beyond item number 7...
>> no action required on 46, we got questions answered. More next week. Should we have this back on?
>> maybe...
>> that was my question.
>> just in case we'll have it back on.
>> just in case, we can always roll it.
>> yeah.
>> my question is are we giving instructions for a staff to bring back, because it's my understanding there's not a proposed ordinance that is being laid out there today, it's basically to whip it into shape, bring it in here, there's all sorts of posting requirements... Thank you, we're asking the same question.
>> we'll bring that back next week, then.
>> there's not an ordinance today that you all are placing out there saying this is the thing we're doing? That's all I'm trying to get to.
>> next week?
>> yeah, next week.
>> I say two weeks, really.
>> I'm thinking what ever it is we really need to share with whoever has been involved in the various committees, get input, we ought to know what the input is and that may take two weeks together by telephone, any written comments so we can see what they are in two weeks and respond accordingly.
>> and this is what you were signalling before lunch is probable that we would be taking up before time and that is dealing with the sludge folk and the recycling folk; that this does not include any existing landfill.
>> right.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> and judge, under this same item, is there any way that I can make a motion to -- well, maybe friendly I guess to what you're saying and that is to allow county staff such as john cool to visit the site to determine some of the things we may need to do?
>> really sort of excluding type 1.
>> right.
>> facilities. Trying to concentrate on the others. I thought it would be simpler. I still hope it's true. I think we have to take multiple actions on the landfills themselves including evaluating staff's response to the request for qualifications from an expert.
>> right.
>> maybe following up information we were provided today, touching base with tceq, public strategies that really include landfills...
>> I guess we'll have to have appropriate item posted just for that direction.
>> right. I see two items next week just involving landfills the first of which would be joe, john and tom to report back on what we discussed last week.
>> right.
>> the odors.
>> right,.
>> and the technical expertise that we are seeking to walk down.
>> in addition to that there may well be an item dealing with specifically what we should request now, if anything.
>> okay.
>> as a kind of follow-up to legal advice given today. We may want to, we may not, I think we may need to mull over that.
>> that's fine.
>> so the motion really is for us to authorize chair man john and other appropriate county staff to get with residents an other participants in the numerous committee meetings that we had and put together a siting ordinance that covers all solid waste facilities except type 1 facilities and that includes -- type 1 means all the landfills, right?. And the wording to make sure that we cover exactly what we want to.
>> and that would include any proposed new landfills that would fit under that category? There's not any out there right now.
>> I think we have an effective date on that and it's probably controlled by law. We have effective date as soon as possible, realizing we have to have a public hearing period, it's got to be posted, have an opportunity to respond to a specific draft that we're thinking about adopting; right? But I would have the effective date as soon as we can and there after I'm sure we'll be fighting with [inaudible] about whether or not this new one will cover...
>> we're still on the focus of this is the sludge and recycling stuff as opposed to if we're talking about excluding landfills we also were talking about siting new landfills as well as talking about whether we can get into the issue of expansions at existing landfills so I'm just making sure of those three category, existing landfills that may want to expand, any new landfill that may want to come that is a type 1 and then sludge recycling people, that we're dealing with the sludge recycling stuff.
>> my intention is to pull out landfills, period.
>> I'm just getting clarification, judge, so we know what we're focusing on.
>> I'm all over that clarification and so is the gentleman in the back that represents the type 4 landfills, you know, had asked me earlier in the days a a courtesy I thought I would bring that up, his direction was to know whether you were going to include that or not.
>> I think it depends on a whole lot of things. In my view which category is this facility closest to? If it's more like this other sludge type, then I would put it with them. If it's more like type 1 landfills -- it's a type 4, right? I think we need to defer to y'all on that ordinance. Now, the ones that we've been hearing about are the big 4, including travis.
>> yes.
>> clearly they are landfill, type 1, so my intention really was pull them out and give ourselves an opportunity to focus on them specifically over the next few months and do what is necessary.
>> right.
>> I would keep it simple. If you're putting type 4 complicates it, unfortunately leave it out. But if it keeps it real simple, then I would put them in there. All that I know has really indicates to me it should be one of the simple ones. Right?
>> okay.
>> this is a construction materials...
>> right, construction and demolition debris. Like all issues there's two sides. There's some folks that say, you know, there hasn't been any complaints about them. No issues with them, there's other folks that say there's a potential for there to be.
>> the good thing about them is that they're already there.
>> true.
>> and I think everyone said there's a big difference between the organic and the nonorganic stuff in terms putrescent stuff is.
>> I want to bring it up.
>> this is fascinating.
>> isn't it, though? [laughter]
>> boy, can I make dinner time conversation.
>> that's a motion and second by commissioner Davis. This will be forth basically in two weeks, have a draft to look at by then an hopefully will have gotten any input that is available and be able to run with it. If there are big issue, we'll deal with them.
>> in the meantime we'll get it out to all the folks on our mailing list.
>> that will be appropriate, john. Let me know if I can help. Otherwise i'll stay out of the way. Anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. According to melissa, we are done with --...
>> 47.
>> we are not done with our business because number 47 is on the agenda, yes, it sure is. 47 involves the zurich american insurance matter in the medical examiner's office...
>> if we accept the counter -- counter prorata agreement that has been proposed by zurich.
>> second.
>> second by commissioner daugherty. Anymore discussion? All in favor. Pass pass.
>> we're adjourned.
>> now, adjourned by commissioner Davis, second by commissioner
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM