Travis County Commssioners Court
April 8, 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.
Items 14b & 15
14b. I thought the next one would be the real hard one. Proposed county ordinance covering waste facilities that are not type 1 landfills to take appropriate action. This is an opportunity to provide input. -- do you want to lay out the grants. Has everybody -- has everybody received a copy of the draft that we are looking at? Since we are not taking action, Commissioner Davis, you need to pull up 15? 15 b?
>> all right. 15 b is to consider and take appropriate action on the solid waste ordinance issues on the following notices of solid waste sight ordinance including type 1, 2, 3, 4 of the landfills. The differs between 14 b, one is limited to everything except non-type 1. [one moment please for change in captioners] .
>> ... And not take action today, is it your intention we would also on 15 a, b and c discuss but not take action on it? I just want to know the rules.
>> no, I want to take action on these.
>> you want to take action on 15?
>> yes.
>> do you want to call it up? A is out there, b is landfills [inaudible].
>> first of all, we were talking how far we've come on this, as far as items -- and also dealing with sledge operations and things of that nature that's been happening in the [indiscernible] on a piecemeal fashion, a comprehensive approach which I think these ordinances and what we're doing here would be more of a comprehensive way of approaching things, and also studying siting criteria for these particular operations whether they be minor or major solid ways facilities. -- waste facilities. Even as far back as October of '01, we've been dealing with this thing, with these particular items. Judge Biscoe and I have sponsored several of these items. In fact, a total of 24 up to today's date as far as what appeared on the Commissioners court trying to come up with some kind of resolve dealing with these issues. And I know the community has continued to [indiscernible] that we have an ordinance in place, thereby not having to continue to piecemeal certain operations that are happening in the community and come up with a comprehensive ordinance whereby they would be relieved of having to come before the Commissioners court, and of course the solid waste operators would also have a sense of what's going on and how they could actually deal with the setback requirements, and we all realize that our garbage must go somewhere. However, with garbage having to go somewhere, we must also be cognizant of the fact that Travis County is growing and we have subdivisions that are coming all throughout the community along with businesses and everything else. To give an example, precinct 1 is 11,000 new residents that are coming on line. Of course, with the new schools and everything else, of course they need protection from such solid waste facilities. Protection as far assetbacks are concerned. And of course the solid waste operators need protection also. So we tried to find a middle ground by creating buffers to assure that the distances that are [indiscernible] solid waste ordinance are as [indiscernible] within the ordinance. Again, we've come a long way. I hope -- I think the community has continued to ask us to bring these issues to closure. This is one of the reasons I hope fully ask that because of the effort and the concern, the energy the community has put forth to bring these items to closure. With the first one, with you know, we've had a lot of -- item a, 15 a, an example, looking at the operating agreement with the area landfills. As of course the community has opposed this particular concept. It never has been resolved. So this is one of the items on the agenda for us today to maybe put this to rest once and more all. -- for all. And at this point I would like to, if a community person would like to speak about these contracts or the operating agreement as far as a is concerned, I would like to hear from them. However, I have always opposed the particular operating agreement with area landfills and so this is why I had it on the agenda to put it in the format of a motion and I would like to do that now, if possible, that Travis County remove from all consideration those operating agreements with area landfills. That's the form of a motion, which I think the community has stipulated several times as far a as going into agreement with area landfills. I would like to make that in the form of a motion at this time because it is an action item as far as I知 concerned. That's 15 a.
>> so the motion is to remove --
>> enter into an operating agreement with area landfills. That's still something that's floating around and we need to clear the air on that.
>> okay. Is there a second? That dies for lack of a second. 15 b.
>> all right, 15 b is to post notice -- post notice, and I would like to hear from the community on 15 b. Again, they expressed a concern about having an ordinance in place that will include type 1, 2, 3 and 4 landfills. Now, this is posted as a notice to do just that. So I would like to hear from the community would have to say on that. And again, I would like to say this again, it really does -- I don't know why I don't get seconds on this, I really don't. It's something that I feel the community has expressed themselves. And why precinct 1 is continuing to being ignored for the quality of life as in any other part of the community. Landfills have been devastating [indiscernible] in the community and I looked at the agenda and I looked at the number of times this has been referred -- [indiscernible] and that's just ridiculous on any issue to have it come before the Commissioners court 54 times for resolution and we still haven't got there yet. We need to bring this issue to closure. So if the residents would like to speak on 15 b as far as the landfill itself, well, I would welcome that input.
>> 15 b or 14 b? The difference is one of them pertains to all waste facilities except type 1 landfills. 15 b covers all of them. Now, actually I brought it up in deference to a request on the one that I mentioned getting done today, we have received written communications [indiscernible] that would apply to all landfills and I知 assuming I would simply apply those take all landfills. But if other permits are made today, fine, now is the time. So all landfills. All waste facilities including landfills.
>> yes.
>> I知 asking for one week on 15 b because I was asked that.
>> you were asked for one week on 15 b?
>> that's how we started today's meeting.
>> I thought 14 was --
>> not 15 b.
>> you want action on 15 b today?
>> yes, I would like to -- in other words, I would like to ask again to post a notice [indiscernible] an ordinance including type 1, 2, 3, and 4 landfills for 30 days, and that is -- that will come back to the Commissioners court on may the 13th for adoption.
>> that's the motion. Now, is there a second? On 15 b. That dies for lack of a second. Since c is a negative of b --
>> it's not a negative. It's just inclusive of yours except the fact it includes all landfills, in other words, treats all landfills the same for this type 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>> it doesn't say that, but if that's what it does, it would ride along with 15 b. Ms. English.
>> good afternoon, judge. My name is trek english, and I知 not sure I understand what's going on here, and I have a real problem of all of the [indiscernible] tt we received except we received a draft on March 24th and April 4th. And the draft of March 25th was asking for a choice of options. And the choice of options, of course, I think 1, 2, and 3. 2 would have been the only one we could have addressed, and 2 negated the addressing the expansion. So if you wanted our choices on 2 a. Unfortunately before I could get it back out to you in the mail, we got the version of April 4th to look to consider. And it's very difficult to take a position on a draft of an ordinance that [indiscernible] expansion. And I would like you to endorse Commissioner Davis, who has been very instrumental in trying to bring forward a lot of these ordinances and ask for your vote in terms of posting an ordinance that would address all types of landfills, and I would like to supplement that by asking to you address not only all the types of landfills, but the expansion of the landfills. Now, if the type 4 landfill is not something you are going to consider or you are going to consider it -- as far as I知 concerned, type 4 now, then you should be considered type 1. If you have not been -- if you have always been a type 4, may be a complete different story. The city landfill might even be jeopardized by that because they've already been permitted. So I don't think there would be a problem in that at all.
>> trek, let me say this to you. The problem is this. I've not been able to get a second, and as you witnessed, on the agenda when these items have come for real satisfaction, posted notice to really start looking at these things seriously and that's the problem. It's been -- for whatever reason, I don't know, but there hasn't been a second at all. And I知 going to continue to bring to the court because as we say, you did agree with the -- I guess it's 15 b of the deal, which is post notice for all the landfills. Of course, without a second, I can't bring it forward. I can only do what you guys have instructed us to do, and you are the person in precinct 1 and within Commissioner Gomez's precinct, I would do the same thing. We have five landfills. Three of them are in precinct 4, active landfills, and two of them are in precinct 1. And of course there's a far cry from the person that located in precinct 1 to do [indiscernible] both my colleagues -- and I can't take it any -- I can't take it [indiscernible] also because I can't get a second on some issues as far as these ordinances are concerned. We've been trying for a long time to get a comprehensive approach tho these ordinances, otherwise we have to continue to piecemeal. So I understand where you are coming from and I understand your support. However, I need the support of my colleagues.
>> right. And my problem is it's difficult for me to address an ordinance that doesn't encompass any of the landfill which in 62.02, the first line in it says this chapter does not apply to landfills that are classified as type 1, 2, 3 and 4. So basically past stage 4 I知 eliminated in terms of having any input on a draft of something that doesn't address me. Yet I feel like I worked really hard to come up with this criteria for all landfills, including expansions of landfills, and yet it's not being addressed. Why are we still dealing with 2 and 3? There's no such thing as a 2 and 3. They've been eliminated. There's only a type 1 and 4. And there is a type 5, 6 and 8 of landfills, which are, you know, depending on if you've got scrap tires or a different type -- type 6 is an experimental type of landfill, and type 5 is like a transfer station, and type 8 is a scrap tires and type 9 is a closed facility. I mean, if you are going to get that particular, you might as well put the other numbers out. 2 and 3 have been eliminated when subtitle b came in. So I just thought I would throw even more mud on the --
>> still on tceq rules so that's why --
>> there's no such permit. They don't issue type 2 or 3 landfill permits anymore. Those are for landfills that have been permitted. Basically if you have a type 2 landfill and you have not met subtitle b, you are no longer in existence. Right? I mean, that's --
>> what's in our backup today from john and I is based on the ordinance that was on the agenda on November 19th and again on March 8th and March 18th, and the court asked us on March 18th to consider the type 4s. Should they be treated as 1 through 3 in the November/march draft type 1 was excluded so should they be excluded or should they be kept in the ordinance and treated as the major facilities. And john and I looked at the issue, and what we noticed that stood out was the procedural opportunities to address the land use issue at tceq is the same for the type 4 as the type 1 through 3. For the sludge and compost facility, you don't have that opportunity of tceq. So it seemed to us there was a clear line to group the type 4 with the type 1 through 3. And that's the basis of what we put on the agenda today. Obviously we're just saying treat type 4 the same as type 1 through 3. If the court wants to put them all in there, we're saying put type 4 in there. If the court wants to take them out, we're saying take type 4 out with them. Just treat them the same as the other three.
>> well, I don't have any problem with you leaving 2 and 3 in there. I just wonder -- we really don't even have a type 2 or 3 so it's just a formality I guess.
>> and in doing research, I do find that there is a difference in landfills. One deals with construction debris, that comes from all of the construction projects that we have. Those don't have anything in them that rot. Such as the other landfills. Which come from households. That's where it comes from. It doesn't come from anywhere else, it comes from households in this community, in this county. And the big difference is that that household trash rots. And you know that that's true because we can't stand to keep that in the house very long. And that's exactly where it goes. We have people pick that up and get it out of our -- the range of our nose. Now, the big difference is, also in precinct 4, is that the construction debris landfill that is there also comes under f.a.a. Regulations because there's an airport close by. Now, that's additional regulations on top of the other regulations that other landfills come under. So yes, I知 aware of the landfills that exist in precinct 4, and i've been there. I've been at the landfills also in northeast. And so I知 doing my homework. I知 going to go -- I go to see what my nose tells me. So -- but precinct 4 has different landfills. And those do not have trash that rots.
>> well, you actually have a hybrid -- what I call a hybrid. You have a type 1 that was transformed into a type 4, which means that you got putrecible garbage. That is another type of landfill and that should also probably be address understand the ordinance.
>> but it's also around where the airport is and it comes under additional regulations from f.a.a. There -- the rotting cannot occur because that would bring birds in and they would interfere with the flights of the planes. And so they come under additional regulations from f.a.a. So that rotting does not occur, neither does the smell.
>> okay, well -- no, I know what you are saying. I was just saying the rotting of the top part doesn't occur, but --
>> it doesn't occur, and therefore birds don't come around, therefore they don't interfere with the flights that come in and out of the airport.
>> Commissioner Daugherty.
>> steve, could you come up to the microphone for a moment? I mean, I知 -- Commissioner Davis, I know how frustrated you are with this deal. And let me say this. [multiple voices] let me say that I am committed to try and find something about this odor issue before I知 willing to get into any kind of signing permits -- siting permits. There is some question. But concept, Commissioner, I absolutely understand the frustration that you have in the dealings that you have in precinct 1. I know you are.
>> we all do, but at the same time when we vote, we vote. We have voted four or five times, the majority of us to exclude type 1 landfills until we can get the work done [indiscernible]. We may disagree with it, but this is a democratic committee. The majority of us voted to exclude type 1 landfills until later. We voted to put the agreement on hold until we can figure out basically about the odors out there. Now, [indiscernible] but I have to respect that and I don't disrespect you all about putting an item back on the agenda. I知 just saying to [indiscernible]. I知 trying to [indiscernible] together. But I don't know that a long speech about how he represents precinct 1 and we don't is appropriate every time he doesn't get a second on landfill stuff. He insisted on putting 15 down here. [indiscernible] many times. [indiscernible].
>> I don't think it's that point, judge.
>> I think it is at that point. If I don't get a motion and second to try to improve it. Same thing.
>> [indiscernible] but do we talk the talk and walk the walk.
>> two weeks on the agenda after the November election and I asked you then to delay that until the first of the year because three of us were on the campaign trail, four of us were totally exhausted [indiscernible]. Microphone is not working properly] we got it p commentary, we got to discuss it again. [indiscernible] make it happen democratically. These are provisions that we didn't put in place but we have to respect.
>> but I out of respect for the person --
>> if you try to work with us like we try to work with you. That's all I知 saying about it.
>> well, the point that was brought up to my attention and I must continue to do --
>> I guarantee you they have met with me as many. I don't know how many -- i've probably got the same ones. I have put more time in this thing than you.
>> the judge and I chaired [indiscernible], judge. Now, we have. We both have been trying to get this thing resolved.
>> [indiscernible].
>> the right thing to do. Commissioner Daugherty, we cut you off.
>> having a squable. That's all right. Steve, would you mind stating your name and giving just a little bit of history on what your background is is. Before I ask you a question, I would like for the court to know who you are.
>> thank you. I知 steve motley, the vice president of [inaudible] holding, we are the landfill and basically b.f.i.'s landlord on their -- we are the landowner for their landfill.
>> and your history, you have a lot of background in this --
>> I have -- independent of that capacity, I have been -- done some work as a professional in public policy consulting on the latest issues and different kinds of waste.
>> thank you, steve. In your opinion, is there anyplace west of i-35 -- because obviously I知 sensitive to this. I mean I don't think any part of the community should be the recipient solely of something that every community needs. I mean that being garbage. Is there anyplace west of 35 that you think there could be a type 1 landfill that could be permitted?
>> I知 outside of my realm of expertise when you ask me about a geotechnical siting decision like that, but i've been told by everybody that's in that business as an engineer, which I am not, that it's not possible.
>> steve, is there anybody -- that has the technical expertise as to whether or not --
>> [inaudible].
>> I知 getting a clarification. You mean in Travis County.
>> in Travis County, yes.
>> because there may be a argument that something west of interstate 35, say, in Williamson county that we could site something. But you are talking travis.
>> yeah, Travis County. The point I知 trying to make here is that, Commissioner Davis, I am more than willing to go to my constituency and I know that nobody wants to you bring to your constituency a type 1 landfill, but I am very sensitive, and I know everybody up here is, about seemingly that you all on the east side [indiscernible] is an issue. And -- and maybe the next time we meet we can have, you know, one of the geotech people to tell us. I would like to know that because I will go on record as stating that that may be something that we need to look at. Overriding it all of this stuff, I mean, is the issue that we have got to do something with garbage. And some of the problems that I have with some of the siting and no use beating this thing to death, judge, because I know you voted this way, but I do feel compelled to say I am very cognizant of the fact that it is issue that no one wants to deal with. I don't want anyone to have to deal with it, but I think if I have to deal with it, I would like to find some parity insofar as how you deal with this as a community. I'll look forward -- steve, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but thanks for giving me at least your honest opinion about that and i'll look forward to next time to see if we can --
>> but Commissioner, let me say this. You heard what the mrs. Mcaffee said earlier. It was here before I got here. The judge made a comment they tell me about a letter back ten years ago. I mean, it's not a recent problem. It's a problem that needs to come to closure. And I hope we're going to do that. And the frustration has been there not just recently, for a long time. It's nothing new. What we need to do is bring it to closure. [indiscernible] so that's the position I知 taking and that's the position that the folks in the community have charged me with, and I知 held to take it out and take it that direction. I知 prepared to do that.
>> I understand. Thank you, judge.
>> Commissioner?
>> I just want to make it real clear, too, Commissioner Davis, in terms of there is a logical progression and order of things that I知 going to proceed with and today is going to be no exception. I was also one of those ones that was on the campaign trail for 13 months and 75 pounds. And we were exhausted, and I was real surprised when I thought what we were going to do in January popped up on the agenda and we had a matter of days' notice and we said later. Then the judge came forward with his idea related to let us pinpoint the things related to the odors and have some good, hard, scientific evidence that can back up wherever we want to go next. And I agree with that. So it was logical that we are where we are today related to 14 a. Then I thought the discussion that we had -- I guess it was last week because I wasn't here two weeks ago, okay, can we next deal with with what I call the quick and the dirtys, but basically all those things, strip out everything that is controversial, we're still going to have to spend a lot of time and attention on and are there some things we can go ahead and get out of the way so we focus on whatever else is left. I thought that was going to include the sludge, recycling facilities, compost and transfer, and then the remaining question was do we go and put the type 4s into the type 1s that's for another day or do they get rolled into the discussions with the sludge and the recycling and the compost and transfers. That's where I still hope we can get to, and that's where I think judge Biscoe's 14 b is trying to get us. The 4s would be treated like 1s and that is for another day and perhaps we can get all that other stuff out of the way. I知 going to do this in a logical progresses. It's going to be the odor study and hopefully we can get the sludge recycling, compost and transfers, and at some other point once we get through this odor stuff, it is going to be appropriate then to talk about all the type 1 landfills and for me it is inappropriate. I知 just kind of tabling it new mind anything related to an operating agreement related to anything on the northeast landfills because why would we do that until we know the source of these odors and who is responsible and what's going on there, I知 certainly not looking at an operating agreement when from day one somebody is not in compliance. Now, where does that leave t.d.s., Because that's one that's the potential of an operating agreement with an area landfill that's not located in the northeast. There may be some good logic that you would want to do any operating agreements round about the same time only because, you know, do these things need to be consistent or are they boutique according to the different site. I don't know, it's something for another day. So I do not want my lack of a second as well to be misinterpreted that somehow I don't care. Precinct 2 also extends east of interstate 35. Not certainly in the mass that is there in precincts 1 and 4, but we're your neighbors as well and we do care, but I知 going to do tonight a logical progression of how we move through this, and so I知 going to continue down that path. I guess that was more than 30 seconds.
>> [indiscernible] on 14 b. We have received written comments and what we can do is summarize those for staff, give those to john and tom, and request that they be addressed next Tuesday when we will have this item posted again. Ms. Mcafee.
>> may may be confused.
>> 14 b is the only one left.
>> okay. So if we want to make a comment about the ordinance, we need to say it now.
>> which ordinance?
>> it will be back on next Tuesday. But we're more than happy to hear it now.
>> [no microphone on].
>> not type 1.
>> okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to make a plea on all of this that was talked to today, talked about today. Maybe to even expand the whole discussion. I have been reading book after book on environment and landfills. Here are my two present ones, "killing me softly" talks about some of the issues of waste management placement. "the land that could be" it talks about environmentalism and how some of the different bodies are dealing with what they are talking about. We know there's no easy answers. Instead of running by business, I spend at least half of my week talking or learning about trash. My biggest concern is that in trying to departmentalize the different trash issues, the problem loses focus and clarity. On all these siting regulations that are discussed, we're not talking about recycling at all. It's mentioned and it just comes up because of Commissioner Gomez, when all of these siting provisions are discussed, the recycling is mentioned, but it never goes anywhere. And I think it needs to go somewhere. You know, i've been to all the meetings, nothing is being done there. I've spent a lot of time on the internet looking at what other counties are doing. Alameda county in california has come a long way in this, and Commissioner Sonleitner talks about wanting to do the sludge and all these other things first and get it out because they need protection. But I feel like we're not looking at the big picture, and that in doing that procedure, we might run into problems down the road. What can we do beyond setbacks and look at the issue as a whole. The issue of importing and exporting on non-crowded county trash has not been addressed. It's been talked about, but it hasn't been addressed. Well, this ordinance is when it needs to come up or could come up. And if we start splitting things up, leaving the type 1 landfills out, it's harder to come up. So where would this issue be addressed? It seems we need a resolution from the county stating the problem and then fighting odor, et cetera, would follow. For example, if the county determined that a big part of the waste stream was type 4 waste, construction and brush debris, at this point shingles and nails and all this other stuff can go into that too. But what if we wanted to create a siting ordinance that was favorable to type 4 facilities that turned their waste into compost? And then that would be kept out of the type 1 facilities. I feel like we haven't begun to explore what the county can do towards zero waste, and that is the ultimate goal. It's not just to do what industry wants or just to do what we want to keep the odor out, I think we need to look at the big picture and see what we can do to keep waste out totally. So I don't know how that could be brought up.
>> you think we should try to promote recycling and composting in our siting ordinance?
>> yes. And I think if that's a strong possibility there and it can also be in others. I think if we were to look at alameda and some of these other counties around the nation, we would discover that there are two or three different ways that they do it. So we would have to look at our county and see what would be possible and practical for us. But I think we're losing an option to start one leg of an ordinance.
>> I think this is like the ozone day. I mean, you tell people you don't want them to mow their yards, you don't want them to put gasoline in your car and tell them to take public transportation. You know, you try and get people to do the sensible thing. And, I mean, Austin I think is probably better than some, I mean given that we do at least have a place where you have one of those blue cans and you can put your paper in that, and we do it here in the county. I don't think there is anything wrong, you know, with promoting it, you know, what you are talking about. The issue is how do you really get it on everybody's radar screen that whenever you take something out and fill your little deal out in front of your house on Tuesdays and Fridays at my place, I mean, how you get people to really comply with it. Because I can see where it would be very difficult for industry to dump the stuff and say oh, this guy put something in theer that he wasn't -- which is really kind of where we get in trouble with that. The promotion of it I think -- I mean probably a sound thing to get something in a siting ordinance that we would promote. But I think what you are really talking about are the -- you know, getting everybody to really recognize that these are the things -- when people tell me that somebody was in germany and for an entire week their trash can was this big. I mean, with everything that they had done and -- those are the kind of things you would like to get to, you know, you know, in the united states, but --
>> I知 here to tell you counties are doing it and i'll be glad to present all of you with how alameda county has done just that. It's through their ordinance. And I guess in conclusion, I mention third-degree a little bit on talking about -- mentioned this a little bit on talking about the odor, but I would like for their to be more transparency in the dealings as we do approach the type 1 landfills. And at this point it sounds like it's not going to happen. But I feel like the discussions with what the landfill operators are giving you and requesting, we're not getting feedback on it makes it very hard for us to comment on and give you constructive feedback. We're not hearing half of this discussion.
>> mr. Mcafee.
>> good afternoon. In the packet that I handed out to you all, the top sheet in that packet is basically my synopsis of a study that I did last may and June when we were looking at the setbacks in landfills. And when we receive this -- and that hard work that we did last spring culminated basically in, I believe, the final copy of the ordinance at that time was June 17th. That was the last one we had in our file. And after that, I believe we dropped it. In that last June 17th copy, you will notice that we had added that there would be a setback, and it's 62.0052, 62.0052. And we had added to that that -- in addition to being a 5,280-foot set back from any neighborhood, we added any enclosed structure to national register of historic places. In my study, I determined after a siting, looking at the nationally registered historic places and putting them on a map that by far and away 90% of these fell right in downtown Austin and that there were -- I was worried -- we were all worried about excluding the entire county from being used, and that an ordinance that did that might not stand up. And my studies basically show that a one-mile setback from a nationally registered historic property would only limit one tenth of one percent of the county from landfilling. So it really will do only one thing, it will protect us, basically. It would protect our facility. Which we regard as -- even though we own it, we regard it as part of the public trust. And part of the -- our county's assets that we, you know, for tourism, et cetera, et cetera. The map that I included in there is the 2025 plan, and I highlighted only the top four categories of roads. As you notice, a lot of taxpayer dollars go into roads and infrastructure of this nature, and I also put on that -- I made a circle, about a two-mile radius circle around where the landfills are up there. And to show how inappropriate the siting -- this area is for siting of landfill. And so we would just be creating a big, big blight on any growth that would be spurred by the taxpayer dollars going into all these roads out there. And so I would like to see, though, that we go back and look at what the culmination of all our hard work was last spring and add the 62.005-2 back to the ordinance before we do start talking about it. And, of course, that would be in regard to a type 1 landfill. And that's all I have. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else on this item today? We'll have it back on next week. What I would do is I think you've gotten pretty much the correspondence I have. We'll go through and pull out things that I think ought to be responded to.
>> there's a comment --
>> next week.
>> okay.
>> okay? Anything else on this item today?
>> I would like to thank the community for coming down and voicing concerns and [indiscernible] some of your concerns and we really appreciate you coming down. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM