Travis County Commssioners Court
April 15, 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.
Item 9
Number 9 consider proposed county ordinance covering waste facilities that are not type I landfills, and take appropriate action.
>> tom, is this from you guys? Good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> here we are the long-awaited date to bring back this proposed sight ordinance for solid waste facilities. I guess to put it into a nutshell this proposed ordinance pulls along with it all of the previously discussed issues, setbacks, so forth, which the majority of the court probably except for Commissioner Daugherty have been a part of. Approving or considering, so forth. The principal differences, draft in front much you right now does not address type one, two, three or four municipal solid waste landfills. But it does pertain to minor and major facilities which are defined in the body of the ordinance in the definitions section. That generally means recycling facilities, transfer stations, and then anything else other than type 1, 2, 3, 4, landfills. That would include beneficial land, application sites for sludge receptage, it would include compost areas that come above the diminous level as defined by tnrcc and also in the body of the ordinance. So -- so I know that we have covered a lot of this ground before. There -- there has v been comments from the community basically from the resident perspective, the constituent per text active, the majority -- perspective. The majority of the comments by far would prefer that we address the siting of new or expansion of existing type I through iv landfills, but we do not in this draft. The reasons that you all have stated before and directed us to this where we do not address them. So there are -- there have been some comments from the industry. Industry to sum it up would prefer that we -- that regardless of the fact that the ornsdz does not address the type of facilities that they represent, they feel like perhaps it's not a good precedent. They would like to -- to reduce setbacks and they would like us to -- to address the -- the issue of the floodplain and whether or not there is a setback there. On the prior ordinance that was adopted, 2001, which -- which has very simple setback of 500 feet from the outside of the 100 year floodplain. There's at least one -- one member of industry that has -- that is recommending that we adopt city of Austin's watershed ordinance approach with critical water quality zones and so forth. --
>> follow -- with the comment that you just made, kind of reminds me of the -- of the 1445 issue. And -- and as we try to have the county and city come together on finding some common ground in the way we deal with issues that -- that -- that come up from time to time. It reminds me in the sense that why wouldn't we try to -- to come up with -- to come with or find a common ground with the city of Austin and -- and Travis County since we are -- we are right here. In close proximity as neighbors, in dealing with these issues, why wouldn't you do that.
>> I know in terms of the ongoing discussions we are having on 1445 what we have always said is we are a firm to the city of Austin related to water quality issues. There could be no better way to -- to adopt that than to include whatever their definitions are of critical water zones and -- and their watersheds and their drainage areas that would absolutely be consistent in terms of this -- of someone would not have to be looking at our ordinance, their ordinance, figuring out what are the differences. We basically defer to the city of Austin related to those kinds of issues. And their definitions.
>> sure.
>> legally, what's the applicability of 1445? Legally, this would be outside it, but of course as a policy matter --
>> it's consistent.
>> it could, it could go there, yeah.
>> so in terms of -- -- of the effect of us using city standards to determine the -- determine the floodplain provisions, in our siting ordinance, is that owe owe [indiscernible]?
>> before I answer that point, let me just remind the court that -- that -- 7 that the water quality ordinances drafted by the city, you know, as I understand it, a lot of work and research and so forth was put into that. Just want to remind the court that the policy presumption, the basis for putting that together, the scientific background, I really do not believe had any bearing or basis with, you know, within the solid waste purview. It was -- it was these are -- this is an ordinance that is based upon impervious cover considerations, related to urban or [indiscernible] development, I think that's just the bottom line. So while it is an accepted model out there, I just don't think that it was drafted on the same basis.
>> but it has the same effect, no. And we all try to get the -- the quality of the water, especially ground water. So -- so I mean, yeah, it may not be just totally exact. And -- in what the approach we are taking, but I think the effect would be certainly something that we would want to go to. I don't want to wait until the -- someone goes to the legislature and forces us to look at this at some point. And -- and it's -- it just makes a lot of common sense to me that we could go there and not have to reinvent the wheel. And spend two years or three years of meetings trying to redo something that's already been done.
>> right.
>> I find these things inconsistent in terms of what I saw was that -- what we were talking about including within here -- are definitions within the floodplain world in terms of what's urban waterways, suburban watershed, you know, minor -- it's just -- going by their definitions and then it is up to Travis County to decide, okay, what happens within those definition categories, but we are night fighting about the definition categories. We basically defer to the city of Austin who knows how to -- to define what's the barton springs zone, what's a critical water quality zone. We use their definitions and then we -- we step in as the county and say and then what happens within those divisions, but I don't see these things as being at cross purposes, we defer to them on the divisions of what are things and then we do our work within that context. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... We basically came up with an ordinance, flood plain ordinance, and we limited to -- limitations of 500 people in the flood plain to ensure she stay outside -- they stay outside that 500-foot area. This is basically the crux of where we are now, and the vehicle that we've been using consistently as we looked at this problem has been the flood plain ordinance because, of course, we don't have a solid waste siting ordinance at this time. My question to you is, even though the conversation has been going with the water quality, that does not -- that's not applicable or is it applicable to solid waste siting facilities?
>> is your question whether the city of Austin's current water quality ordinance --
>> to siting waste facilities.
>> my guess would be yes because it's applicable to development in general. I believe that a solid waste facility would be considered development under the city code.
>> but are you for sure? In other words, ca you say 100% that you are positive of that?
>> I can't say 100%.
>> okay, well --
>> we analyze the code --
>> we analyze the code -- the possibility to piggyback Austin stuff, then of course that may be a possibility, however, the only leverage we have had, especially with the continued piecemealing aproceeds to persons coming down here to apply for a permit through the county for such solid waste facilities to locate, and of course sometimes they do violate in the flood plain and the even roachment that we have heard from the -- encroachment we have heard from the community, it seems to me we ought to be looking to someplace that would be all encompassing. Right now it's not. So if you could tell me if you can possibly get that answer for me, I would appreciate it. Right now we've been bombarded and [inaudible] where we are now, and I would like to thank the judge initially and myself initially forgetting this matter to -- for getting this matter to where it is now because of the fact the persons in precinct 1 continue to come here and ask us for some type of protection. We started out with the possibility of looking at the overall view that doped into this particular ordinance as it is now, and they are concerned because of the fact that -- that we try to maintain the quality of life here in Travis County, all precincts should be afforded the quality of life, which means economic growth, economic development for schools, homes, churches can develop and persons can live whereby that type of encroachment don't have to impede their safety and health and quality of life issues that's being done now. And again, there is a need for solid waste facilities, however, this ordinance with the setbacks in it should protect both the industries and also the persons that reside throughout the county. So it's a real big deal, I think, if we look at this and I want to make sure before I go any direction in my mind that we are 100% sure about the water quality and what does the code really says. Does it just protect subdivisions or what does it protect? Will it protect future locations of landfills? All of these kinds of things or any other [indiscernible] facility.
>> we are fortunate to have city of Austin representatives in the audience today and I think they can answer your question.
>> thank you. I really appreciate that. Would someone please come up and -- as far as the direction that we're taking here. Could you state your name.
>> I was not here on this item, but --
>> that's fine.
>> we have talked a lot about this issue at the city recently as it relates to one of the landfills. We treat it as development. Disturbance is defined as development by the city code. As it relates to proximity to critical zones, setbacks, so forth, we treat it just as we would treat a fill site or a quarry or, for that matter, another commercial property. Wherever you disturb is developed. So -- and we regulate it as such. If we have a setback that says no development in the critical zone, that would include the disturbance for associated with constructing the landfill. We do not get into the operations of the landfill. We leave that to the state and the permitting through the state. We do, however, regulate perimeter controls for erosion and trash and tracking and things of that nature.
>> and -- yeah, and definitely I think this is very related to what is city has already gone through and have in place, and -- and again, I want to continue focusing on the big picture. And I?m real concerned about all citizens in Travis County, but let's remember development and they all want growth, but development necessities solid waste facilities. The question is how we're going to treat those facilities that are an outgrowth of development. And so we need to keep our eye on that big picture and the effects of it. And so I think, you know, that's what makes a lot of common sense to me that we would consider what the city has in place.
>> and what I just heard is you all said these are our definitions, but we defer to the state related to the regulations that they are going to overlay related to the landfills. I find what we're talking about here to be consistent. We defer to the city who has done an incredible amount of work related to the definitions and then it's back on our shoulders related to what rurls that we want to overlay -- rules we want to overlay related to those definitions. I think we're all in the same --
>> I guess my point is with that question -- tom, I have to refer to you again, would it be applicable, even though we're not talking about 1445, but it's kind of in that arena. What I?m asking is even though they -- we can adopt or either look and consider inclusion of the water quality issues that the city has as far as their code is concerned and protection of that, it -- will that be applicable in the unincorporated areas, which would be the county. See, this is not 1445. So to a certain point that would apply, and then after we -- in the unincorporated area, how far would this extend?
>> this would apply a solid waste facility in the e.t.j., Correct, pat, because you do apply --
>> our regulations, yes, would be within our --
>> within your e.t.j. But outside of your e.t.j. -- I want to make sure we understand what we're doing and if we do have that authority, what the depth of that authority is and is outside the e.t.j., Then apparently then that's where your authority ceases as far as to enforce. So anything outside of that is still something that we are still left with.
>> right.
>> so if that's the case, we need something far-reaching more so than the city's power to invoke or enforce or either set the stage up for the water quality criteria.
>> and didn't we do that with the October 2nd ordinance?
>> it applies --
>> beyond --
>> in the unincorporated areas, outside the e.t.j. And if you do adopt basically the city of Austin's water quality zone and water quality transition zone definitions and use that for the basis of the ordinance, then in effect what I see you doing is taking what the city already applies in the e.t.j. And applying it outside the e.t.j. You will have a consistent rule, but inside the e.t.j. --
>> let me try to ask three quick questions. One is to what extent does the proposed siting ordinance pick up the flood plain ordinance?
>> it doesn't address it.
>> but that is an issue.
>> correct.
>> okay. Second, there will be a [indiscernible] for how long?
>> 30 days.
>> 30 days. Why don't we ask john and tom and other county staff that they deem appropriate to take a real good look at the two options we're looking at. One isist current ordinance -- one is the current ordinance, which is 500-foot setback, and the city's environmental protection land development code provision and give us a written pros and cons sort of analysis of the effect, the enforceability, any other practical considerations. If we can get that done two weeks from today, share that with the court. Also the operators, residents, and we're looking for city input, this is a request that you assist in the next couple of --
>> we'll be happy to provide whatever assistance is needed.
>> what I ask is we take a good look at at it and address that issue once and for all. There is quite a bit of information that we have been provided. I think you have it too, john, but we'll give it to you in case. But will that resolve that particular issue today?
>> yeah, I think so, judge. Judge -- I?m trying to put news a position where we would see a specific written proposal two weeks from now. And if it looks like when this comes back a month from now we really need a separate posting, I think. A posting that gives us an opportunity to reconsider the flood plain ordinance if that's our wish.
>> and with that, judge, I guess embed understand the existing ordinance we have now, there's referral to water protection zone, critical areas, buffer areas from -- an example, the [indiscernible] recharge -- edwards aquifer recharge zones. There is a certain criteria of a buffer area where the facilities may not locate within. And I guess, john, I guess my point, what I would like to add to that, with those requirements of the setbacks that we have within the aquifer setting that we are looking at here, as far as protect of waterways, the whole concept, will that -- and I guess getting with the city, will that impact of the standards be applicable to those public water wells, the edwards aquifer, the -- all of this aquifers that we mention understand the ordinance itself, to protect those water sources? Would that be -- is this particular request all encompassing I guess is the key word, all encompassing?
>> it's a different approach, but it encompasses those areas, with the exception I don't believe the city has any specific language in their -- in the body of their ordinance that pertains to the alluvial aquifer, the colorado river. That's not, you know, not an officially tceq defined aquifer. But they do address on point, you know, water supply, watersheds. They do address on point those specific creeks that are recharged or transition zone for the edwards aquifer. But unless pat can correct me, I don't believe they specifically address any of the alluvial aquifer creeks.
>> that's correct. We treat them uniformly and we don't specifically have regulations for the alluvial aquifers.
>> so the alluvial aquifers is included or not?
>> we protect them. [multiple voices]
>> specific regulations relative to alluvial aquifers. We have specific regulations that apply to the barton springs zone, edwards aquifer, but not to the sand, gravel 5:00 fers along the colorado, for example.
>> and this is part of the concern that I know -- I know in precinct 1 and other precincts in the county and also 4, we're looking at that -- for that type of protection to be consistent throughout Travis County because that's a big deal for us too is protect our water and our water supply. So that was something that were embedded and I don't know how we can get around it, but I think it's something that needs to be considered to make sure we don't move any ground as far as where we are now, but maybe enhance what we're trying to do looking at your type water codes that you [indiscernible].
>> that would be part of the analysis.
>> Commissioner, I share that concern with you, but I think he said that the key word, treat everybody uniformly. And I think that we can do that to the entire county, Travis County, when it comes to landfills and, you know, shrunch, all that kind -- sludge, so we're all on the same page. The other thing we need to remember, as growth -- I just want to leave you with a thought. As growth continues, that necessities solid waste facilities, whether it's the construction debris, that has to go somewhere, and then of course, you know, the more homes, that's more household trash that has to go somewhere. But I would like -- and that tells me that Travis County is going to continue to grow. I think we're going to outgrow our landfill facilities real soon. So maybe we need to think about let's not bring anybody else's trash into Travis County at any landfill, and can we check that out too? And that would be a uniform treatment of everybody, all facilities, all neighborhoods, and so Travis County can have a real good policy.
>> but my last question is this -- maybe not last, but the setbacks we have established now within the ordinance that we are looking at before us today, there are setbacks that we're looking at minor facilities which are basically transfer stations, recycling-type facilities. We have a setback that's about 350 feet and they are 350 feet from those identified re eptacles. Would there be any change -- and also the major facilities, along with those kinds of facilities which are identified as sludge operations, composting operations, composting dead animals and all this kind of stuff. Those same criteria that we have established here now, they would -- the question is, john, on the major and minor facilities embed understand the ordinance as we're looking at it now, would any of this what we're doing now impact the setbacks that are required here this morning?
>> yes.
>> and how? I thought we were dealing with water. If we are dealing with water.
>> let me back up and make sure I understand your question. Is your question that as we have drafted the ordinance as it is before you today, has it changed any of those setbacks. No. But if we look at the adoption of the city ordinance language as it pertains to watersheds, it's a much more intricate approach to evaluating whether or not, you know, or what setbacks will be. It all boils down to what the size of the watershed is and whether it's, you know, a minor, intermediate or major waterway and those types of things.
>> I refer to non-watershed locations. In other words, the setbacks -- an example, is embedded here in the ordinance itself. Let me look at a minor facility. A transfer station or recycling operation. That would be about 450 feet.
>> right.
>> from the location of those identified areas. [indiscernible] all these kind of things like. That however, when we look at at the major facilities, the setback changes from those type of settings. So what I?m saying, that will not infringe or override what's already and looked at as far as the setback criteria for that kind of facility. Am I understanding you correctly on that?
>> it wouldn't affect that.
>> I just want to make sure. So I would welcome this, I guess, judge, and see what the city brings back because I think we need to look at that. [indiscernible] it appears to me when it gets outside the city's e.t.j., Then it may need to be applicable, if that's what the court wants to do, applicable beyond this point.
>> I don't see a problem with that, applying it even further out beyond the e.t.j.
>> but the piecemeal approach that we've been dealing with for a long time, and I still see -- and judge, you've been in some meetings with me, I can still see former Commissioner samuelson, and neighborhood folks, talked to us about dealing with sludge operations and recycling facilities, going to meetings out there with those folks. It's time that we do something about it, and of course this particular ordinance does not include landfill issues, but it does address some of the non-landfill issues. I think everybody needs to understand what we have before us now is something that's other than landfill at this time. And so I just want to make sure that everyone understands that because we've got to get economic development in that area because it's growing and folks will not locate -- they don't want to [indiscernible] to the south and Pflugerville to go to movies and the malls and stuff like that. Folks [indiscernible] that kind of development out there. No one is going to come to this area to live because they don't know where these folks are going to locate. We have no governance or control of those type of facilities because of no buffers. We have no established buffers to live [indiscernible] people co-existing type situation.
>> determine what is better for Travis County. Can you have that -- the written pros and cons together in two weeks?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. In the draft ordinance that we advertise, who will be the person to whom comments should be sent?
>> traditionally it's been me.
>> and those with comments regarding flood plain versus the city [indiscernible] should come to you?
>> I think it's advisable to have a single point of contact on all of these.
>> all right. And the deadline for those comments will be? Let's say 10 days from now. That will give you a opportunity to incorporate comments before your two-week draft document, right? And so 10 days. So today is the 18th. What we have in mind is if we consider the ordinance, it would be about the same time we bring this back for further consideration.
>> it's the 25th.
>> the 25th.
>> today is the 15th.
>> I lost a week somewhere.
>> I know how you feel.
>> 25 is a Friday, and the following Tuesday is the 29th.
>> it gives me the weekend.
>> judge, I guess --
>> any objection to that analysis [indiscernible]?
>> I have no problem.
>> anybody with input can -- john can put that document together as far as focusing on this.
>> in terms of this analysis, the intent, once we get to the point where we're going to post an ordinance for consideration for adoption, we're talking about one version of that moving forward to the process as opposed to, well, we still have an option between flood plain in or flood plain out and we'll move both of them simultaneously. The intent is to get to one place, and that's what we post and that's what we take through the process.
>> the intention is to give thaws option. So if we -- but we're getting comments on both of them at the same time.
>> got it.
>> we're moving toward taking action a month from now.
>> I guess the point is this, if -- well, I?m not going to call the folks' name out there that are trying to get permits and stuff like that through the county, but my point, what would be the -- if we end up don'ting this ordinance -- adopting this ordinance to really govern the flood plain versus the water protection if we want to this as far as the city code, water codes are, what would be the point of [indiscernible] because we do have both sets are now subjected under the flood plain ordinance and they are able to do certain things to copy that flood plain ordinance. But what time in this process [indiscernible] and pick up one that -- so at what time would that one become valid and the other become invalid?
>> you are talking about if you choose to incorporate this watershed-based setback based on the city of Austin code into the comprehensive solid waste siting ordinance, then for that ordinance you've got to post, wait 30 days and then adopt. It could go into effect on that time frame, and I?m assuming that if you do incorporate the city of Austin-based stuff into the comprehensive solid waste ordinance, you would then repeal the flood plain-based ordinance. You wouldn't want to do that repeal until after you had gotten the new ordinance in place.
>> that's the point I want to he-that's the clarification I needed. And I guess -- judge, I don't know if it's posted properly, but there's been a request to add another person to the work group. Can I bring that back on another item? Talking about the landfill and stuff, the work group.
>> that would have to be a separate item.
>> a separate posting. Okay, i'll -- see if we can add another person to the work group.
>> now, the other concern that I guess you mentioned was the likelihood that on the receptor distances, a precedent is set on these facilities that will carry over to landfill and the other type 1, 2, 3, 4 facilities. I guess that's so if we want it to be sovment ultimately -- be so. Ultimately it's our choice.
>> as far as I know. You have separate drafting and posting for that.
>> now, we have heard comments over the last few months about receptor distances. Some believe they are too great, others believe they are not great enough. No matter what we post, we will get written comments on those during the comment period.
>> uh-huh.
>> and that's what the comment period is for, right? So I don't see us hearing a whole lot of testimony today and changing those distances. But it does seem to me to the extent we get written comments during the comment period, we have a responsibility to consider them. And respond to them. And to the extent that we think we want to change them, we do. To enlarge or reduce. If we want to leave them the same, we do that. But the purpose of the comment period is to give folk an opportunity to formally respond to a draft proposal. Right?
>> uh-huh.
>> those are two big areas that I know about, the receptor distances and the flood plain distance, basically.
>> and I know that I would be very interested in hearing what people's comments are related to the set back distances related to the flood plain because I harken back to our discussions here on the flood plain as it related to people wanting to build at the lake. And what it was is it was basically you have to stay out one foot above the 714 number. And there are engineering solutions that we'll can come up with to figure out how to stay out of that area. We don't say we have to stay 500 feet from the 714 line. We basically say, hello, engineers, this is what your lives are all about, and if you can figure out the engineering solution that gets you to the same place as an engineering solution to the setback. Certainly carlos and charlie's is they figured out a way to float up across the 714 line. I would also be interested in hearing from the engineering community how they are or not engineering solutions that get to you the same place as a physical setback through burms, whatever. I want to hear the engineering solutions to get to the same place that can be certified that yes, indeed, the water is staying out of the flood plain, chi think is where we're trying to get to.
>> let me ask this question. As I mentioned earlier, this particular ordinance does not include landfills. 1 through 4. Type 1, 2, 3 and 4. And you know of course I do have -- supported inclusion of landfills within this ordinance to ensure that there's still some protection for the residents there, the parks, the churches, the schools from encroachment of these landfills and also [indiscernible] of the existing landfills that do not have a good compliance track record as far as violations that have incurred over the years. My question to you is, since I have not been able to get the necessary two votes that I need as far as including landfills within the current ordinance, is there a possibility that this ordinance can be amended at some later date to include landfills?
>> i've never seen an ordinance that can't be amended, so yes, there's that possibility.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> although can I clarify one thing? I don't know that you all have ever taken official action on the type 4s. In my mind, I think that's still a pending issue. I think the staff basically said treat them like the other landfills, but I don't know that you all ever took an official position on that. So I don't know if you want to do that now, handle that like the flood plain issue and take comment on it, but I don't know that you all have ever formally decided on that.
>> is there someone who has comments that simply will not wait for the 30-day comment period? And you feel obligated to give us those comments in very straightforward terms right now? If so, please come forward and give us your full name and your comments. And john will move over to the chair on the end. Please come forward now. Good morning.
>> good morning. I?m joyce betz from northeast Austin. I simply am asking for a clarification. I don't know how it fits into your 30 days period, but on the variances, I believe that's item 62.006, under section b, item 5 and also under section c, there is described a public notification process which to me seems quite vague. And I would like some clarification. I've read through it several times and the legal jargon is deceiving me, I suppose. I am wondering what the definition of making this available to the public at locations readily accessible. And that's under item 5. And under c, I would prefer to see in the place where it says in no event sooner than 30 days before the information was submitted and made available, excuse me, some description as to what made available means. Is that a letter by u.s. Mail? My concern is that in the event any of these businesses choose to give information to the executive manager and the procedure described under number 5 and let the executive manager provide the notice and information, that that time frame -- does that time frame start from the time they give him the information, and that's when the clock starts ticking on the 30 days, or does the clock start ticking only after all of the various entities that are listed there have been informed, my preference by u.s. Mail or some other means. My concern, of course, is that there would be a notice posted in the courthouse or something, and it's up to everybody to figure out what's happening. I?m just questioning whether or not some stronger language, better language should be be put in there as to how the public will be informed, because that seems to have been an area of grave difficulty.
>> the clock doesn't start running until the three notification requirements are met. Three being submitted to tceq, submitted to the homeowners association, and make it available at locations readyly accessible. I know that it's somewhat open-ended, but where we came down on that was obviously every part of the county is going to be different, and some cases there will be a -- you know, in the neighborhood there will be a -- along with the park and swimming pool there will be a community room or a homeowners association office. That would be a good place in that case. But if you don't have that, maybe it has to be at a church or school or a library or even the local, you know, convenience store. So you have to have some flexibility because every part of the county is going to be different, but the 30-day clock doesn't start running until the information is in those locations. Does that help?
>> I do understand that, and I suppose my concern is that there be mail notification to some individuals about this; otherwise must we run to the grocery store, the swimming pool, all these various places to see what's happened? Does that make sense? That somewhere there ought to be some mail notification [indiscernible].
>> you know, that's a policy question. That's all can I say. There's no legal requirement in the statute for notice. We're basically deciding to include any notice as a policy matter. So if the court wants to make it mail notice, then they can do that.
>> I think in the comment period, if there are specific recommendations, then we need to hear them. Good morning.
>> hello. My name is melanie mcaffee. I know the court is ready to put this issue to rest. I know it's been a long time. I can assure you that I feel the same. I am too. I would like to ask the court, in this ordinance, I feel that the issue of integrated solid waste management has not been addressed. I would like to ask the court how they plan to address these bigger issues. I have been researching. I have a binder filled with different counties across the united states who have addressed this solid waste management issue. That the issues of reduce, reuse and recycle are not going to just happen. The industry who is driving the policy has no reason to do these things. It is up to the counties to provide that incentive. That is done through the ordinances. The whereas clauses are not going to change or drive policy. It's through these siting ordinances and other things. But I have learned through my investigation is that there's lots of different ways that counties have addressed this. Either -- and I have the whole notebook of different avenues that have been done. I feel like if this ordinance is adopted and these issues aren't addressed, we will not see changes. The landfill issue will continue to be a problem that we'll have lots of waste and landfill siting and problems down the road unless we do something in the ordinance that addresses reducing our waste, it's not going to happen. So how does the court plan to address these fundamental issues?
>> I would like to see some of those examples that you have so we can talk about it. The other thing is that we have an officer on staff who does promote recycling, not only in the county, but out in the community. And one of the -- I keep passing ideas on to him, and he addresses them as they come up. So I think if I can have copies of the examples that you -- of your research that you've done and let's see what other communities are doing, and let's see if we, you know, charles williams can help us, you know, start educating the public about some of those things. And so I think, yeah, I think we have to do some recycling, but the education of the public is going to be real important.
>> well, that's exactly right. Many of these programs, education is the key. But it's also through fees and permits and other -- that's not the only avenue. And I would be happy to share those with you.
>> okay. All right.
>> I don't think you really ought to put those in the siting ordinance. I think there are several steps that you need to recommend, educate folk on, and we ought to move to that. The big problem is that we're kind of overwhelmed by the other three or four issues regarding solid waste facilities. But I do agree at some point we really ought to turn to the many, many things that can be done to reduce the amount of waste that we generate as a society. Now, capco has done a whole lot of that, and capco has reports for the region. I?m not saying that's all we need, but I know we can start there. And recycling really has been given priority attention by capco for the last six or seven years, and we have been using kind of state surcharge money to fund that throughout the region. That's why the county has a lot of recycle bins. You find them in a whole lot of schools. Six years ago you didn't find them. Now the legislature is about to cut the part of the money that historically 50% has gone to the cogs, councils of government. So there are a whole lot of steps that are being taken. So I?m agreeable. We ought to take those reports and pull the good points from there, add to those and then promote that in Travis County. I don't know that you want that in an ordinance designed to help you set standards for how waste facilities are to be located. Because we're trying to reduce the amount of waste that has to go to the waste facilities, right?
>> well, this is how -- for example, on some of the ordinances that i've researched, they have banned cardboard from the landfills. So as you look at that -- at where these type 4 and type 1 and the sludge farms and all these different facilities go, I think if at the same time you are not thinking about, well, what has to go to these -- each different facilities, what has to go, if at the same time you are not saying, well, there's no real governing effort to try to get more material to the fiep 4 is going to drive -- type 4 is going to drive your policy a different direction.
>> the challenge is for example, the city of Austin has an excellent recycling program in large part because it's a curbside program. And they are the ones that pick up our garbage so they can help make that policy direction a reality because they are in the pickup business. And I pay dearly every month, having the smallest garbage can, because that recycling program is figured into my bill. You can approach the -- in this case, the county is not picking up the garbage outside the city of Austin service area. Those are handled by private providers, and it is certainly their option as well to offer that curbside recycling as an option. But it will also be figured into everybody's bills as well. And whether those folks want it or not.
>> right. And I understand that. That's why this entire folder deals with counties, not cities. I realize that that issue was clearer and easier. So my research was totally on counties.
>> counties in the state of Texas --
>> all over the united states.
>> it would be very helpful to keep it related to the state of Texas because as we all know, counties in the state of Texas do not have powers other than what's given to us by the state legislature. And we do not have the ability to collect fees or permits unless there is specific language that is in state law. So a lot of great ideas, we're going to need some kind of enabling whatever coming from the state legislature. So that's where we need to get some help. It's either there, or all you can do is recommend and say this is a great idea. We would love for somebody to run with it, but we're not the ones in the garbage hauling business.
>> well, for example, one of the cities in here is talking about a relationship between the county and the city and the cogs where they have combined efforts together. That way it's not just the city who is doing the right thing, but it's the entire region. So I think for the county to say, well, the city is doing a great job and we don't have any powers and can't do anything, that's not the correct direction to go either.
>> I?m not saying that.
>> the county can do some things and to put the entire reduce, reuse, recycling on the city of Austin seems a short-sighted approach for the county.
>> there's a whole lot of things we can [indiscernible], but we can convince them to do everything that we think is right. At some point you put together best practices in terms of reducing waste and you try to get the necessary volume for people to go ahead and do that whether have you the legal authority or not. In my view, though, you probably are get a lot better results if you don't put it in the siting ordinance. And really I think we'll spend more time trying to figure out if we have authority to do something in a siting ordinance than it's worth. But I do think there are specific practices that we really ought to start promoting as a community. Part of it is educating folks, getting the buy-in, then getting people to do it. That is a substantial undertaking. But I have -- I?m not convinced the appropriate place to put that is in a siting ordinance for Travis County.
>> you know, I just find it ironic that just a few minutes ago we were congratulating keep Austin beautiful for an excellent job of picking up garbage that never made it into a proper legal receptacle. I wonder where that seven tons of garbage went. I suspect it went to a landfill, and I suspect it went the a landfill or landfills in Travis County.
>> if somebody puts it in a motion --
>> I make a move we preserve it and [indiscernible] within the ordinance itself.
>> it's not just recycling. It's more a comprehensive solid waste management where you are looking at where some of what you touched on, where our waste is coming and where do we want it to go. Do we want all the construction debris to end up at the landfill? No, we want it to end up at the type 4 facilities. Well, what can the county put in their ordinance to help that along? And that's the type-data i've been trying to collect to try to reduce what goes into the landfill which will ultimately solve many of these problems that we've talked and talked and talked about.
>> the last six to eight weeks, think. Somebody's substantial attention to do it right.
>> I agree.
>> but I still think the start is pulling the capco reports and seeing what's been done already. That will get you way down the road. Then we figure out as a community how we wanted to supplement that. Then comes somebody come up with a draft and we can try to refine that. I mean, it's a fairly substantial undertaking.
>> so what i've discovered is capco is very good about researching the situation, but as far as exploring options throughout the country that have been successful that we can use for our region, it's --
>> I wouldn't ask them to do anything except what they have. And I think they will do that. Then we figure out where to go from there.
>> judge, I think you are correct, we can do a lot of good work, but the place is not to put tonight a siting ordinance. That's a separate effort in terms of how can we reduce the waste cycle, and these things can happen insultly, but I think one working through charles williams as that is his job and that would be a great thing for him to tackle, but it is separate and apart from this siting ordinance. I don't want the put one more thing that's going to delay even trying to get as I call it the quick and dirty on the books. Like this is just one more thing. We're not going to get anything done.
>> the other thing is enabling legislation, I think that if we're going to put a lot of effort into recycling, for instance, I think we need to have the ability to purchase those recycled products. And so we need probably some -- make little tweaks in the legislation so that we don't have to buy the lowest and best, but let's buy recycled. And so there are a lot of things we can do. [multiple voices]
>> let me say this. I if I -- and I think comig missioner Gomez brought this up some time ago, let me put the motion as it is, it didn't get second, but the whereas portion of the recycling -- and I think Commissioner Gomez was the one that [indiscernible] of her efforts as far as recycling was a part of the whereas of this particular ordinance.
>> we just have to follow up.
>> in other words, it's not that I?m not supporting any of the recycling efforts, and I think all of us are, and I know it is a part of the whereas page of this particular ordinance, so just enhancing it and trying to make it broader as far as what we're saying, I don't know if the whereas portion got as far as recycling of the ordinance that we're looking at here today is leading in the direction of what you were discussing here today. And definitely continue to support the recycling effort.
>> is your motion still on the floor?
>> no, what I would like to see is if -- well, I made the motion [indiscernible], judge. I think it was all inclusive, I didn't want that recycling effort to be overlooked in that as far as the ordinance is concerned it is a part of the whereas, which Commissioner Gomez brought up earlier, and I didn't want that to minimize -- just maybe look at it later [indiscernible] to some extent. Under some type of direction from the court.
>> mr. Mcaffee.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. I would like to make comments regarding Commissioner Sonleitner's comments about the flood plain. I think we would be setting a very poor precedent to allow sludge farms and landfills to engineer around a flood plain ordinance that a lot of thought never went into. We would be, I guess, asking anyone who wanted to build a subdivision that, you know, to present us with engineering plans, how they could berm up dirt in front of a valley that is in the flood plain and then do their development. And I fail to see any comparison with raising your lot level at the lake above the level of the dam to then build on it. That land historically before the dam was built was well out of the -- probably the 500 year flood plain. So I do not see any comparison on that regard. I would sure like to see our flood plain ordinance stay in effect for this kind of a project. Thank you.
>> mark, I was seeking input. I was seeking reaction. I wasn't making a stand one way or another. I?m asking for information so we can move forward. And I hear what you are saying, and I?m sure that there is another viewpoint, but these things are absolutely applicable because we ask folks every day to engineer roads, bridges, et cetera, to a certain kind of a storm event standard. That's what they do. And so I think it absolutely is applicable, but I respect the fact that you don't feel that way. But I?m just seeking information.
>> well, I did not see any comparable to building above the dam level. In this project. Thank you.
>> I did. Thank you.
>> anybody else who has comments that absolutely will not wait? Then I move that we post the -- advertise the proposed ordinance for the required 30-day period; that we invite comments. John, is your name and address in the advertisement?
>> no. We'll put that there.
>> make sure we put that in there. If there are issues that we have not discussed today that should be called to our attention, then do so within 30 days. We do have a 10-day limit on comments regarding the flood plain, and the reason for that is that the flood plain ordinance is really not part of the siting ordinance that we are considering. However, the door is open for us to combine the two in the future if we deem it appropriate.
>> I second that. Judge -- were you finished with your motion?
>> yes, sir.
>> I would like to -- I guess [indiscernible] discussion. I would like to say again to the public and as I asked legal earlier, of course, this does not include -- it's a very comprehensive approach. Let me tell you this, it's a very comprehensive approach to look at addressing solid waste facilities as far as siting criteria, as far as what they can actually do as far as locating. It's a setback. It's a lot of setbacks and whole bunch ever things being established in this particular ordinance which we have been piecemealing and dealing on a case-by-case basis that is just overwhelming when persons apply for permits, of course there are certain things in the community, again, have met a period of months and years now to come up with solutions. So this particular approach to bring about some type of approach to look at all of it and then go from that standpoint. Again, I want to thank everybody for working on this, and I know [indiscernible] better, bigger ordinance and disagreements, I guess you would say, but then that's what it's all about. [indiscernible] and we have to realize that. However, in this particular issue came up, we were basically dealing with sludge operation and recycling facilities locate in areas where folks feel that they would be infringed upon and their quality of life would be jeopardized. So this approach that we're taking now is to eliminate a lot of things like that. So, again, it does not include the other solid waste facilities such as type 1, 2, 3, and 4 landfills. But it is applicable to everything else other than non-landfill solid waste facilities. So, again, legal did say that maybe at some future date, in other words, if the court deems, that landfills can be added to this particular ordinance. And of course I?m going to continue to strive in that direction here on the court. Of course, you need two votes to do that other than mine. But again, I would like to thank everybody for working. Tom nuckols and john and everybody else. The staff, t.n.r., The neighborhood associations, neighborhood groups. Don't give up the effort because you deserve to have the quality of life like everybody else experiences. And we'll try to make sure you get there. I would like to thank each particular court member, Margaret, Commissioner Davis, particularly the judge, we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but that's all right. Commissioner Sonleitner. We've really worked hard on this. Again, I would just like to applaud everybody where we are now. We have some ways to go, we aren't finished with this yet, but we left the folks we are trying to do the things we need to do and thank everybody.
>> thank you.
>> tom, we received a statement from you today. Do we need to discuss that for the record or --
>> it's basically part of what you've commented on for 30 days, so obviously we are inviting comments on whether that's an accurate analysis of the taking issue. I?m happy to discuss that with you, but that's why I got it out to you, to let you know it's sort of part of what goes out in the notice and what people can comment on.
>> okay. For those who want a copy of the draft ordinance as well as the takings impact assessment, they can contact the person whose name and phone number are given in the ad.
>> can we have those put on the web, judge? That might be easier for people to be able to download what it is and clearly have it laid out.
>> that makes sense to me.
>> we've done it in the past.
>> any more discussion? All in favor?
>> I have a couple of questions, judge. Obviously there are some issues out there you are inviting comment on. And I wanted to make sure I had that list right.
>> well, we really just tried to highlight three or four. But maybe [indiscernible] others.
>> type 4 issue one of those?
>> right.
>> that's what I needed to know.
>> I would be real surprise first-degree our residents feel constrained by our comments today.
>> well, obviously to the extent you post and then come back and adopt an ordinance that is drastically different, my advice at that point would be you really ought to repost. But to the extent in the notice we can list specifically what we're interested in comments on, it mitigates that.
>> I agree.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:52 PM