Travis County Commssioners Court
June 3, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Items 1 & 6
Item no. 1 is a public hearing to discuss proposed solid waste facilities siting ordinance. Probably ought to go ahead and get the public hearing, I guess, over before calling up the action item or does it matter?
>> I don't think it matters, judge. They both -- [multiple voices]
>> you can call them up --
>> let's call them up at the same time. Number 6 to consider proposed solid wasting site ordinance and comments received including comments regarding incorporating Travis County floodplain ordinance and take appropriate action. All right.
>> good morning, judge. Commissioners. John kuhl environmental officer. This -- this particular ordinance was addressed in court, I believe the last time at least on point in the -- the point that started the public comment period was April 15th, tax day. And at that point the court unanimously approved the motion to -- to post the item for public comments. It was advertised in the --
>> let me formally move that we open up the public hearing. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Sorry to consult you off.
>> didn't mean to get ahead of you, judge. Anyway, it was advertised as required in the Austin american-statesman the week of the 21st of April. And we have had sort of a -- of a longer than 30 day comment period. I believe that we are probably right around 50 days rights now. I think one of the reasons for that was because as you may recall, the court directed the community to also consider two points as they gave us comments, in addition to the body of e ordinance, there were also -- they were also instructed to consider the -- the existing floodplain ordinance as it may or may not apply to -- to this solid waste ordinance and also to consider whether we would exclude type 4 landfills from this ordinance under consideration. Right now, the way it's drafted, this ordinance pertains to what we referred to as minor facilities and major facilities. Minor facilities being recycling and transfer stations. And major facilities essentially being everything else. But primarily to include sludge land application sites and composting sites for sludge and dead animals and those kinds of things. Our whole host of setbacks and things that are invited in that -- that are embodied in that ordinance. At this point --
>> there are four landfills covered by the current ordinance?
>> the way it was drafted and posted is that it was legislatively underlined and bolded the and type 4. In other words it's included in there as one of the facility types that would be excluded from the ordinance. And that -- that would be along with type 1, type 2, type 3, type 4 landfills.
>> so -- so types 1, 2, 3, 4 are not included in the current [indiscernible]
>> correct.
>> clarification --
>> clarify that.
>> I -- type 4 was included in the ordinance that went out because you all never actually took a vote on that. We were expecting you all to take a vote. As john points out it was include understand the last draft with some strike through and underlining language. We were anticipating that you all would make a motion and vote on it. Since you didn't vote on it, our understanding was that it was still subject to the ordinance. I think the standing staff recommendation is that they be treated like type 1 and taken out of the ordinance.
>> okay.
>> I thought initially if we were including them in the ordinance we would be doing them a favor. The only type 4's that I have heard about used to be considered with the type 1. For reasons that I don't clearly understand but don't need to at this point. Is there any objection to including type 4's with type 1's?
>> there's objections on my part. I think the -- I think they are a part of this particular ordinance, I think they should still be a part of the ordinance. In fact I have gotten several e-mails that I would like to -- that would include to like type 4, leave it in, this ordinance as it is now, as the way it was posted.
>> okay. The reason is because it's in there now?
>> yes. It is. And it is a facility that needs to be included in this particular ordinance, the residents definitely would like to see that -- that inclusion.
>> okay. Any comment on that?
>> judge, it would be nice if we could -- if we knew ahead of time what we're dealing with. I'm so confused right now, I don't even know what you guys are doing, I'm sorry.
>> we are dealing with whether type 4's ought to be left in the cowrntdz. John's opinion is that they were not in anyway. Tom said yes, they were. We need to clarify whether type 4's are included in this other than type 1 landfills ordinance that's before us. Type 1, I know we decided to pull out. There was some question about whether type 4's were left in. So the first issue that we are dealing with, I thought it was a non-issue, really was whether type 4's ought to be left in the current ordinance that covers solid waste facilities other than type 1 is my thinking, we were told there are no type 2's and 3's, so that leaves 1 and 4. 1 are the major landfills.
>> right.
>> and my thinking early on was throw type 4's out and treat them like what I considered to be kinds of minor waste facilities, which really legally probably are more non-type 1 landfills. So the real issue is do type 4, construction debris landfills go with type 1's, which is for the before us or in the ordinance before us.
>> what about the hybrid where you have a type 4 that becomes a type 1?
>> well, you can't be both of them at one time, can you? The permit that the city of Austin has, I understand right now is legally a type 4. It was permitted as type 1, they converted to a type 4 because of the airport, the city of Austin cannot use its lands fill as a type 1.
>> right.
>> is what I'm left with. It's a kind of confusing deal. If it's -- if it's not a type 1, this wouldn't affect the city of Austin anyway. If it is a type 1, I mean type 4, whatever we do with type 4 is we cover -- it would cover them. I only know of two type 4's, esi and the city of Austin.
>> isi is a true type 4 which has never taken [indiscernible] waste. Type 1 has 10 pew putresible waste for the majority of its life. It's no longer a type 4 landfill. You still have the contamination for ground water and the opportunity for -- for -- for a major disaster to happen after a rain event would expose contaminated garage to the floodplain area. The city of Austin already permitted it anyway, so I'm not concerned about the city of Austin, I'm concerned with the type 1 landfill that may want to expand and use part of its expansion in a type 4 to put a type 4 facility on top of it.
>> but I don't know that we are dealing with that hypothetically. If what you say is true about the city of Austin's landfill, it would be better for them to be treated as a type 1.
>> right.
>> and the city has said, and iesi we would rather be treated with the type 1's.
>> of course they want to be treated as a type 1, you are not adding type 1 [multiple voices]
>> when we address type 1, the way we address it may well be more strict than how we did with the others. That's the big question mark. Frajly I consider construction debris facilities to be kind of like the others that I always in my own mind categorize as being minor, not type 1.
>> I agree with you. In fact I think there should be no type 1 waste going to type 4 waste going to tape 1:00 landfills, that's one of the resolutions that you should take so that the type 4 can actually do better in take all of the waste from the type 1 landfills now going there and taking up room. What's your response to the question that we -- treat type 4 in the current ordinance save them for how we treat type 1's later. Does anybody have a position on that question?
>> threat type 1's like type 4's, flood facilities, transfer facilities, recycle facilities, et cetera.
>> you know, if you are not looking a the hybrid type, it doesn't make any difference. I've never had any, you know, I don't have any qualms with the way isi was running their operation. I have never visited the Austin landfill. The city of Austin landfill, so I don't know.
>> if we have -- if we have questions about whether the city of Austin's landfill has issues as do the -- some of the other type 1 landfills, in my view that argues for pitting type 4's as type 1's, the good news is that's exactly what they requested, that's why it would be a non-issue.
>> judge, I'm looking at the logic behind it. If you are planning on being more restrictive, would y world war ii they not want to be part of this ordinance and not part of the other.
>> the manager of one of those type 4's right there next to you.
>> good morning, judge, I'm willie rhoades the director of solid waste services for the city of Austin. The city of Austin preference would be to treat our landfill as type 1, 2, 3 landfills and come back [indiscernible] what you are going to do with those landfills, that's how we prefer to be treated.
>> what's the reason or reasons?
>> the reason is we are taking a look at how we are going to be operating and we feel that the things that we are trying to do for privatization of that landfill that the current ordinance will impede that because [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> point, I guess, since you already permitted as a type 1 operator, that's the current permit that the city of Austin is operating up under right now, and you lease that to another facility, who is to say that -- that even if it's a type 1 for construction debris, who is to say that transfer stations and things of that nature can't be used at that particular current site? There's no restrictions I think in the r.f.p. That -- I don't believe there are, if there are the I think you ought to say there are -- as far as the land use of the use of that facility if the city has and that's the problem that I think I'm happy with it, then as we look into the future with type 4, type 1 landfills, the future use under type 4 may be a problem and if we allow that for the city, then it appear that's we may have to -- we may have to allow that to -- to the other landfill operations to allow transfer station, a whole lot of other things on those sites per se, even though they would convert to a type 4 as for the use of these landfills and of course since you won't -- you probably still have ownership of it, of the landfill, however, it will be leased to -- to someone else and right now I'm not sure if there's any language, per se, in the lease arrangements with whomever you pick up to do that, is that -- it prohibits that type of use.
>> one, the city of Austin has no plans to have a -- a transfer station site odd our landfill. The permit for that landfill is not -- not contemplated to be leaving from the city of Austin's hands. Therefore we are not planning to have a transfer station at that site. That said, if you passed the ordinance as it stands today, if you passed the ordinance as it stands today, the ordinance will allow transfer station at that site. Sight ordinance and transfer station comes under their ordinance as today. So Commissioner this ordinance does not preclude that from occurring. I'm saying that the city of Austin is not planning on having a transfer station site at that land.
>> but my question is the person that will be using it, in other words, you will be leasing it to whomever is going to get the award of the lease for the use of that particular landfill and my person is to the person that is -- what restriction prohibits that type of use, because it would still come up under this particular current ordinance.
>> that's the city of Austin has the permit. We would have to be the one going from the state to request that.
>> but it has --
>> the city of Austin, I reiterate once again, the city of Austin has no plans to site a transfer station at that land. We built a transfer station several years ago on todd lane that's available for use if the city of Austin needs a transfer station in the south part of town. The city of Austin does not need a transfer station in the south part of town, no plans on the transfer station in the south part of town.
>> do the city of Austin have any landfills within the city limits.
>> no.
>> the city of Austin -- dootd city of Austin have any transfer stations within the city limits?
>> yes.
>> you do?
>> it's not utilized as a transfer station, but it's in the city limits of Austin.
>> all right. So -- so this particular ordinance that we are looking at right now is not applicable to an incorporated area whereby the city of Austin or any other city that's in Travis County. Now, my question is it wouldn't again wouldn't be applicable to whatever you do within the city. But it would be applicable to those areas that's out of the city limits. Now the landfill itself is out of the city limits that the city have ownership at this time. Again, I have not heard any guarantee that the -- the lease of the person that's going to lease this particular property from the city of Austin will not have the authority or the ability to do what they want to do with it, that is in fact deal with transfer stations.
>> I guess because the city of Austin holds the permit, the city of Austin will be the one that has to carry that forward, Commissioner. The city of Austin does not have any plan to carry that forward. The person who is leasing the property won't have that ability to do that.
>> willie, it's permitted as a type 4 right now.
>> the permit is actually type 1, operating as a type 4 with the -- with the state. So we have -- we carry the permit. We plan on carrying the permit. For all of our activities for the future.
>> but the tceq, you have an obligation to make whatever type 1 facilities -- to meet whatever type 1 facility requirements they have.
>> yes. We are planning on doing that when we do our post closure and closure care.
>> but I guess the problem, tom, I guess you can help me out on this legal here. There's a type 1 facility which the city of Austin has ownership of this particular landfill. And legally, I guess they can -- they can use it as a type 4 that would preclude any use of that particular landfill as a type 4, which does not prohibit transfer station. I believe that's correct. If I'm wrong, will you correct me?
>> well, I know this, if --
>> even if you permit it --
>> if a facility is permitsed as type 1.
>> all right.
>> it automatically can take type 4 waste. So I don't know that there's an issue about a type 1 "converting" to a type 4 because type 1 is sort of regarded as the type of permit that allows the most different types of waste streams to go in there. As long as you are permitted as a type 1 you can be taking type 4 wastes, you don't have to go back and get a special type 4 permit, construction and demolition debris to your waste streams. I think from -- from -- john, in my perspective, it's sort of like type 1, which is sort of the mexico nauseous type of landfill is already out of the ordinance, then given that type fours are similar in how they are permitted at tceq and there's the opportunity to address land use issues, there doesn't seem to be much logic to having the type 1's out but not the type 4's.
>> > with that, the reason why I am [indiscernible] with these particular questions, the eisi, or ei -- I can't remember, the other landfill, they basically were flip flopping wanting to be with the type 1 landfills, when it's advantageous. When it was not advantageous it appeared that they wanted to be treated active. So how are we going to treat type 1, 2, 3, 4 landfills the same or are we going to look at type 4 a -- different and the difference to me is that because you are type 1 landfill, then you -- you can actually deal with transfer stations at that site.
>> john day with iesi. Just to clarify, our facility is a pure type 4, never has been a type 1, never will be a type 1. The city's facility was originally permitted as a type 1, but I think that they have agreed to restrict their waste streams to a type nearly. Given their proximity to the airport, I don't believe they could ever refer back to a situation where they will be accepting type 1 waste. To address your question about the transfer station, in order to locate a transfer station on, for example, the city's facilities, they would have to go through a separate process at tceq, which would either require that they obtain a permit or a registration, then also probably modify their existing permit for the landfill facility, but there would be a separate process, formal process that they would have to go through at the state level. I think that would trigger the requirements that you have in this existing ordinance that they would be required to comply with the transfer station requirements. So while they do have a permit from the state, if they wanted to locate a transfer station on their facility, my understanding would be that they would have to go to both the state and also separately comply with this current ordinance and current ordinances or draft ordinance requirements for transfer stations which is characterized as a minor facility under this all inclusive category.
>> exactly.
>> I agree with what you are saying, john.
>> exactly.
>> that's the correct analysis.
>> it doesn't authorize it, it doesn't preclude it, nor does it authorize it, but what it does do is require that that transfer station be -- be permitted in accordance with the restriction that's you are going to put in place for minor facilities.
>> exactly. I can remember and recall, you know, let me ask you this question, I'm glad that you are here. Because there were some variations as we come thus far with this particular ordinance. As far as your position and -- what is your position this morning? Are you wanting to be excluded, out of this ordinance and be treated as a minor facility as a type 4? Or would you like to be with the type 1 -- type 2, type 3 landfills, even though you are a bona fide type 4 operates that has only construction debris.
>> correct. Originally when this process started we always viewed ourselves while we are a landfill facility, because of the restricted waste streams that we have, we cannot take prutresible last or sludge, the kinds of materials that have been the source of some concerns on the part of the citizens. We have always viewed type 4 facilities as presenting a much lower risk or a threat than would be a facility which takes those other types of waste streams that we cannot take. Accordingly we have been consistently asking for a recognition that the type 4 facilities are different and therefore they should be on treated less stringently than you would treat the type 1's. Originally we requested when all of the facilities were being dealt with in a common ordinance, before it was split into two ordinances, we are asking for -- to be not included in the type 1's because we were not a type 1 facility per se.
>> all right.
>> but rather to be in the other group then within that group we had been asking for treatment moren the lines of what you would call a minor facility because of the waste streams that we take as opposed to major facilities. The draft that came out when the two -- when the ordinance, this unified ordinance was split into two ordinances and the 1, 2, 3, type landfills were moved out to the side, what we were left with as an ordinance which dealt with the non-landfill facilities, non-type 1, 2, 3. Within that ordinance, the one that you see before you, you have a station between -- a distinction between jor and minor facilities. The staff has not apparently agreed with our suggestion that the type 4's being treated as a minor facility within this ordinance. They are treating us as a major facility within this ordinance. Accordingly, the restrictions that you have in place for major facilities right now are the same facilities that you have in place for type 1 landfills. In terms of the receptors, distances. There's a couple of extra ones that apply to the landfills, but for the most part the 1500-foot setback, one mile from residence, all of those other receptors and the distance setbacks that you have established are pretty much the same for a major facility under the ordinance that you have in front of you today as they had been for the type 1 land fills. So where we stand right now, while we would prefer to be treated -- I will get back to that in a way that's different than the type 1 landfills, as a practical matter at this point we see that given the direction that you are moving in, it makes more sense to treat all of the landfills 1, 2, 3 and 4 together in one ordinance and to deal with the non-landfill facilities, which would include your sludge facilits, your transfer station, recycling facilities, your miscellaneous types of facilities in the separate ordinance that you have in front of you today. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> now, what we had requested in the comments that we filed on may 20th in response to the ordinance was that you actually, if you are going to keep us in is this ordinance, and again, we probably would be preferred to be taken out at this time, but if you were to keep us in this ordinance, the type 4 facilities, we would like for you to designate the current real property holdings of iesi and the city of Austin specifically as acceptable locations for the management of type 4 waste. If you are going to keep us in. If you are going to -- would you repeat that again?
>> if you are going to keep us in is this ordinance, we would request you keep the iesi and the city of Austin locations for the management of type 4 waste streams. Effectively what that would do, what that means is we would be able to adjust our footprint and expand laterally within the property that we currently own and would not be subject to the distance limitations that are established here. What we're saying is these facilities in existence, they are out there now, they are not causing any difficulties or problems for the communities. These facilities are height restricted, we cannot go vert you canly because you are our proximity to the airport. So the only opportunity we have to expand is move laterally within the properties we currently own. So that recommendation would permit us to move laterally to, expand our capacity laterally, by recognizing that the current properties that are currently owned are acceptable locations for this type of an activity. If that is not acceptable, then what we would prefer is that we just move the type 4 landfills out, put them in the class of landfills generally and deal with the type 4 landfills in the future in one landfill ordinance.
>> okay. Now, we aren't going to take any action today on this, per se, as far as what I see. I know we'll have to get to item 6, but I think the comments that are made here, I think, will help facilitate decisions, and of course the comments the city of Austin are making, and I'm glad you are here because that was a -- you know, some controversy, as I stated earlier, as far as the variance -- as far you you wanting to be with type 1 at one time and then as I stated earlier be treated separately. With those kind of comments, I think, you know, we can look at that. But I want to get back to the neighborhood folks here and she what they are saying on this as far as what you've heard because those comments are going to be very important.
>> well, trek english again. With all due respect to my good friend john from iesi, I'm missing a part of his argument. I do not have any problem with specifically designating iesi as the acceptable location for the type 4 waste. I think that's been done a long time ago. However, if I follow his argument and you remove type 4 into type 1, I am sure he is anticipating having type 1 -- type 4 being treated less strictly than type 1 in the future ordinances. But then you would be looking at treating a type 4 landfill or you would be looking at treating a transfer station more strictly than you would a type 4. If I'm following his logic.
>> well, first of all, is that clear?
>> john, can I ask a question?
>> I don't know that if I were a type 4 operator or owner, I would assume that type 4 would be treated in any differently [inaudible] ordinance [inaudible]. That's my position. I don't see us coming up with four or five different ordinances or necessarily treating four or five facilities four or five different ways in one ordinance. I mean, that big of an ordinance is you come up with blanket language and you may have variances in there, but basically the language you a plies to all facilities covered.
>> the problem I'm having is the [inaudible] this ordinance. You are making it more --
>> [inaudible] has that problem.
>> right. Well, maybe that's what we should discuss.
>> that issue is coming up next.
>> the receptors.
>> that issue will be discussed today. Now, anybody else on the type 4? Commissioner Davis basically wants to us delay, guess that's fine with me. I think we need to go ahead and discuss the issues. We have discussed these issues a long time and it does make sense to me to try to have all five of us here, otherwise they would keep coming up again and again in response to motions to reconsider. If there are others who wish to give testimony just on whether or not type 4 facilities should be in the current ordinance or taken out and treated along with type 1s in another ordinance, come forward; we want to hear your testimony.
>> before we go there, judge, tom had a question here.
>> we do need a couple of those seats if we can get them.
>> john, your preference is treat type 1s as type 4s. That's your first preference. Your second premps was if type 4s are left in the ordinance, designate the existing sites so they can expand. But, trek, I think the implication of that is new type 4s would be treated as major facilities. John, your proposal if type 4s stay in the ordinance, treating new type 4s different than existing type 4s.
>> right.
>> thank you.
>> three chairs available. Just on the issue of type 4, if we could resolve this, then we'll go to the next issue. Yes.
>> I think this really points out that --
>> hello, ms. Mcafee.
>> regarding the type 4 landfills, I would like to point out that this, once again, shows the necessity of looking at all of this at one time, as was discussed that decisions are having to be made on this type 4 not knowing what will happen to e type 1. So it just seems craze toy leave them out -- crazy to leave them out, but what you said, judge, about you inferred that the type 4 would be treated like type 1. And what goes through my mind there is why would you penalize type 4, which is where you want the county to end up in our region is to keep things out of the type 1. So I think I don't know exactly where you were going with that comment, but on another --
>> my statement was, whoever is in the next ordinance will be treated the same by the broad language. I'm sure there will be a variance provision. So if the type 4 operators prefer to be treated like type 1s in the next ordinance, I don't know if there's any special advantage. That's why I thought this was a non-issue. Earlier I thought they ought to be in this ordinance because I thought construction debris was more akin to some of the other manner type waste than would go into the type 1 landfill. But I don't have a strong preference except if they want to be a type 1, my thing is we'll put you over there. No special reason for me to pull you out. But I don't know that a type 1 operator at this point is justified in thinking that he will be treated better in the type 1 landfill ordinance.
>> seems to me quite obviously he should be treated very differently. The whole ordinance came about and the whole issue revolves around odors and how close will all of these things, whether they are type 4, type 41, composting, resieblging, they all have different components. I don't know if we have looked at that as strongly as we should, because obviously a type 4 that doesn't receive all those waress are going to be a much easier neighbor than a sludge operator.
>> well, that's why I thought it best for them to go with this -- in this current ordinance with these facilities. You've heard them say today it seems better to be with type 1s. I just defer to their judgment.
>> they are anticipating much easier restrictions.
>> that's why I thought my caveat was appropriate. I wouldn't assume that. I would assume whoever was in the next ordinance would be treated like type 1 facilities and the broad language will cover all the covered facilities, but there will be a variance provision. You know what you get in this one. I don't know that you are ought to assume you know what you will get in the next one. I don't even know.
>> well, that may be a good reason not to do it in two parts. There is like russian roulette a little bit, isn't it?
>> a majority of the court thought let's take on the easy facilities first. Let's pull out type 1 landfills and take the others that will be much easier, get those done, deal with the orders and move to an ordinance covering type 1 landfills t strategy makes sense.
>> well, we've just --
>> [inaudible] make that decision.
>> none of it is easy, though, is it?
>> not as smooth as we thought.
>> not an easy --
>> so your position is what? You think type 4s ought to be left in this ordinance or defer to the operator?
>> my position is go back to the drawing board and look at every issue that I don't think that composting station should be treated like a recycling. And to give them all the same parameters, they are all different -- sludge operators are over here, and I think type 4 over here, and the composting station is in another spovment they are all in different spots and should be treated accordingly. And I don't think either ordinance reflects that. And it should.
>> how many ordinances and how much time?
>> one ordinance and treating with the five different types should be -- all five have different components and should be treated that way. And they are not.
>> is that friendly?
>> yes.
>> slight clarification. I just wanted to make sure you are aware that as far as minor facilities go, we're only contemplating recycling and transfer stations. We're not contemplating composting facilities as being a minor facility. A composting facility would be -- you know, that that exceeds a diminus level, would be covered under major facilities. I just wanted to make sure you knew that.
>> yes, sir. A moment ago I had the notion this would be easy. Yes, sir.
>> judge, my name is alfred stanley. I'm the treasurer of the Texas league of conservation voters. And although I haven't spoken at the court to address these matters previously, i've been following the situation with the various waste disposal facilities for quite some time. As I understand your approach, it was just as you articulated a moment ago, let's take care of the easy stuff first and move on to the hard stuff. If that's the case, I don't think it makes sense to start taking things out that were supposedly straightforward. Because what you will left with is an ordinance that is, you know, in this first stage that is so -- that accomplishs so little. That what was the point of the exercise in the first place. If you take type 4 out, perhaps you should just say, look, we are going to need a comprehensive approach, and let's tackle the big issue that's got everybody up in arms, the so-called, you know, elephant in the corner that nobody wants to talk about. And that's the type 1 facility and how we're going to bring these facilities under some kind of control. I think if you take out type 4 from this ordinance, in a sense it is saying that the strategy of dealing with the easy stuff first is flawed. That there is really not that much easy stuff to deal with and it's so nominal that if could just as easily have been handled in the bigger comprehensive ordinance. And that's my comments on the issue as you articulated it so far.
>> on type 1, too, the -- if that order is issued seemed to be the most [inaudible]. And what we decided to do was try to come up with an odor study and a remediation plan. My thinking was let's save the ordinance until we reach some conclusions about the level of the odors, whether or not it's possible for us to come in that effective remediation plan, implement that and see what happens. See what I'm saying? Then I thought we would know what kind of ordinance we needed to deal with [inaudible]. So it wasn't really to pull them out to pull them out, it was let's put a strategy in place for type 1 landfills and my strategy was let's deal with everything else in a separate ordinance that we can do right now and it ought to be easy. So there were several other issues.
>> well, you know, I do think that dealing, you know, with what's identified by easy, getting it off the table so it's dealt with, you know, should be done. But by removing things, even deferring to this person who wants to be exempted, then you haven't dealt with as much as you thought you were going to deal with originally. I would like to say, just in expense to your comment about the type 1, that several years ago I became concerned with the situation with city of Austin awarding their solid waste disposal contracts. There was a -- finalists were, I believe, waste management and Texas disposal systems. The waste management facility was pulled out of eligibility for consideration because of concerns that the city of Austin had with the performance of the barrier that keeps, you know, that contains runoff from within the landfill. So I would say that odor is not the only issue, and the other issue too, is that when these facilities were permitted, I don't think anybody imagined that the operators would keep coming back and coming back and permitting them so that none of us would be alive when they are likely to -- when they are permit is next going to expire. So I would just like to say that as an environmentist following this issue, I'm becoming increasingly concerned -- I commend the county for starting to deal with this overall problem, but I think that primarily you've had a lot of neighbors upset about the local impacts of odor. But I think a more comprehensive approach similar to what was done in the legislature with the grandfathering of air pollution, the fact that when the clean air act was instituted, nobody imagined that the old facilities wouldn't be replaced with new, modern facilities. To us, a new, modern facilities is t.d.s. Is an example of a new, modern facility. I think we have to come to the day where we are putting the older facilities, profitable as they are for a few corporations, on the road to eventual ex extinction but they present many threats in keeping them going forever, I believe this county court should use every tool that it conceivably has in its ordinance-making power to help put these facilities -- whether it's by -- whether it's by contract with a reasonable time frame, you know, of, you know, six years, at most, not, you know -- I'm 49 years old. I would like the know when these facilities out by 290 are going to be closed. I would like it to happen in my life time. I would like it to happen in my children's lifetime, and the way things are going with what the industry is demanding and what we think the regulatory is over the state, I don't think we're going to have that suitable oversight, and I call upon the local government to really start putting the constraints on these operators of these very old facilities that would not be designed as they are today or located where they are today under everything we know about the obnoxious character of how they are brought -- of what they do and what they are about. You know, they don't have adequate buffer zones to the neighborhoods. They should be replaced by new and modern facilities. And I think that's what the overall goal of this process should be. And I'm going to -- i've already taken steps from Texas league of conservation voters to talk to the director of the environmental defense fund and a former attorney from the former attorney general, assistant attorney general, to start talking about environmental summit within the Travis County environmental groups to address this overall issue. And I also want to just give you that information today.
>> thank you, mr. Stanley. And of course I think the neighborhoods have all stressed over and over again closure of these facilities. Looking at a new location and a regional concept, that has been discussed many times. But of course there has not been any movement that I have noticed at all from the 290 landfill sites to do just that. The young man brought up with iesi, brought up the difference as far as minor facilities, that's what they would basically come under because of type 4, and also the distinction of major facilities. John, if you would, for me, could you give us the distance from -- if it was included in type 4, a minor facility as opposed to major facility, the distance from things such as schools, public water wells and things like that. Could you give me the difference in the distance? Because under minor facilities, we've basically been talking about just recycling and also transfer stations. So there is a distance, a siting criterion within this ordinance that we talked today. Could you basically give us those distances?
>> as I recall, the magic number for the minor facilities was 350 feet.
>> that's correct. And the major facilities, which is other than -- major facilities other than minor facilities, which are the type 1 through 4, both criteria from the distance from public schools, public health as far as things of that nature is what? 1500 feet?
>> 1500 feet with the exception of neighborhoods. And that becomes a mile.
>> right. Right. Right. So public parks, things of that nature. So as a type 4, the restrictions on the minor facility would be less than what they would be under because they would be only accepting construction debris.
>> right. If they were grouped into that minor facility category, which is an important distinction.
>> exactly. It's a very important distinction. And I want to make sure that iesi [inaudible] aware of it, I'm quite sure he is. So, again, the response that i've been getting from the residents are saying that, hey, we would like to include type 4 in this particular ordinance as requested under minor facilities some time ago, as a minor facility. And of course they wanted them included. And then treat type 1, 2 and 3 as landfills as such. Because of their waste stream. And of course, again, [inaudible] I wish we could have included an all in one ordinance, but of course when I made that particular motion, it didn't happen. [inaudible] on this court to get things done. And of course I'm short some posts, but I'm not short of representing my community and short of representing the persons, the residents of precinct 1. I'm not short on that at all and I'm going to continue to do that. So, again, I don't know if we can do anything about it today. I think it's just a comment period, and really I feel comfortable if the other two Commissioners would be here where we have a full Commissioners court to make our decision on what we should do on this type 4 issue. But at least in my mind it has been discussed out and I have e-mails and other comments from the community to include type 4 in the particular ordinance we have before us today. Thanks.
>> let me hear from the top four operators. What harm would result if we leave with you the other facilities? What harm results to you if we leave you in this ordinance? Or, for that matter, put you in this ordinance if you are not in there now.
>> I guess I would say ought the outset, we [inaudible] may 20th.
>> what harm would result if you are left with the other waste facilities? Then we need to go to the next issue. Does any harm result to you?
>> if we are left in the current ordinance as a major facility?
>> right.
>> as a major facility, then we have areas, for example, within our facility that we would like to expand to that arguably would be precluded from expanding. Including areas that are I between areas that are already contained still or authorized for fill.
>> you don't believe that the variance provision would give you whatever you need?
>> it might, depending upon ultimately how it's worded.
>> on our response.
>> right. But obviously that puts us to the task of having to come forward with a separate demonstration and anything we do with the tceq is held up in abeyance pending resolution of that process here.
>> give us more specifics in writing, would you? Can you just enumerate them, with the two members not here.
>> yes.
>> city of Austin feels that having us in this ordinance would limit some of our ability to go forward with the privatization of our landfill.
>> because?
>> because any -- the outside -- a person would have to come in knowingf they could be [inaudible] this ordinance if they could do any expansion for our landfill. For c and d material. Not knowing that, including anybody who wanted to come in and possibly oppose on comond and managing our landfill.
>> c and d is construction debris.
>> yes.
>> any specific reasons that you can enumerate succinctly, if you would give them to us in writing so we could move on this next Tuesday.
>> I have a question. Mr. Rhodes, is there any consideration of trying to reclassify your landfill? How is that done? To me it seems like there is an issue here given that you all are -- you all are a class 1 landfill, but you are agreeing, and I was listening to your words fairly closely about we have no plans of doing anything other than taking construction debris. I mean, for a comfort level, would you all go back and try to reclassify yourself as a type 4 only versus -- and getting the 1 off of your permit and all that? Or do you want -- do you think that you want that because obviously the flexibility of being a 1, I don't know why you would want to be a 1, but is that possible?
>> I think the only reason why we didn't move forward with that was just economics. It would cost money to go in and try to get it. So we saw we could work with the state and the state worked with us to allow to keep our permit and we would close operations to only c and d material. That's the type of material we take at the landfill. We took a look at it, we met with the state and saw how we need to move forward.
>> and I think -- not to put words into Commissioner Davis' mouth, but I think that, you know, it would be [inaudible] if somebody gets a contract to operate this thing, even though you all are the permit holder and you all would have to comply and agree to have it done, there probably is just more comfort level with regards to this is a type 4 landfill and that's what it's called.
>> uh-huh.
>> well, we had an airport plan to it.
>> you have a natural restriction in your permit against putrescibles now?
>> not in our permit. I think it's an agreed letter we sent to the state. [multiple voices]
>> f.a.a. Is out there on this.
>> there is a regulatory restriction in place.
>> that would either have to be changed or they would have to get some variances from f.a.a. To be able to do that.
>> one thing to note, in the language that we provided previously, the option that I mentioned of recognizing the two existing facilities, that they are there, they are not really creating any problems, and designating those two problems as acceptable locations or type 4 facilities, the language I provided would in fact restrict and require that as part of that designation those two properties only be used for type 4 type waste streams. But the effect of incorporating that requirement would be -- I don't know what the city's position on this is exactly, but they would be restricted to a type 4 designation as a result of that absent having to come into the county here to seek some kind of variance.
>> iesi 1 basically in the same posture because of your location near the airport.
>> yes. We also have restrictions and most of those are in the form of agreements with f.a.a., But they are also part of our tceq authorization, we cannot go above a certain height threshold. For those of you who have been out to our facility, we've already reached at one location pretty close to the highest point of that facility. So what you see in terms of height is what you are going to get out there for the most part. We do have areas now within the facility we would like to expand laterally because, as you may recall from previous discussions, the original configuration of landfills is a little unusual. We have sort of a multi-humped facility. We would like to have the ability to slide out laterally and smooth out some areas and refill those areas t current ordinance would impose 1500-foot restriction on that so even though we were going in and putting waste in between, let's say a mound of waste here, a mound of waste here, if we were to put waste in that location, this ordinance by its terms would prevent us from doing so. There is a variance provision, but we would have to go through that process. Our suggestion is to recognize what we have on the ground today, recognize that we're not creating any difficulties, we're not taking waste streams that have a likelihood of creating difficulties in the future and just say, okay, those properties are acceptable locations. We designate those as areas where type 4 waste could be distributed, provided that, in the language I provide, you get all the necessary state permits and comply with all applicable restrictions in proximity to the airport. That's the substance of the --
>> john, your lateral expansion would actually be sliding in, not sliding out, right?
>> well, but --
>> you've got a height cap and you've got an outer envelope. I know the one you ran by us earlier was basically filling a donut hole, so to speak.
>> but in all honesty, we would like to have adilt to slide outward laterally as well as filling in areas.
>> you are looking for more than designation. You are looking for basically approval of expansion.
>> it wouldn't be approval on the expansion. It would say that solid waste disposal activity is permissible within this piece of property.
>> then the permitted --
>> we would have to go to tceq, get their approval. We have drainage approvals we already have to get from the county. We've been in before seeking revisions to development plans. We would have to go to plans approved by the city of Austin. We have a maintenance agreement with regard to runoff and maintenance of our storm water conveyance ditches and we've got an agreement that prevents and attempts to regulate any opportunities [inaudible] to get into that drainl. Our sense is if you say this property doesn't exist as an acceptable location, we still have to get state permits, we still have to get the city and county permits for storm water controls and drainage that we already have to get and have to abride with the terms of our maintenance agreement with did the county.
>> but that property boundary would include the expansion area.
>> sure. Right. It would be the entire property effectively. That gives us the flexibility to decide whether we want to fill an area between two locations or step out in an area. It gives us the operational flexibility to come in with a proposal that would be approved by the state of Texas and would be approved by local county and city folks from a drainage perspective. Rather than precluding that expansion outright and then --
>> okay.
>> -- preventing us from doing so.
>> now that we have dealt with the easy issue, let's move on to something a little more problematic. And that is -- john, let's cover the language on the flood plain issue. We have two separate options presented to us. My recommendation on Wednesday or Thursday was that you reduce those to writing, send them to all of the stakeholders that we had been working with so they could look at the language before today. Would you just summarize that for us, please?
>> before john goes there --
>> no, sir, I would like john to summarize that. Then after that, we'll go to you, Commissioner Davis.
>> oaky doak.
>> what we've done, as you recall, we had the b.f.i. Proposal that said look at the city's land development code and the water quality protection measures that are there and just adopt that for your flood plain considerations. We obviously had some problems with that, and so I think the conversation in court was, well, what if you maintained the 500-foot setback from the 100 year flood plain for non-engineered facilities and you also had a more detailed section that pertained to engineered facilities that might relax that 500-foot setback a little bit. So what we drafted last week, albeit late last week, and got out to my solid waste stakeholders list was sort of a hybrid version of that which has, you know, the basic elements of the 500-foot setback in place for non-engineered facilities, but has a section that deals with prohibitions 64.071 c in particular that does on point address those issues related to engineered facilities. And if you will look at 64.071 c, there is a list of terms there that allows the placement of these facilities closer than the 500-foot setback under these specific circumstances. First of all, the applicant has to identify -- in other words, provide to us engineering plans and drawings and specifications that show where the different buffer zones are. There's a primary and a secondary buffer zone, and they are laid out in the next section, 64.072. Before we get there, there's also a requirement that not only will they lay out these buffer zones, but we can see exactly where their facility relates to them. They would also have to show us the engineering plans and graphics and specifications for their best management practices. In other words, burms, filters, detention or retention ponds that would provide, if will you, a surrogate for lateral distance. In other words, if we feel like there is value to environmental engineering, then let's see what that is. Show us in detail how you are going to get us to the same place in terms of environmental protection that we would get from a lateral separation of 500 feet from outside the 100-year flood plain. 61.071 c reads the person adequately demonstrates the facility will contain a system of burms, channels, filters, ponldz or other structural controls design and constructed either to prevent all storm water runoff -- or disposal or detain and filter on site all runoff from such areas exceeding is first half inch of rainfall so as not to increase either the peak flow or level of contaminants in such runoff above pre-development levels. And to sort of button everything down, number 3 there makes it very clear that even if you come in and look at these buffer zones and so forth and you are in a very small watershed and by some fluke it -- the distance of the setback, be it 100, 150 feet, is within the 100-year flood plain, if we still won't allow the placement of solid waste within the 100-year flood plain. That's what 3 does is tie that down so we don't have any question about that.
>> in an e-mail I basically asked the question are you able to do it within the flood plain. The answer to on that is no.
>> correct. I think that it would be logical if not even likely that there might be some components of the facility that might be put into the 100-year flood plain such as detention or retention ponds. But we're specific to say that no solid waste will be placed within the 100-year flood plain. So the answer is no on placement or handling of waste, but there may be some, you know, adjunct facilities necessary for environmental protection that we would consider okay to be in the 100-year flood plain.
>> which, again, is consistent with what the city of Austin does, judge. Generally they do have provisions that -- while they require the development to be set back from the stream, they do allow storm water controls like john mentioned, retention and detention ponds, to be located within water quality transition zones. So, again, on that point we're being consistent with the city of Austin.
>> but if an engineer were to certify such a thing for us and we agreed, and then later that pollution occurred, we saw basically that the design was not as effective as we thought it would be, what's our recourse?
>> I don't think that, you know, we talked at one point about putting, you know, some sort of section in here that would require remediation or so on, but I don't think it's in here, is it, tom?
>> not expressly. You mentioned best management practices. Judge, in my mind, one of the best management practices, we would require them to spell out for us is what they do in the nature of remediation in the event that the controls fail. We can be more express about that.
>> do we have the authority as part of the [inaudible] the variance to require that remediation be performed to our satisfaction within a time specified by us?
>> yes.
>> that was my thinking.
>> right.
>> because currently the tceq regulations do not provide that.
>> right.
>> and sometimes when are called to their attention, we are told that they are slow to respond, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> and my thinking there was that if we approve the design about the special engineer, and in fact the facts do not bear out, the accuracy of the design, then what would kick into place would be enforcement authority that maybe otherwise we would not have, but we would pick up by granting the variance. My question was basically whether that leaves news a much better position than we would be without it. That's open for comment. To be honest, this is a thought that occurred to me as I was in a discussion with john and tom, which is why I thought they should reduce toitd writing, circulate to it the stakeholders and get responses to that. Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, have I several concerns. Number one, judge, is that I feel that this particular ordinance, adopted and never approved by members of the Commissioners court with the exception of Commissioner Daugherty, you weren't here when this particular flood plain ordinance was adopted. In fact, todd baxter was sitting in that seat there representing precinct 3. Of course, he did sign off and voted to approve to adopt a flood plain ordinance. In my mind, [inaudible] I really do feel that any changes to an ordinance should go through a comment period just as we're looking at this proposed ordinance before us this morning whereby we give the community an oppo have the necessary time to look at this particular ordinance, and as you heard the community state over and over again, the flood plain ordinance should stay intact t point that bothers me, I guess more than anything else, is that here we are looking at a city's development code, land development code and trying to apply it to solid waste facilities. And those basically were reserved, in my mind, I guess, to things other than solid waste facilities for ee-as far as the city is concerned. So you have less restriction on what the city has been dealing with, and as you heard testimony from mr. Rhodes, they -- of course Travis County does, which is a big difference. This particular flood plain ordinance that we have here now, and that is an adon't version; a version we approved back in April of 2001. No, October, sorry, October 2, 2001. And it has been the only device that we've had to address solid waste facilities. The only tool we have had to ensure that the solid waste facilities out there in Travis County, a lot of them in eastern Travis County, will abide by the particular ordinance. Now, I see all this language and all of the other things in here, and really, john, I'm not getting upset, angry with you or anything else, and I wanted to come -- I don't want it toome across like that, but I just think for something like this of this magnitude, which in my mind we are going backwards, we have established something that was pretty, pretty solid and, again, I have used this particular solid -- this particular flood plain ordinance on many occasions as i've had to piecemeal leading up to the overall comprehensive ordinance, siting ordinance that we dealt with this morning. So I'm having some real problems, and I'm really having problems with, I guess, b.f.i. I know has come before this court and w.m.i. Have come before this court and they have talked about permits. And the period that this flood plain ordinance with the language in it here as they testified is designed to accommodate them in their permit quest with Travis County. Now, of course, they have not been able to do very much. The reason for that as far as the flood plain over there at the particular site is because of the fact that they have to deal with the current flood plain ordinance. Now, of course, and I think they should. The question comes back to my mind, if we are going to look at changing this particular flood plain -- adopted flood plain ordinance, I think it should be posted just like any other ordinance for 30 days for the residents and also industries to work together as stakeholders and come back in a 30-daytime frame. I think it's enough time to go through this because there's been a lot -- this has been good as far as I'm concerned, as far as the original flood plain ordinance. In my mind it has been gutted and it's going backwards. Now, I had an opportunity to talk with b.f.i. And also w.m.i. Along with john and tom nuckols who met in my office with all of my staff persons. And what we talked about was them going back to the community and looking at their proposed permit, trying to get a permit as far as in the county, as far as their particular improvements, as far as the -- dealing with the flood plain over there, the channelization, the detention ponds and a whole lot of other things. I told them at that time to go and get and talk with the community, which I think was very necessary. I also told them that they need to be looking at a new location because sooner or later the lifetime is going to expire at these particular facilities. What are you doing to do just that, to look for a new location. And they, of course, both indicated that -- w.m.i. And b.f.i. Said that they would be looking for an opportunity to look for a new location to operate those particular facilities. But also they also agreed to go with the neighborhood groups to capco, who operates basically a 10-county area to do just those kind of things. What we're trying to do, as you heard mr. Stanley state, we're trying to bring this to closure. And we're not going to get there any time soon by not going through the proper process, I think, as far as having an opportunity for the neighborhoods to have a chance to have 30 days at least to look at this to see if there's anything they would like to add to it, delete from it or whatever else as far as the current flood plain ordinance that we've adopted since October 2001. That has been the ordinance on the books. So, again, I hope that the community -- and again, I also mention to do b.f.i. And w.m.i., Would they be willing to go with the neighborhood association to capco to look for a new location leading to closure of those particular facilities. And my point by saying that was why should we grant them senate I was to stay there at the current location, which would prohibit their rapid pace to relocate. So, again, that's a big issue. And I think, again, we need to look at that. And john, let me ask you this question, if you don't mind. If this particular ordinance, the language that's in it now, is approved by this court, ab isn't my vote, of course, what would -- what is the current life capacity of b.f.i. As this point? For their operation of that landfill.
>> I think the number they've been throwing around most recently, what, seven or eight years?
>> seven or eight years. Okay. This agreement really lessens the flood plain, decreases the flood plain, which would allow for expansion capacity, what would that equate to as far as the number of years for future growth and lifetime capacity?
>> as I recall, I mean, let's just assume a couple of things. First of all, that the -- this ordinance, as it's written, would enable them to accomplish the two-layered expansion that they proposed and showed, presented in this court. Let's just assume that it would enable them to do that. The number that I recall from that was that it would even enable them to operate until 2020.
>> 2020, that's about 17 years from today. Is that correct?
>> they are nodding their heads, so I think i've gotten reasonably close. Ballpark figure.
>> so we're talking about adding capacity, and again, which in my mind is not an incentive for those folks to close shop. And again, I think the -- and the reason I think they are very incorrect, and i've talked with the w.m.i. Landfill folks and b.f.i., And I told them I wasn't going to change my mind. And they understood that. But they also understand that this community has been under siege for a long time, and I thinkall of precinct 1 has been for a long time. And, of course, with the economic development that we're trying to get there, and I told them that landfills, we need that. There's no doubt about it. But it should be peoples co-existence as far as the acceptable areas they can locate as far as not bringing harm to folks that reside in precinct 1. And any other place in Travis County. So that's basically where we're at now, and I don't think that the landfill owners or the operators, b.f.i. And w.m.i., Will disagree with what I said this morning because we actually discussed it. And they know I will not change my mind on the flood plain ordinance as adopted on October the 2nd, 2001. And my position is going to stay firm. And I know we're not taking action on this today, but I just think a lot of things need to be fleshed out and see if -- the remedy is closure. It's closure of those particular landfills. They may want to do that. I don't know if they work with the neighborhoods. Thanks.
>> getting back to the business at hand, john, if we look at the variance procedure set forth in the recommended ordinance, let's say that somebody came in with a professionally engineered plan as we attempted to lay out in the specific exceptions. How would staff treat that? Because we do not have the specific professionally tailored language, if they simply came in and said I have a variance I want the county to consider, it is.
>> are you contemplating this ordinance being in place when we would react to that or not being in place?
>> this ordinance in place without the specific professionally engineered type language.
>> oh, without that.
>> right.
>> well, we would certainly have less srnt as to, you know, -- certainty as to what the parameters were. We wouldn't have the language pertain to go the requirement for capturing the first half inch of runoff and those kind of details that are in place here. So it would be a more -- more western, wide-open negotiation.
>> more subjective.
>> more subjective.
>> but we would have an obligation to at least consider the submission.
>> yes. In fact, that's what the 500-foot setback currently does right now at this moment. That's the position we're in.
>> let's get comment on this. What I had in mind is this. If we have a 500-foot requirement in place now, we leave that in place. There is a variance provision in place now. We would leave that in place. In addition, though, on only the variance provision would be a specific provision that said you come in with a professionally engineered design that in your view meets the requirements of protection and are consistent with the city of Austin land development code which provides under some circumstances less than a 500-foot distance, then we will consider that. And if we agree with you that the adequate protection is provided, we will approve the exception. But if under the variance -- under the variance. But if we do that and later on there is a breach or the facts show that plan not to be adequate, we have the enforcement authority to require remediation within a certain time. The law would require that we be reasonable. That would turn on what remediation is required. That's the idea. And in my view, what I was shooting for was something a little more specific than general variance language. Let's say you have another way to say the same thing without a professionally engineered design, and I think that the variance language in the ordinance now before us, the proposed ordinance, would enable you to do the same thing, only that it's subject to whether or not we agree, and whether we agree at some point becomes pretty subjective. What I was trying to do is put in objective criteria -- I was trying to have my cake and eat it too. I was trying to say, okay, if you take the city of Austin land development code that's been in place, has more specifics, is a good deal, then get a professional engineer to come in, meet those requirements and demonstrate to us that the same protection is required and you satisfy us. What we get in addition to enfot authority where if in fact that turns out not to be true, then we have the ability to require remediation of a certain time within a certain time. That came from the idea that several folk complained that often tceq does not respond in a timely manner to these problems. Now, I don't think that the -- does the county have the authority to do this without some sort of agreement under a remediation provision?
>> well, certainly if we add something of that nature in this ordinance, we're better off. The county can't enforce the terms of the tceq permit, but I would say adding something in this ordinance that sort of adds an extra bit of enforcement authority puts us in a much better position.
>> and the tceq permit now provides that if there is a problem, we have a responsibility to fix it.
>> yeah. Although it's very -- there's no specificity about what you are required to do and when. So to the degree we can address through this ordinance specifics about what is done and how soon, we're definitely making an improvement over the status quo.
>> a complaint that I heard was that the state regulators often do not come out, require remediation in a timely manner.
>> yeah. I mean, they are --
>> and my intention was to put the county in a position where not only was it built into the ordinance, but we had the authority to enforce whatever the [inaudible] had.
>> right.
>> when I laid this out, it was basically for consideration by the stakeholders. Now, the matter of process and procedure, where I see us headed is that in response to comments today, received in writing, whatever we receive next week, we would come up with another proposed ordinance that would be advertised, published, et cetera. We have to get comment on that. So we have pretty much built in another step in the process anyway. I never thought we would come into court and vote all this up today, make it effective and say basically here it is. My thinking was we would have a hearing today, get comments on the various ideas that have been thrown out, come up with another draft of the ordinance that included whatever decisions we made, advertise that, give people an opportunity to respond to it and take ax after that. -- take ax after that. Number 2 is basically the flood plain plain, if there are responses, now is the time to make them. I don't anticipate any action today. This will be added to the same thing next week. And while we're discussing issue number 2, get -- number 3, we have not discussed the distance. We did get comments on that, so I guess that would be number 3. Yes, sir, mr. Stanley. And we do have three other chairs, so if you would like to give comments on number 2, please come forward. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I know there's a lot of movement that's -- that's motivated by some of the state law in terms of getting everything in conformity between the city and the county in terms of development. But I am not sure that that's a virtue when you are dealing with things that are essential noxious uses that have toxins, odors, that sort of a thing as a major component of what they are all about. That's my only comment.
>> what's your response to the notion that if the design in fact turns out motto provide satisfactory protection, then the county has the authority to come in and require remediation within a time certain?
>> well, I understand the tradeoff that you are making. I think that is commendable. I think that -- that as a strategy when one -- gains some regulatory authority, in return for giving some further flexibility, that can be a good thing. But as to the specific implications of all of this, you know, it just was brought to my attention something never occurred to me hearing the testimony of the gentleman about not asking for the authority to expand in he example, laterally affects height because you create -- you expand your base, you get to go up in height. I think there's a lot of, you know, I think I'm just wary of unintended consequences. I think that enforcement and finding mechanisms where you can secure the county's ability to enforce is in general a good thing, but opening the door to -- to possible unforeseen consequences is something that should be approached very carefully and with adequate time. With adequate time for the community as a whole, Travis County, you know, residents as a whole. Because this is a larger problem than a specific in the neighborhood. I mean, we have got to take into account what we are going to be responsible for over the next several decades. And there's going to be costs involved with that. I just -- so I appreciate what you are saying, but I also have reservations.
>> okay.
>> ms. English.
>> good morning, judge. My name is trek english and I think this is a travesty. This ordinance, this new version of the floodplain ordinance is a travesty. You are all on the record except perhaps for Commissioner Daugherty saying that you would not change the floodplain ordinance. Just a few weeks ago, Commissioner Gomez specifically addressed that problem. Said that you would not change it. Now, what you are doing is address knowledge the landfill facilities with this ordinance. I don't think that you have any intention of ever addressing the landfill ordinance or perhaps in such a distant future we will all be dead because at the way we are going we can't agree on anything. But this here, the floodplain ordinance was the only thing that was stopping the landfills from filing their expansion. This would give them, (witness making descriptive noise), open the door. This as much as even less descriptive than the solid waste ordinance that you are passing for transfer stations. It has no distance to receptors, it just addresses the distance to floodplain. So it -- it would not -- that's why they wanted to get away from the other ordinance. This is a much better ordinance. They can actually, there's no distance to receptors and you are saying, well, if you have an engineer designed facility, we basically can get around this and you can find your way through the -- through the floodplain ordinance all the way through.
>> the 500-foot distance requirement as it is, you want for --
>> yes, because right now you don't have to go and tell me, oh, yeah you have met this particular criteria or, yes, you have contaminated within 900 feet or 3400 feet or whatever. I would like to know if anybody who the engineer that designed the first b.f.i. Facility that caused all of the pollution in 2001, who is that engineer? Do we put their next on the block and say, okay, you are responsible for that design and you pay for it personally? Why is it that we don't have that written in these ordinances, putting that much emphasis on an engineer design and then letting him get away with it is not right.
>> okay.
>> because you are -- you are paying for cleaning --
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge.
>> how ya doing?
>> very good. I know in the past I have given you all a synopsis of the impact of municipal and industrial non-hazardous waste landfills on public health and t environment by g. Fred lee ph.d., Who is half a century in the study of these kinds of issues. I will read a few lines from that and I realize that we are not talking about a type 1 in this particular case. However, I think that there's a lot of similarities. It is known that -- that in -- let's see, classic unlined sanitary landfills are well known to release large amounts of hazardous and otherwise dill tearous chemicals to nearby ground water and to the air via leachate and landfill gas. It is known that such releases contain a wide variety of potential carcinogens and potentially toxic chemicals that represent a threat to the public health. The leachate from municipal solid waste landfills is a highly concentrated chemical soup, so concentrated that small amounts of leachate can [indiscernible] large amounts of ground water rendering unsuitable for use of domestic water supply. There are approximately 85,000 chemicals in u.s. Commerce today and about three new chemicals are developed every single day. Only about 20% of those chemicals are ever regulated and measured in studies. So we don't know much about the other 80% at all. Where this crosses over is that in sludge there is going to be a high percentage of these things as well. And so we still need to protect from sludge our waters. For the future of -- for future generations. In the study by brown and don feel, they estimated -- donnally, they concluded that there were in regular municipal solid waste landfills, the leachates were only slightly less hazardous than the leachates from hazard boys waste landfills. In other words, there is in our common, everyday waste streams, there are a lot of hazardous chemicals. And that represents a huge problem. So to discuss a way for a site that is very hazardous to engineer around our floodplain ordinance is to me a bit crazy. I think there should be no loophole, you know, maybe a loophole for some other types of developments but for -- but for very hazardous, potentially hazardous site it should be no loophole. They should just -- there should be a larger setback than there is for normal type of things if anything.
>> even if other facilities that we are looking at in this ordinance.
>> yes.
>> your vote toys keep the 500-foot distance requirement in place?
>> if not add more to it for sludge farms.
>> okay.
>> good morning, joyce @ thorton, walnut place neighborhood. One very specific question, I thought we heard t.n.r. Tell us that they don't have the resources to administer a floodplain ordinance similar to the one the city of Austin has. My first question is what happened? Did we find new resources? My second question is, what is the reason that you are changing the 2001 floodplain ordinance? Isn't it because the landfill operators want it changed? So they can put garage in more of the walnut creek and decker creek watersheds? Why are we residents here pretending that our requests make any difference? We have been at this for a year and a half and I'm convinced that no matter what is presented, no matter what the facts are, no matter what the odor study shows, no matter what the health and safety issues, you are going to do whatever the landfills want in the end. The 2001 floodplain ordinance is our only real protection, however small it might be, from the complete trashing of the northeast sector of the county. Now you are proposing to take that away, too. I don't think any of the facts, arguments or requests presented here by the residents have made any difference. Even if you pass the solid waste siting ordinance pertaining to landfills, I am certain it will not change the fact that Travis County is a dumping ground for more than 30 counties and the Commissioners court is unwilling to do anything to change that. Why don't you just ask b.f.i. And waste management where they want to put garage? It would save us all a lot of time and false hope. Thank you. [ applause ]
>> thank you.
>> ms. Best?
>> joyce best, northeast Austin. I have several concerns about the language that's been presented and some questions. The language seems to have been provided primarily by the landfills and perhaps I'm simply not understanding correctly. John kuhl spoke to the prohibitions section items a their c and pointed out some facts about what -- what's presented there, including item c that talks about no waste in the 100 year floodplain. However, when you get to item d, to me it seems to be saying that these prohibitions only address facilities that are operating illegally. That is without permits. My question is if they are already operating illegally, why would they care if there were prohibitions in this ordinance and how would this be enforced? Secondly, when I look at the waterway classifications --
>> what -- what section were you --
>> item d under -- it's under the prohibition section. Copy.
>> do you know? Can we take a look at that?
>> section 46.071 prohibition d, yes, I know exactly what she's talking about.
>> 071 d. Okay. Thank you, sorry.
>> under the classification of waterways and 64.072 c, it appears to me that the east or I'm asking the question, are east Austin waterways less important beuse only the people downstream drink the water and not the people in Austin? That is what I am inferring from some of the distances that are -- or the areas that are covered in terms of acreage. The areas of acreage that determine how they are treated, whether they are minor or -- that sort of thing, of much larger than for some of the other waterways that are mentioned. And I'm raising that question. As for the variance provision, I hope that you will pardon my sarcasm, but it appears to me that a variance would be needed under -- under the way this is currently set up, it is so broad, that a variance would only be needed if the operators wanted to dump the ste directly into the floodplain or even into a particular waterway. It seems to me that -- that there's so much else that is included here that those are the only things that aren't addressed. I think that I heard Commissioner Davis make a statement that the landfills had said that they were willing to go to capco and discuss the relocation of the facilities and my question is, how soon will that happen? And are they going to wait until 2021 to do that? So far we have seen absolutely no willingness to do anything of that sort.
>> I was hoping today -- since the operators are here, you all can head in that direction because they did not indicate to me at all that they would not be willing to go there and I mean like srns possible because -- as soon as possible because the fact of the matter is that we are looking foreclosure. For -- for closure for those facilities and for them to relocate. I don't think that you will have a problem with that, at least, I guess you would have to ask them whether they would be willing to go ahead.
>> ms. Best how would you have us change the variance provision, do you think we ought to just take it out.
>> I would throw this out and stick with what you have. That's how I would change it.
>> with the current 04.073.
>> with the 500-foot in the current original -- in the original floodplain ordinance.
>> but on the variance that is in that one, that's in the ordinance before us, you would just take the variance language out? See what I'm saying? There's variance language in the current orders.
>> yes.
>> -- in the current ordinance.
>> yes.
>> but it's in broad language. Would you just leave it as it is, put it out or --
>> I'm assuming that at t time that that ordinance was put into place, that the -- that the variance, here again, I don't have the original right in front of me, either. But the variance can serve some good purposes. I am simply saying that under this proposal there's no need to have a variance because virtually everything is allowed anyway. That's my point.
>> okay. Ms. Macafee.
>> I would like to mainly ditto what joyce thorson said. I think she said it very well. I'm shocked, appalled, dismayed, after all of the countless hours, learning, researching, studies the possibilities the county ordinance, the site landfills, the absolutely worst scenario has emerged. We have a boeing goas odor study -- bogus odor study paid and monitored by the landfills who have controlled the study to their benefit, keeping certain waste out at critical moments. The one defense that we had on the books was the floodplain ordinance. It's being watered down by the bogus claims of engineering studies, despite the fact that we repeatedly have shown you studies of engineered plans gone wrong. You are opening the door for the landowners to buy out environmental protection. You have an opportunity to help and support the community that has repeatedly pleaded for your help. If you pass this floodplain modification, we can only see this as support and acceptance for the expansion of wmi and b.f.i. And total disregard for the health and welfare of your constituents.
>> don't bite your tongue next time, ms. Macafee. Y'all, there are a couple of other issue that's we could discuss today. However this will be back on the agenda next week. We need to take a look at the order consultant item that is before us and since we have everybody here, we may as well pull that one up. And we need to take the legislative item this morning. My recommendation at this time unless we will not have a full court next week, I assume that I will know that by tomorrow, we will have this item back on. Now, on items 1 and 2, my recommendation would be that if we have a discussion it be very brief, we take action one way or the other. The other issue that we will not discuss that we got comments on, we did not discuss today but we will next time are the distances from receptors. What else did we get comments on that we think we need to discuss?
>> I think we have covered the waterfront. There were a lot of concerns -- the bulk of the comments were at the beginning that we didn't include type 1 landfills in this ordinance. The second big slug came pertaining the floodplain ordinance. I have only got one one or two on point that discussed the type 4 inclusion issue. But this is -- distance to receptors has always been around. I think that you have got it. Those are the issues.
>> if you think there's another issue that we need to discuss next week, e-mail me, that would be fine. Point 3 would be the distance from receptors, I remember comments on those. On one and two if we need short follow-up discussion, short meaning 10 minutes or less, before we take motion ifs there are any. Next week is what we plan to do. The way I see this unfolding is that we would address these three issues, take votes one way or the other. Ask staff to put in place another draft, we would advertise that with another comment period. During which time we receive comments and if there is another public hearing, it would be very short, we would take action one way or the other.
>> judge, also, I think we need to include, I think that we've heard comments from the community that we make no change to the existing floodplain ordinance, ought to be something that we [indiscernible], because when it does come back, I think that needs to be a part of what [indiscernible] to the court. In other words leave the floodplain language [papers shuffling - audio interference] i've heard a lot of comments from the citizens this morning that they would like to keep it intact as is.
>> a do nothing motion is always appropriate.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> no problem.
>> all right. Thanks.
>> now ... In my view that does it for that item.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 4, 2003 9:52 AM