Travis County Commssioners Court
May 13, 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 19
We are calling up item no. 19, to consider comment on Travis County flood plan ordinance whether it should be made part of the solid waste siting order, and take appropriate action. This is a narrowly worded item and should be a narrow discussion. The question is whether the 500-foot distance requirement now in the floodplain ordinance should apply to -- to solid waste facilities in this ordinance and this ordinance covers non-type I landfills. And the idea that surfaced at the last meeting, that I guess has been narrowed a little bit since then, was whether if an engineer certified -- engineer certified plan were submitted to Travis County, if it would protect the water quality, whether the five foot distance should remain in place. Is that --
>> that is the issue, correct. Good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, john kuhl environmental officer with t.n.r. In terms of what comments we have gotten over the last week since we visited on this last, we've heard from -- we've gotten another letter from john rodgers of b.f.i., Continuing to -- to of course support their position kind of stating, I guess a revised support, you could say, behind this -- this concept of -- of a reduction in setback for "engineered facilities". We also received seven comments from constituents, neighborhood constituents, actually six of those and then another one from industry from bob gregory who doesn't see a need to make a change until the dust has sort of settled on type I landfills or at least until it gets closer to that. In terms of a staff perspective, i've -- you know, I remain open to considering, you know, a multitude of options for varying setbacks. I just don't know if right now is really the right time to do that, given the fact that -- that we've got an ordinance before us that -- that doesn't really address the facilities at question here. I think also the -- I listened to most of the 1445 discussion this morning. And I feel like we are moving -- perhaps in parallel paths towards fuller consideration of -- of Travis County's ability to -- to enhance its regulations pertaining to water quality protection. And I guess that's my -- my basic position, I think that it would be a better use of the court's and the staff's time to consider this issue more broadly. Solid waste facilities are really, when you think about it, just one type of industrial facility. There are many other types of industrial facilities that probably deserve a second look at -- at water quality protection in terms of their development standards. So -- I think that it's a little early to begin taking on that big of a task as we have waded through the solid waste ordinances.
>> well, john, let me -- let me ask you this, number one, let's -- let's again to minimize -- sometimes these discussions can lead to confusion. I definitely don't want to be the author of that. But what we are talking about here is the floodplain ordinance itself, which we have had and I -- [indiscernible] the floodplain ordinance that we have -- we have ordered except which we have approved as a court has been in place for a long time. And they were basically to -- to -- basically to address solid waste facilities. Period. [indiscernible] city of Austin and Travis County, we are talking about two things, those two things are subdivision stuff. Whereas this floodplain ordinance applies to solid waste facilities. There need to be laid out as such. Again the floodplain that would end the -- the northeast landfills, b.f.i. And others, those particular floodplains, number one, are in the county's jurisdiction. That's my interpretation, is that correct.
>> that's correct. That means they are subject to the floodplain ordinance -- the 500-foot setback that we have that -- which we have approved some time ago with the filingor setbacks, so that is applicable. Again, the city's water code, the critical environmental features, and all of the other kind of things that have been mentioned basically looked at as far as subdivisions are concerned. Again, the city does not have any durst jiks of this -- jurisdiction of this particular area. It's the county's. So I want to make sure that everybody understand right off of jump street what we are talking about is ensuring that the standard is applicable across the board to all of them. All of the solid waste facilities that we have. I don't want to mix apples and oranges here as may have been the case in some instances which creates a ball of confusion. I'm not confused. It's very plain to me. It's very clear to follow it. The standards of the ordinance that we have in place now, the 500-foot setback on our floodplain within the county's unincorporated area is operable. We have nothing to do with anything as far as floodplain regulations, all of that stuff, as long as it's what's in the city [indiscernible] area. As far as dealing with solid waste facility. We cannot dictate to the city of Austin or any other entity in Travis County how they deal with their setbacks when it comes to this the kind -- this kind of subject matter. So again I think we need to be very straightforward to the point that very -- very self explanatory and hopefully to the viewing public and everyone here. That this is clear as the nose on my face. What we're talking about is not mixing our floodplain ordinance in with a solid waste sight facility ordinance, it's two separate things here. So I just want to make sure that everyone understand that. Of course I'm continuing to support the one standard that we have right now when it comes to governing the setbacks for siting -- for solid waste facilities as far as the setbacks from the county's jurisdiction of the floodplain. I think variation [indiscernible] is where the confusion starts. The recommendation that I think came from staff last week, I support that recommendation. So that's basically where I'm coming from. I hope I cleared the air owe a whole lot of things as far as who does have the authority to deal with this and who doesn't. The city of Austin has nothing to do with this, per se, but the county does because it is in the jurisdiction of Travis County, not the city of Austin, as far as this floodplain is concerned.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Rodgers, can I -- can you help me understand the point that you are making about engineered -- mr. Rodgers here?
>> no, sir. [inaudible - no mic]
>> is his designee here.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right. You are familiar with this letter. Dated may 13th.
>> yes, I am.
>> help me understand I guess the difference between an engineered facility and one that is not endangered and what additional protections an engineered facility would offer?
>> well, I believe what mr. Rodgers was referring to engineered versus non-engineered, he's talking about certain control structures that are put in place that are designed specifically for floodplain protection.
>> okay. So an example of that would be a recycling facility?
>> yes. Or a -- or a landfill or a building or transfer station.
>> so that doesn't necessarily mean a plan that is certified by a professional engineer?
>> no. I think that would mean that it was certified by an engineer as being an engineered structure.
>> what would the engineers certify.
>> > the overall design of that given structure, whether it be a landfill or a recyclery or --
>> [inaudible - no mic] what I think the idea is that you would simply -- you would certify as an engineer as to the specific design features represented to water quality protection and control to keep materials out of the floodplain. You can certify a lot of other things that are engineeringly designed, have an engineer's input and indeed design such as a sequence of a site development plan or in case of sludge agrinomic use rates, but that's not what we are talking about in terms of protecting the water quality. We are talking specifically about engineering controls for the protection ever water quality, not any engineering control.
>> so you certify [indiscernible] controls to ensure protection of water quality.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, that's the concept. Yes, sir.
>> and --
>> can I ask a -- answer your question, judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> in terms of the type of facilities that we are talking about, considering a landfill and engineering facility.
>> yes.
>> are you all considering a land application beneficial use site or a compost facility and engineered facility?
>> not until it is -- not unless it is designed and certified and accepted by the tceq as such and it does not have to be at this time.
>> tceq does not require that.
>> that's right. So we would not expect land application units for sludge or compost to satisfy the definition that we would foresee you writing in a regulation if the court ordered you to do this.
>> so when you all use the term engineered versus non-engineered you are basically going by what tceq requires of that type of a facility? Engineered they require runoff controls from landfills. They don't let -- they don't let runoff that has been in contact with the working face of the landfill to leave the site, it has to be contained on site by engineering controls.
>> that would be right.
>> that's correct.
>> sludge and compost facilities, tceq does not require runoff that's been in contact with the waste to be contained on site.
>> they don't require it under any present regulations or statute and so that's -- that was the -- that was the loophole that john found, he's right in finding that loophole to direct -- that loophole needs to be addressed. This is a proposal to address it.
>> if I may add, in our letter, we -- I guess included the definition of an engineered facility as one that has a physician cam barrier that's required at the facility between the waste that's contained and any surface water feature. So the classical definition of an engineered facility, we think that's a component that will be unique to the facilities that would either require the minimum 500-foot separation or would be more appropriate for the city of Austin's water quality. But whether or not they have a physical barrier or something that can be easily identified, the sludge composting facilities don't have that. Landfills do.
>> all right. Yeah, so I guess that's where we came along and we wanted to address that problem with our -- with our floodplain ordinance.
>> yes.
>> that's how we came along to address that. Because that was non-engineered.
>> that's right.
>> okay. And non-engineered in that tceq was not requiring it, nor was Travis County, nor did the business try to do that. So that's where we came along to try to address that. I was confused with the smailts that I was -- with the e-mails that I was getting throughout the week. It made it sound like we were backing off of our floodplain ordinance that we had passed last year or so. And so that confused me because we never talked about backing off from our floodplain. I think people got confused when they talked about the city's floodplain that maybe that floodplain ordinance could be put in place as well. So -- but Travis County and it was never my intention to pull away from ours. So --
>> but this helps me really understand the distinction here. So --
>> we provided that because a sludge composting facility may be classified as an engineered facility because some of the documents submitted to the tceq for registration require an engineer's seal on those. That's why we think the physical barrier that's actually required between the waste area and the surface water feature would be the appropriate component to distinguish them.
>> but, john kuhl, the one that's we have wanted to address, those were not considered endangered, were they?
>> no. The only way you get engineered is through the avenue that we required. You have to have a certain setback, you may come through this court and may consider a variance after we have satisfied with the engineering that you provide.
>> thanks.
>> can somebody clarify for me in terms of this physical barrier that happens with an engineered system, that's meant to capture what kind of a rain event? Is it to a 100 year floodplain standards or is it to a 500 year floodplain standard or is it not really to any standard, just meant to be a physical barrier? I'm having a disconnect as to what that physical barrier standard is.
>> is the 100 year floodplain. Buif you just use the term physical barrier, that doesn't necessarily mean it's always capturing the flood or the runoff from the waste area, but it does prevent the flood waters from entering into the waste. So like a transfer station. It has a wall. That's the physical barrier.
>> uh-huh.
>> doesn't capture water inside, but prevents outside water from contacting any waste.
>> gotcha.
>> with the landfill you do have control facility behind the berms that are 100 year storm event.
>> again, rereading john's analysis from last week, the who will point of the 500-foot setback was basically -- in dealing with the sludge operations applicatis that those were non-engineered. I mean, they weren't required by tceq to do this, more likely they would not want to go to the expense of doing of an -- of doing an engineered whatever. For that it does seem appropriate that 500 feet absolutely makes sense. The question is okay, what if somebody does want to go to the expense of engineering a solution here or if we wanted to simply limit it to the kinds of things that are not really land applications, that it is the transfer stations and the recycling centers. Then what do we do in term of that, i've said it before, that's why people spend the money --
>> I have a question.
>> I apologize.
>> john, do we have in-house capability to determine whether the engineered physical barrier is sufficient to prevent contact between flood waters and waste materials?
>> yes. We do. The only caveat that I would give to that is that if you, you know, the b.f.i. Proposal that I analyzed for last week, there is a reliance upon, you know, the language of the land development code. And if you look at that, it talks about center lines of creeks and a lot of their setbacks or most oftheir setbacks are based upon that or the 100 year floodplain. It -- [multiple voices]
>> I have gone beyond that.
>> okay.
>> I'm [indiscernible] a professional engineer that basically certifies the appropriate level of protection and visualizing a physical barrier that's designed to prevent contact between the flood water goes and waste materials, I guess it's a fair question whether it does or not. If you determine by going out after a heavy rain and looking. This is something that would be observable by the human eye, I take it.
>> yes, also through water sampling.
>> okay.
>> > tom, what [indiscernible] do we have in the siting ordinance or is there one?
>> in the proposed ordinance? There's a variance provision I think that would, you know, allow for somebody to -- that has a site that would be preclueed by the setbacks to come in, based on that type of planned engineering say, grant me a variance on these grounds because I can afford the same level of protection through engineering that -- that you are otherwise achieving through the setback. I mean, that's possible in the proposed ordinance.
>> what's the down side of doing that? We have a 500-foot distance requirement to get a variance you have to bring to us a professionally certified -- basically a plan certified by a professional engineer that shows a physical barrier that you -- that use language that really affords the same protection of more than the 500-foot distance does. You see what I'm saying?
>> the question is what's the down side to that.
>> two questions. One is whether we think we can arrive at language that would get that done. Two is what's the down side, three would ultimately turn on enforceability.
>> uh-huh. To make sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what is the down side of leaving this 500-foot setback in place?
>> no. We would have the 5 hub foot set -- 500-foot setback in in place.
>> for the non-engineered facilities.
>> but leave open for those who wants to invest in a professional engineers certification for a shorter distance, the ability to come understand show that's in fact -- to come in and show us in fact what the engineer certifies is true, that is that a physical barrier has been erected that prevents the contact between flood waters and waste materials. I'm sitting here thinking that that will cost a whole lot more than the distance -- but --
>> there's no down side as long as you get them into the door. That's what that 500-foot setback has done for us. As long as it's drafted carefully and there aren't, you know, loop holes that don't get them in the door for that -- that type of rigorous review, there wouldn't be a down side.
>> so you think there wouldn't be a down side to the variance or exception created for the professional engineer protection? You see what I'm saying? Are you understanding my question?
>> I think so.
>> the 5-foot distance that's in place right now, we have a bit more specificity to the variance by allowing an exception for professionally engineered plans and what we would look for would be a physical barrier that would prevent flood waters from connecting with solid waste and if you do that, it would be a matter for what kind of a facility you had because protection is there, right?
>> presumably, right.
>> [indiscernible] cake and eat it, too. I guess there are reasons why he would want to go get one professionally endangered, but if you didn't, you had the 500-foot requirement to meet.
>> uh-huh. I guess from a common sense perspective, it's making sense for professional view, trying to get your take on it.
>> yeah, I mean, I think that -- what we were talking about last week was apples and oranges. We were talking about a land development code that pertains to other types of industry, housing, commercial building. If you -- if you have standards set in place, that are appropriate in terms of their requirements for water quality to industrial facilities like landfills, then, yeah, that's -- that's okay.
>> I had sort of gotten beyond the city there.
>> right.
>> I thought in your argument that land development is not quite the same as solid waste management.
>> right. But the idea of the professional engineer, I designed this and here's what I put up and here's why flood waters will not make contact with the solid waste and meet me out there tomorrow morning and show me. It would seem to me to be simply brought in there and take a look. Now, with the 500-foot distance in place, let's say you moved that, even about 600 feet, in fact there is a flood or rain, the flood waters make contact with the solid waste, what happens? [one moment please for change in captioners] nrs it done. In the approaches of the water quality and so forth that are engineered and are done routinely at tceq. It's not unheard of.
>> well, do you think we will be forced toly lie on the tceq certification? -- to rely on the tceq sers?
>> you will get that anyway. In terms of our in-house review, our folks look at detention facilities and look at those types of bmp's, again, not necessarily in this industrial area, but I think it's close enough to their professional field that they have a lot of experience and that it would be a reasonable jump for them to review them. As we move into our tpds permitting, like it or not, these type of activities are going to have to be part of our daily business.
>> well, and when I look at the different options and the alternative, my thought early this morning was why not try to have both of them, leave the 500-foot requirement in place, but if you want to get around that, go out and get yourself a professional engineer, brought that in and showed it to us and if we greed rks agreed, then -- agreed, then we would approve it. We're assuming that the waste facilities, as many that are targeted here, that are above ground, etcetera, most of them are not professionally engineered anyway, so the 500-foot would stay there. If you bring in an engineered one that we disagreed with, we just simply wouldn't approve it if we had the authority. And I assume we think we do in the ordinance, right?
>> yeah, in going back to the tceq certification, one of the benefits of the proposed solid waste ordinance is it basically becomes a supplemental tceq report. Tceq has to honor it. They'll review it as part of their process for reviewing the application. It sort of takes onus off the county to do it. If you leave the 500-foot set back in place, tceq will look at a facility and if it's within the 500 feet, they'll have to deny that approval. Unless if we adopt your thinking, judge, that person comes to Travis County first, produces the engineered plan and gets a variance, then they go to tceq and say Travis County normally has this 500-foot requirement, tceq normally you would be required to deny this permit, however, Travis County allows a variance. I've obtained such a variance. Here it is. And then they get their approval from tceq. So the way this works is really the county requirements are sort of merged with the tceq stuff and become part of the tceq review.
>> I would ask the rest of the court if there are comments and additional support. And there may be one or two comments in opposition. We'll hear those. How's that?
>> I guess the only thing that remains in my mind is that there is a relationship between development of subdivisions and development of landfills. I can't get away from that. And then too, if the building of roads. I mean, if you don't have the building of roads, you don't have construction debris that is picked up from all that construction and taken to landfills. Which we've been asked to recover. And so I can't get away from that. That's why I thought the Austin floodplain ordinance would really fit well without us having to reinvent the wheel. So I'm still there, but I'm open to getting more information so I can educate myself.
>> on the city's ordinance?
>> yes.
>> I guess your position on the city's ordinance is that now yours is better than theirs?
>> yes.
>> and the reason for that is --
>> a greater set back at the beginning. And you're still going to get -- I mean, all you just discussed is formalizing our variance procedure, which is already in place right now today. > (indiscernible).
>> right.
>> well, I don't have a lot to say other than it's pretty clear to me the reason the 500-foot set back was put in there because it specifically protects or doesn't allow for the expansion, at least within the bfi tract. Is that right?
>> no, that's not correct.
>> then I'm --
>> it was not put in place for that.
>> for them to get closer to the creek. It had nothing to do with it?
>> it ended up having that effect on their expansion, but to be honest with you, we didn't know a thing about their proposed expansions at that time.
>> okay. I'm going to put it this way, given what we know now, that is -- that's the reason why you're going to have -- let's face it. The resistance at this stage, if for no other reason, than for that. We're down here. This whole she nan began is about -- shenanigan is about the landfill, their expansion capabilities. And with me I always get back around to my whole thing is the odor. I mean, I continue to sit through these and that's fine, I will sit through them and listen to all of the other things, but to me it's an odor deal. That's what got me involved with it to begin with. And I'm -- I am for one -- I want the odor study to take place. I've always said I'm willing to fight this deal on a different day and a different time, but there's no doubt that the floodplain ordinance that the city of Austin, no one questions how stringent the city of Austin does anything. I mean, I will be the first -- I mean, this is probably the only thing that we are greater at. I mean, if you will, or more stringent than the city is with your 500-foot set back. But there obviously is some real energy with these siting ordinances to come up with some language that basically we're trying to find a way to bear hunt with something other than a switch is what this thing boils down to to me. And so I'm willing to sit and say, let's go through the process odorwise, odor study with me, and then -- I understand what we're doing here, and maybe I don't have enough history in it or I don't think I'm missing anything, but I'm fine with where we are at this stage.
>> and I guess my final point would be that if we focus on the sighting ordinance before me, which covers the non-type 1 landfills, these are the ones that typically kind of surface, right. Ofland plaingsd so forth, engineering, the 500-foot distance would be in place. But if they would look at the variance and come to us with an engineered plan with a shorter distance, and we thought it was effective, they would have a shot at getting a variance. I'm thinking that's true today, right?
>> certainly, right. It's always been true.
>> and so my thinking was that if a professionally engineered plan is better because of more specificity, why don't we say that and it's held out as an exception, a variance or other option, otherwise we leave in place the 500-foot distance requirement for the type 1 lilz and after the study for the lilz when we address the sighting ordinance, my guess is that everything that has made sense to that point for type 1 landfill waste facilities we probably would just transfer over. That's what i've been thinking.
>> and continuing down an order here, again, I kind of keep saying, okay, where are we? The type 1's are not on the table today. It's not. So we're back down to sludge applications, grease traps, transfer station and recycling. And to me I'm extraordinarily comfortable and I have no intention to back down on the 500-foot set back, but I think what we're discussing here is the idea for an engineered equivalent. And what I would see is for tnr -- an a variance doesn't mean you get it, it means you can ask for it. And the judge would have our folks to say is the 500-foot set back better or is it possible that the engineered equivalent is actually better in terpz of protecting the environment. And that's what I'm after is not just the expense of it, but which is the better solution in terms of for the environment. It could be that the engineered equivalent is better than taking your chance that a 500-foot set back is enough to keep that stuff from getting into a waterway or a creek. So again in terms of where we are and the question which is before us, should the floodplain ordinance be a part of our siting order, and I'm going to get back to that and say yeah, it should be. I am not comfortable -- and I think with all the talk we've been talking about with 1445, we're talking about a consolidated code not only with the city, but it ought not be in 14 different places that you have to figure out what does Travis County require of me? So it's best that our floodplain ordinance -- and again, we're not talking about a change here. I don't think i've heard anybody here say it should be less than the 500-foot set back unless you have an engineered equivalent that could be even better. But to me it ought to be part of the siting ordinance, it doesn't go away, it's just putting it all in one place so that people could see in one place what are the rules. And that's kind of where I'm heading.
>> let me tell you this, the point of all of this is that right now -- we haven't even -- I keep hearing this come up. The solid waste siting ordinance has been hosted for comment and is supposed to come before the Commissioners court hopefully for adoption on the 27th of may. That's basically talking about the solid waste facilities other than landfills. That's what this ordinance that this court has made a motion on for 30 days of comment to come back before this court. Now, that's supposedly different. It has nothing to do with landfills, per se. And what we are talking about is an ordinance that is separate and distinct. It stands on its own merit, and that is the floodplain ordinance. Anlike I said again, it's very simple, very simple. The floodplain ordinance says -- it basically talks about the 500-foot set back from floodplain within Travis County' jurisdiction, period. It goes into other things. There are a whole lot of different issues and all this kind of stuff, but that is the point. And I really feel strongly it shouldn't be integrated into an ordinance that does not even address type 1, 2, 3, 4 landfills that is posted for comment. You are mixing apples and oranges at this time. I don't see anybody here who has come up and -- sludge operators and composting operations and stuff like that. Not one of them come down from that industry. But the landfill folks were here before. That's what's here before us. And the ordinance that's been brought out to the public for posting for 30 days is talking about everything but landfills, per se. Now, what the landfill folks are concerned about, the landfill industry, is the flairn ordinance itself because the Travis County floodplain ordinance is more trin jent than what they would like to have in -- stringent than what they would like to have in constituent regulations, which is not as stringent as the county. That's a fact. I'm not -- that's a fact. And I hear a lot of confusion, but that's a fact as far as just what I said. They need to be separate and distinct and we need to keep them that way until we can get an ordinance that will allow landfills hopefully. Right now we don't -- this court has not decided to go that direction. I know i've tried to get it in an ordinance, but I never would get a second vote on it. So let's keep things as are. So number 2 is that even though the need for structural controls and things of that nature that you've brought up -- (indiscernible) the slope in the area, you still have a channel there. What I'm concerned about is the part of the open being discharged off of the site is not going to prohibit that runoff or that discharge from entering into waterways that later, from my understanding, enters into decker lake and other sources over in that area. So if we're not going to solve that particular part of the problem as far as what you're proposing. Even though if an engineered professional design thing -- that water is not going to be directed into that waterway -- it an unknown tributary. I don't know the name of it. But it is a waterway. And that waterway would still be coming up on the site, even with improved channelization as far as the structure that you try to propose as far as what you're doing. There is another slope, there's another channel right f the slope off that site, and that asphalt is still something that needs to be considered as far as water quality is concerned. And I heard water quality mentioned. But it's still going to be a situation whereby runoff is and has the same things as the runoff have in it now an getting into the waterways that affect water quality. And I don't know what kind of professional design you're going to come up with, but right from what I see and what i've seen as far as the stuff i've seen, it's not going to prohibit anything from dealing with our water quality over there and getting into the runoff -- into the waterways. So again, let's keep it distinct, separate. I can support that. And I don't think we need to integrate anything as far as what the city's applications are because they're city jurisdiction. But the county's jurisdiction I think we need to have a say in it, and I don't see -- I don't like mixing apples and oranges because that's what's being perceived as far as coming across and it's very confusing. But it's plain and simple to me that the city and the county has separate jurisdictions as far as something within the incorporated area of the city of Austin and something that's in the county when it comes to solid waste facility, period. So that's my last comment on that.
>> is there support in favor of a professionally engineered plan as a variance exception?
>> yes. First i'd like to, I guess, ask a question that would have a procedural import. When you've been talking about a variance based upon engineering certification to the 500-foot set back requirement in the floodplain ordinance, are you talking about incorporating a variance procedure within the floodplain ordinance as a separate exr sies or are we talking about incorporating the floodplain ordinance into the sighting ordinance into which you would add another variance procedure.
>> my position is ultimately the floodplain ordinance would be part of a siting ordinance we would add authenticity to the ordinance. My feeling was that in general words it would cover this kind of approach anyway, but I want to make sure so I think we ought to look at it.
>> I'm trying to get clarification on how this might work. I anticipate that that would be your answer. That make the best sense. Let's do all the siting things in a siting ordinance, including floodplain setbacks. If you want to have a variance for the floodplain setbacks, you have to specifically set out, I think, the variance for the floodplain setbacks based upon engineering designs to be distinguished from what other variances you might also seek to get which are presently written in the sighting ordinance related to things like proximity to schools or houses. That would be a different approach. I'm envisioning myself as an applicant for a sludge beneficial use facility. And I would think that under your propal the first thing i'd do would be to try to deal with the technical requirements of -- rather than the softer requirements and the odor related issues. The technical requirements of distance and jirping, and i'd come in and i'd seek a separate variance for the floodplain set back to see if I could get it. If I could get it, then I might try to see if there was another variance I could also get, but i'd do it I think in steps. Can you envision that kind of process?
>> I envision, based on this, that the distance is 500 feet. And the way to get around that is by going around out and getting a professional engineer coming up with a plan that would provide the same protection.
>> yeah.
>> you're saying the same thing, but I think -- when I pull open the county's order, I see the requirement, but I also see the variance language. And my first thing, is this a blanket requirement and I don't look for the variance. And what I'm seeing light rite there is the possibility of a professionally engineered plan that the county would have to agree with or approve. That's my anything thinking.
>> I think that's going to require a rewrite of the variance language. Both the applicant and the county and everybody would expect the applicant to come in. Try to deal with the technical issue first. That could be a threshold cutoff. If you didn't get it, don't bother with the rest. Get it, might see if you can get some other variances. I think it can require additional language is my first point. The other comment that I would like to make is it seems to me there are two ways that you could conceptually address this. One -- I don't know that i'll give them in order of preference because I see different positions on the dais. One is let's start with the proposition that we've been looking at the non-landfill ordinance right now. We're trying to decide what to do about it as it relates to the floodplain. The problem has been identified by john kuhl that the non-engineered facilities,, meaning specifically the sludge and compost facilities, would be allowed to be too close under the land development code. Aside from that problem, the land development code idea seemed to be well received up until the observation of that problem.
>> that's not necessarily true. (indiscernible) you've never each come to my office and even talked to me at all on any of these things. And that's as far as we can discuss them in court, but you've elected to go to other people on this dais.
>> you're correct --
>> you have talked with other people on this dais and this is why I end up having to answer all these questions is because you have talked to my colleagues up here and you have refused to talk to Commissioner Davis, and I'm wondering why. And the point is because I'm in opposition of telling you straightforward of what's going on. What's the deal here? I question that.
>> let me answer two things.
>> please.
>> first, you are absolutely right, that you have not embraced the idea that the land development code was a useful idea. I've heard that. It's been awhile since we tried to come talk to you, but quite awhile ago when we did, you weren't interested in talking to us and sent that message, and we've listened carefully and --
>> that's that's an untrue statement. What I proposed -- rejected the proposal that you suggested as I'm opposing today. That's another non-true statement that you just made. So that's two of them in a row that you just made that's not true. So whatever Travis County uses as far as what we're trying to do here, it appears now that this whole process is leaning towards being undermined. That's the way it appears to me because now you're talking about an argument that does not have anything to do with the -- that's the solid waste ordinance, does not have anything to do with type 1 landfill. You are making comments as if you would like to have language incorporated into something that doesn't involve you at this point and infiltrate it and integrate it into a solid waste landfill ordinance that does not involve your site. Where on the other hand we have an ordinance, which is the floodplain ordinance, which you do have a bona fide floodplain in the area, that does and is applicable to you. Those are fine.
>> let's let him finish his statement.
>> we might have misunderstood the prior dialogue. I apologize. If you would like to meet with us, we'd love to meet with you. With regard to the idea that I was trying to lay out, within the non-landfill siting ordinance, on the suments that the land development code idea was an assumption without the loophole identified by john, one solution might be to say that the non-engineered facilities should be treated -- should not be treated under the land development code. They would be transfer stations, recycling facilities and any other engineered -- I might have said that wrong. I may start again. I might have gotten my non-'s and my plains mixed up. May I start again, judge? To the extent that non-engineered facilities should not get -- have the land development code applied to them, they shrub exclude and the existing floodplain ordinance could be applied to them at 500 feet, period. For those facilities that were engineered, such as transfer stations and recycling facilities and any other non-landfill facility that was engineered, both land development code could apply to them. In the meantime, the floodplain ordinance would continue to apply to landfills because there would be no -- because you couldn't really afford to remove the floodplain ordinance to place it in a non-landfill floodplain ordinance and leave yourself with no floodplain ordinance applicable to landfills. I recognize that despite the fact that would be a wonderful windfall for my client. That wouldn't be good government.
>> no. Now, that's one possible solution dealing with the item on the table called the non-landfill ordinance. Another solution would be what you're talking about, which would be you could have an ordinance which focused on engineered versus non-engineered for all nsw facilities within which you could have either the land development code applied to the engineered facilities and the 500 feet applied to the non-engineered facilities. Or you could have 500 feet apply to all facilities except a variance would be available. There are three kind of options in front of you and I haven't heard anybody lay them out quite like that and I may be the only person that views it that way, but I want to at least be sure that the procedural choices are in front of you. The simplest one it seems to me is to stay with what you have published. And keep the land development code in place for the engineered facilities. Keep the floodplain ordinance in place and deal with it again and we'll get to deal with it again when it comes to the landfill ordinances. That would be most consistent with what you have posted. Inyour idea, judge, is an exceptionally close second, and I have no objection to it, which is to distinguish completely on engineered versus non-engineered and include a variance.
>> yes, sir? Anything in addition? John?
>> I just got a note that indicates that our engineering group is not confident in their in-house ability to determine whether an engineered system is equivalent to a 500-foot set back. Their suggestion is that the applicant should bear the cost of the county hiring the expertise to make that determination. And I'm assuming in this quick note that was given to me, that they mean on a case case-by-case basis.
>> do they mean rely on the certification of a professional engineer?
>> right. Any additional comments?
>> yes. You could tell, couldn't you? It's consistent with my observation that the variance as to the floodplain would have to be separately written or written in a way that specifically addressed the floodplain, otherwise the discretionary language in the present language, which was not tied to anything technical, just like words like impracticalability would be used to defeat a floodplain variance.
>> I was hoping to take a look at that specific language today.
>> yes, sir? That was it?
>> that was it.
>> anybody else speaking for the professionally engineered, the variance, the city codes? Anything like that? For? Then let's give those who have a different idea an opportunity to give comments. And we've got five seats there. If you would state your name for the record, we would be happy to get your comments. Afternoon.
>> thank you. And my name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. I'd like to remind the court that the two northeast landfills, including bfi, recently received notices of violation for collapses that resulted in garbage in the creek. Perhaps engineering-like duty is in the eye of the be holder, and if so from the neighbors' viewpoint, engineering sometimes looks like.
>> mayor garcia: badge. If it refers to fencing as currently exists in some parts of the landfill near the creek, that's also useless. The recent violations and some of those violations, the silt fences were literally buried in sediment and garbage. There are a lot of loop holes in pfi's proposal. I've only had a chance to look at it hurriedly as I got it coming in the door, but at cursory glance, we would definitely prefer and request that the court keep the 500-foot set back for all waste facilities, whether or not they are engineered. Thank you.
>> thank you. Is there a definition of physical barrier? Would you clarify that?
>> yes. [inaudible - no mic]
>> yes, sir. If we would work our way around left to right or maybe we'll come back here and while he's still making his notes.
>> well, I guess I just have two quick comments. One is that while we're hearing a lot about engineered versus non-engineered, I agree with joy that there's a lot to be said there. I'd like to further add that with it being tied to the tceq, one thing that I have not heard brought up is that I would encourage the court not to be short sighted timewise, and that all these engineers designing it, it's also an issue of maintenance. That we're worried about contamination. What's going to happen after closure in 30 years when everybody is long gone and the engineers, as we like to say, are gone? It's much more secure and just simple to do right if you have the footage. So I don't know how you plan to address those issues. I have not heard mention of that.
>> so maintenance after closure and during the active life.
>> yeah. The contaminants are still there. The liability, the operators is gone -- the liability of the operators is gone. So how will your ordinance address that issue?
>> that's a good question. Right now do -- we don't address that, do we?
>> it doesn't because it's a siting ordinance. It deals with one aspect of solid waste management processing and disposal, and that's where the facilit is put. All other aspect is still going to be regulated by tceq. So we're not venturing in this ordinance to deal with operational issues, either while the facility is there or after it closes. This ordinance deals strictly with the location, that one aspect of the whole solid waste issue.
>> so you might be creating a problem, in other words, since you're not addressing this.
>> well, I would -- I would say we wouldn't be creating a problem. We're not addressing a problem that is already being addressed by tceq. Now, whether tceq is adequately addressing it is not a matter for this ordinance, but we're not creating that problem, it's just that we are creating one aspect of solid waste, and that's the issue of where can you put a facility.
>> the tceq has a problem -- [ inaudible ]
>> a couple of tracts over we know a lot about how closure and post-closure requirements that are in place from tceq can be problematic for site operators. That's to remine the court why we are having to spend millions of dollars to deal with these leachate problems at the 290 landfill because we haven't even been given official closure because we still have leachate problems that we're trying to deal with. I guess I'm not really addressing your comment one way or the other, I'm just saying those requirements are there from the tceq for closure. The facilities -- to the extent that any of their barriers or water quality structures or what have you might be creating problems after closure or the lack of maintenance of them might be creating problems, I think that tceq would -- they would certainly have the jurisdiction to make them address that.
>> good afternoon. My name is trek english. And I have some real difficulty following paul, paul's argument on this particular issue. I agree with joy best that engineers, that's all we've had around our neighborhoods are engineered facilities, and they've proven to be a total disaster. And they know it. Between yours and the 10 or so violations that they've received because of the inability to control erosion on their facility after a rain event, it's in their record. So I think we do have the proof that engineered projects are not necessarily immune to having problems with contamination of floodplains. If you think about the recycling facility that was in downtown east Austin and if you -- if you ask the people from east Austin to come over here and testify, they will tell you what an engineered recycling facility can look like and what it would cause if it were closer to a creek. So there's no need to put a recycling facility -- actually, since you can put a recycling facility closer to town or a transfer station closer to town, I am questioning the reason as to why these operators of type 1 landfill facilities are here arguing for 500-foot set back modification. Since the operating landfill, this does not apply to them because we're not talking about landfills, and the three major people at this table work for bfi, and bfi already has affirmative recycling facility on metric. So if you make it -- I was thinking to myself and now I'm thinking out loud. If you're trying to get more garbage into the landfill, what do you do? You make it very difficult for compost operators and subject operators to have anywhere to go, and so you make sure that they purchase their garbage to you so you have more garbage to put in your landfill. This is where we will end up eventually is this will probably end up in the landfill because there will be nowhere to put it. Now, I'm not advocating that we should give them a break and make it closer to a creek. No. I'm just basically questioning why they would want to modify this floodplain setback? And then I'm thinking, well, what is there now that they're drawing up? It an extension. And if the extension is going to be 500 feet from not the tributary, but the creek that runs into decker lake, which is the one that's going to affect waste management -- bfi that you brought up and the tributary to waste management, now, what is the -- what is going to happen in that 500-foot? Well, god forbid they would put something substantial that would not have any garbage in it, but I'm thinking that maybe the reason that they want to shorten this set back is because they want to put another facility there that would be as a transfer station or a recycling facility on their site. And that would be between the landfill operation and the creek. Because I can't come up with any other reason as to why they would be here wanting to change that set back. And if somebody has a better idea, I don't know. I agree totally that you can leave the 500 et set back and the variance will bring them to you without having this engineering discussion into this ordinance. I don't like the idea of having an equivalent because an equivalent means that you're dismantling this solid waste -- this floodplain ordinance already by giving them an out. And then when you do that engineered equivalent, what does that reduce the setback to? Why don't you come up to this engineered equivalent -- once you come up with that engineered equivalent, you don't have to meet the 500-foot set back, which means what, they can get within two feet of the set back? I'm not sure I understand what this engineered equivalent would allow them -- how close would that allow them to come. So I have a problem with that. As for the city of Austin's land development code, have you spoken to them? I've spoken to them many times. I was there last week. It doesn't work, and they know it. They're always telling me, trek, there's nothing we can do. We know there's a problem. They have not managed to control the amount of runoff that is hitting the creek. The volume and the velocity that is out on the creek and the amount of rain that is now travelling into the creek after just a small rain event is incredible. So they know that they've created a problem. They have not reduced the problem from 10 years ago. They haven't even -- to me their goal, which was to make sure that there would be no increase in the runoff by permitting these projects separately and making sure that no one would contribute to any additional runoff, it's not working. I know. I am the victim of it. And i've had more land lost in one year than i've had in the 20 years that i've worked here, 20 years. So I know it not working. So you're taking a chance by constantly bringing up this land development code because it's not improving water quality or water quantity.
>> yes, sir?
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, my name is neal carmen. I'm with the sierra club, the lone star chapter of the sierra club. Basically I'm here to support the existing floodplain ordinance and keep the 500-foot set back distance. I think it's not just an odor problem issue. Recently citizens have also complained about dust. And as far as I'm aware in looking through some of the records that have been obtained from the agency, no one has looked at pathogens that could be riding on those dust particles. There's no dust that those landfills contain a lot of knock shus path generals. And noxious pathogens and what kind of evaluation has been done on the potential for sceaf of pathogens, even through the dust patted way. People just think it's dust that's blowing off the landfills. Not so. I know down in other areas of the state, the tceq has done bacterial analysis of certain kind of dust particulates in certain areas of the state and they have found some of those particulates to be loaded with pathogenic microorganisms. So I think that 500 feet, those dust particles might not necessarily stop at 500 feet. They could easily be blown on a windy day much further than that. So we're not just talking about odors and blowin
debris, we're talking about some stuff that raises significant public health issues. So anyway, I'm here to support the concerns of the northeast Travis County neighborhoods.
>> thank you.
>> I'm joyce thorson for walnut place. I have a few pictures that were taken this morning. I'm going to -- I only have one copy, and I apologize for that and I will give that to you when we finish. This is from the west side of the waste management close to walnut place. It's the property that we hope will be protected by the county. It's in the e.t.j. There is no other protection for this floodplainand tributary property. We need at least the 500-foot set back for all kind of facilities for this. The second thing, I'm very concerned about the variance process. I hope the public will receive notification that a variance has been applied for that the public will have in kind of input into that process. I'm not sure how it's worded now, but I really hope you'll consider giving the public some input into that. The third thing is on this property, which I'm going to give you pictures of, waste management has an option to buy part of it, some of it. They're planning a septic system. So how far does a septic system have to be from the floodplain? I'm just asking. I have no idea. But we're concerned about that. Any facility that is in the e.t.j. That needs a septic system, that's got to go somewhere. So what are we looking at with that?
>> I don't know what the requirement is for septic systems. We would probably have to check with the health department. Does tnr know?
>> on a case by case --
>> nothing can be built in a floodplain.
>> on a case-by-case basis with appropriate design --
>> it has to be engineered. [ laughter ]
>> I hated to go there, but thank you, tom.
>> it's a fairly -- you know, it's fairly common. In fact, in environmental regulations to basically say you can do something based on the engineering. It's not unusual.
>> there's critical elements like back flow valves and things like that that have to be looked at for those in the floodplain.
>> these pictures show erosion west of --
>> this is the tributary that goes through the property that waste management has an option to buy. And we're talking about landfilling this area.
>> so john, under the variance language of the non-type 1 solid waste ordinance, what provision guides you? I'm just trying to quickly look over a and b.
>> well, there's really a combination of four, and it's under a 62.006-b there. Number one is sort of the hardship element. That's basically the applicant would say, I have looked at this ordinance and its requirements and I have searched high and low in the unincorporated area of Travis County, and every place i've found that meets those requirements, for example, the owner wouldn't sell it to me. Somehow I can't -- for some reason I can't use that site and i've exhausted all possibilities and I literally cannot find a piece of land that meets the requirements of this ordinance to put my facility. Number 2, is what I would sort of call the mitigation requirement. That is, okay, assuming you were allowed to put your facility in a site that doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance, what are are you going to do in terms of how the facility is built or how is it operated? What are you going to do to protect public health, safety and welfare? And I think this is where your concept of engineered storm water runoff controls would come in because obviously if you're going to allow the facility to be located closer to the waterway than otherwise required, then you're going to want them to do something to offset the risk, the contaminated runoff would enter that waterway. And that's something that would be engineered storm water runoff control. Number 3 is sort of the need element. That's satisfactory evidence of the degree to which the facility will contribute to meeting the solid waste management needs of capital area planning council region. That is sort of is there a need for this facility? If there's not a need for this facility, maybe the variance shouldn't be granted. Number 4 is the applicant ago compliance history. Based on the new tceq information that's being collected. And number 5 is the public notice requirement. So those are basically the five requirements.
>> and that goes how far?
>> five years.
>> five years of compliance.
>> that's the tceq requirement.
>> so you were asking about the public notice requirement. In subsection 5 there, the language basically makes -- rirses the variance be made available --
>> to the homeowners association for each neighborhood within one mile of the location. And also makes the backup information for the variance available to the public at locations readily accessible to all owners of the various receptors.
>> does that include the county Commissioners?
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> this first language is the proposed ordinance, solid waste siting ordinance that we're supposed to get back here with the court. And it includes the language, is that true?
>> this is the language.
>> so generally what you would do if you didn't -- couldn't meet the 500-foot standard is come in and basically argue your circumstances and say, but my engineer has designed the system in such a way that I will not only provide the same protection, but may even do more, beginning with my physical barrier. We get back to that one again.
>> I'm not an engineer, but i've worked on this stuff long enough to know that for storm water that will be channels and berms and detention ponds. And I'm looking over at john and he's nodding, so I haven't said anything improper yet. Revoke any self-appointed engineer's license that I do.
>> those are the typical things that we see, and we could -- as you recall during the last summer's period when we talked about property agreements, we could make sure that we've got our best industry practices kind of clause in there as well. One of the things that I heard mr. Goss willing say was he was trying to put him selves in the shoes of a sludge applicator or whatever. And he talked about immediately jump into a variance. Well, let's remind ourselves that the pure intent of this public policy is to guide the sighting of these facilities and the very first place prior to a single cent being spent on real estate, we hope that they can find sites that are up on a hill basically away from water facilities. I mean, that's where we started from and that's kind of why we did this.
>> well, john, if I were to come in and show that my professionally engineered plan in fact was better than the 500-foot set back, we would welcome that.
>> assuming it was sound engineering, right.
>> I'm sorry, judge, could you explain how that could be?
>> how -- how we would -- we could welcome an enhanced protection?
>> how would you determine on paper that the 500-foot set back or this engineered -- that this engineered project would be better than the 500-foot set back?
>> well, you would have to look at the details of the actual proposal and you would have to look at the soils in place and all the other characteristics that are at play, the size of the watershed, any other influences that are appropriate, and you can make those decisions.
>> well, then I understand what you're saying, but if you look at a facility on paper, it always looks nice and clean, but just like a landfill or recycling facility, it's always a work in progress. It's not -- it's not a nice, clean square building on a piece of land, it's free for all. Even home depot has that problem and it has stuff all over the parking lot. These guys have old tires, compost piles. They have everything around these facilities. So how can you determine from a drawing on paper that the owner is going to contain all this?
>> it's just like we do everyday. None of us are perfect, I suppose, but tom makes decisions on legal guidance everyday. I make decisions on environmental guidance everyday. It's just -- it's what we do. It's part of what we do. I would not make the engineering decisions here, but I would be involved in a team of folks that would do that.
>> yeah, but the principles for having to analyze the potential for pollution from storm water runoff are pretty well developed now. , all the way from the federal government to the state government, down to local governments. And the regulatory arena, people have been doing this literally for decades now. So it's not -- there's a sound scientific and technical basis for how you do it. Now, what level of control you want to establish is a policy decision, but in terms of looking at the -- the elements -- what storm you want to use as the basis for your regulations, two-year, 10-year, 100-year. As john said, the soil types, the topography, you basically analyze the physics and you can figure out, you know, how much water is going to runoff and what's going to be in it, whether it's like you said a home depot or a landfill or a shopping center or anything else.
>> but home depot is not next to a creek, but if you go by that assumption that an engineered -- that we have the knowledge -- I mean, the county spends a lot of money getting engineered projects for their landfill, and it's still costing you money. The engineered project didn't work out as well as you thought it would. So even with the right field behind it and people are not trying -- you are not trying to cut corners, you are trying to do the right thing and save money based on people paying taxes. It wasn't like you had -- you had a budget, but it wasn't like you had to stick by this amount of money. And it still didn't work out. That's what I'm saying. Even with the best engineering design in mind, you still have problems.
>> there's always the potential for something unforeseen or an omission for the way do you that in the regulatory arena is build in a margin for error. But that's part of the analysis that commonly goes into storm water regulations and setting a standard and requiring facilities to engineer to achieve a certain amount of storm water retention or storm water treatment.
>> right. Well, you can call back the engineers and they can fix it. When it's trash and garbage and pollution, it's gone. By the time you figure out the project is not viable, it's already gone down the creek. Thank you.
>> gentlemen, what's the most important advantage of the 500-foot set back? Just the distance?
>> yeah. It's dispassion. -- disis a paition. If you have any kind of pollute ant that's flowing across the land or in a groundwater scenario, just that distance that it passes through either venltative matter or -- vegetative matter or soil tend to have a cleansing effect. So it really is just that distance that gets you that.
>> sue this is the variance in the sighting ordinance?
>> and the one that's posted, yeah.
>> is there a variance in the floodplain?
>> yes.
>> what does it say?
>> it's a little bit broader, more general. It basically contains four elements, and there's some overlap between the two. The four elements in the floodplain ordinance variance provision are the facility meets all other regulatory requirements, no alternative site is available to the applicant, so that's one in common. Need special conditions, strict enforcement would result in unusual and unnecessary hardship, and all necessary conditions will be imposed and all necessary measures will be taken by the applicant to protect public health, safety and welfare, including appropriate engineering, design, operation, inspection, monitoring and financial responsibility. So that's in the posted ordinance about taking whatever necessary steps to protect the health, safety and welfare. This one does include -- it expressly includes appropriate engineering, stein and operation. So they're not that fair off.
>> that's what I suggested. Steve, that's what I suggested today, but it more specific than --
>> you're talking about specifically identifying one specific engineering measure that would be considered.
>> right. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> is that what joe gave you a note about john, that's part of it, that you all don't have the -- the manpower to really oversee, I mean, number one to design; number two, you certainly don't have the manpower to go in the oversight so -- so what joe had given you a note concerning was really that -- that the industry would have to be responsible for paying for that, which means that they would also be responsible, I mean, our person that we have the confidence in, that that person would be paid for by industry?
>> staff is watching the conversation. And they are making an assessment on whether they will be able to carry out what the court is asking them to do. My engineers are saying they don't feel they have the expertise to give you guidance on whether or not what is being engineered is equivalent to what you might have gotten by a 500-foot setback. To get that expertise, you are -- we are going to have to go outside to get it. So that -- the question is does the county pay to do that or does the applicant pay to do that.
>> okay. So that's one additional question. Anything further today?
>> are we going to take action on this today or what? [indiscernible] I still would like to ensure that the protection of the barrier and protection of the neighbor, the protection of the water, of the public safety and health issues are adequately addressed and both of these do have variances -- in fact right before you ask tom, judge, about the variance in the floodplain ordinance, I have just showing him did he have a copy of that variance within the floodplain ordinance he said he did have it. Right before you asked that question because I wanted to make sure that those variances were intact because that was a point that was brought up. However, 500-foot setback appears to be the thing that we continue to need to be supporting. What I'm supporting. What everybody else is supporting is your business. But the 500-foot setback, integrated all of this into an ordinance, before the public right now, to adopt hopefully on the 27th of may, may muddy the water a little bit. Right now we have two separate ordinances here, I think they need to be separate and distinct. [indiscernible] that staff is saying, joe, it's easier cost-wise to maintain the 500-foot setback and allow the [indiscernible] thing that will require additional funding and a whole lot of other things for us to do as well as financing. I don't know whether the industry wants to pay for that or not. Right now we are kind of left with the 500-foot setback I think in place. They should be separate and distinct. I know that's what I am supporting. What everybody else do is their business. That's what I'm hearing, in fact I think I also heard industry mention the 500-foot setback also. Of course we do not need to visit the land development code at this site because of course that's a city deal. As I started before and that's their recollection and plus it applies to subdivision regulations, more so than siting waste facility issue that we are dealing with here today. Anything further today? I will have my ideas reduced to writing real soon. This item is back on the court's agenda along with the other one on either the 27th or the week after that, depending on how fast staff can -- can review and evaluate the comments that are submitted. My guess is that we will need to repost it.
>> that's the safe things to do.
>> but before this item is on the agenda again, I would reduce to writing what I think we ought to do. And we will circulate that to everybody here today.
>> very good.
>> judge, fyi in the newspaper notice that went out, we did say that we would have a public hearing on the 27th and a second hearing and action on the 3rd.
>> on the 3rd.
>> so probably needs -- there's going to be an expectation that it's on the 27th and the 3rd, so we probably ought to have it on the agenda both days.
>> okay. Tom, you have just added two [indiscernible] of work --
>> I will have mine in writing --
>> I felt obligated to tell you that. I'm ready to bear the burden.
>> okay.
>> anything further? Thank you all very much.
>> appreciate it.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 13, 2003 7:52 PM