Travis County Commssioners Court
June 10, 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 17, morning discussion
Let's call up item no. 17. To consider proposed solid waste facilities silenting ordinance and comments received including comments regarding the Travis County floodplain ordinance and take appropriate action. Can we have clean copies of the siting ordinance?
>> I have a clean copy. We can have some run off.
>> > that was advertised? I would like -- and I have stack of stuff, when I looked through it, I wasn't sure exactly what I was looking at.
>> that's the April 4th version.
>> that's the one --
>> that's April 15th, should say, April 15th.
>> the 15th. While we're doing that --:
>> I'm sorry. Never mind.
>> pass that down. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> for the solid waste. I know my staff hasn't seen anything.
>> now, we do have a two-hour discussion last week, and I think that the best way for us to proceed is to call up the items one by one. And if possible take action on them. If we're not ready, indicate that. Whatever changes we make, if we make any, in my view, ought to be incorporated into another draft, have that draft advertised and receive comments on that. So you're looking at adding another 30, 40 days to the process. I have indicated -- I have noted five or six items of interest to me. I have about five items that I'm interested in. The first one is whether or not we include type had. Type 4 in my view, I intended to include it initially. In fact, my thinking was that all solid waste landfills, all solid waste facilities would be included except type 1. The two type 4 operators, though, have requested Travis County to exclude type 4 from the current ordinance and to treat type 4 and type 1 in a siting ordinance that we will approach at a later date. And in my view that later date ought to be after we have reached final conclusions about the orders and whether we can basically deal with them. So my motion is to take type 4 landfills out of the current siting ordinance and indicate our intention to consider type 1 and type 4 together in another ordinance.
>> second.
>> that motion was seconded by Commissioner Gomez. We are ready for discussion.
>> so what we're doing here, we're taking out type 4 out of the current solid waste facilities ordinance and you're placing it with types 1, 2, 3 and 4, that if this motion passes, so that all landfills will be treated the same, basically as far as ranked the same, as far as the same category?
>> it brings up a point that I hadn't thought much about. And the reason I had not is because I believe I learned from john and tom that there are no type 2's or 3's, right?
>> the tceq still recognized them as a type of landfill, so one could exist, but I believe as a factual matter, there are none in Travis County.
>> what would a type 2 be?
>> I think it's just a smaller version of a type 1. I'll look to anybody out there who is more familiar with it than I am. [overlapping speakers].
>> so not any of you have any --
>> I apologize I'm not up to speed on the definition.
>> I think in terms of the analysis, john and I have been giving it -- we have always essentially said type 4's seem to be, you know, susceptible to treatment as type 1. If you buy into that for the type had's, I think there's an even stronger case that the 2's and the 3's are closer to type 1.
>> then the motion is to -- for this ordinance to cover all solid waste facilities except 1, 2, 3 and 4's, type 1, type 2, type 3, type 4? For the reasons we just heard, I guess.
>> judge, as a further clarification, I know this is painful, that means that what is still in is dealing with the sludge operations, the transfer stations and the composting.
>> right.
>> clarity.
>> which are landfills.
>> and other waste facilities.
>> ironically where we started on this journey 18 months ago.
>> I understand the practical effect of this is if there are no type 2's and 3's in Travis County, we are talking about type 1 and type 4's being taken out, put on hold until another ordinance and then we'll deal with them. That ought to cover all the other solid wastes in Travis County and that we have heard will be applied for.
>> so this motion actually brings applicable to b of this particular ordinance, this 2-point -- (indiscernible) part b of this states that this chapter does not apply to landfills that are classified as type 1, 2, 3 or 4.
>> (indiscernible).
>> right. By tceq's rules that -- okay. So I think we need to make sure because what we're saying here is that you exclude it out of this particular solid waste siting ordinance. There is language that addresses that.
>> I'm sorry, what were you saying?
>> if we're just clarifying this it's fine with me. My thinking early on was to put them in. I think tom thought they were in, john thought they were out. It mostly clarifies it once and for all and makes it clear that 1 and 4 are not intended to be included in this.
>> all right. That's in --
>> that's under 62.002-b-1.
>> b- 1 of that article. It actually making all the list ones the same.
>> so we had 4.
>> we add 4.
>> now, any discussion of that one, any comments from the audience?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> okay. If you will look at the -- do you have a copy of the solid waste siting ordinance? Do you have a copy of that, have you seen a copy of it?
>> the one that was advertised?
>> the one that's been advertised, posted. There's some discrepancies as far as getting an understanding as far as type 4 landfills since type 4 landfills basically were supposed to be used as an example of construction debris. And -- handling construction debris. And, of course, the clarity needed to be stated would they be treated the same as type 1, 2, 3 landfills, and 4 being included, which would mean treat them all the same. I received e-mail from some of the persons in the community saying that they would like all landfills to be treated the same. In other words, don't make that distinction between 1 and 4. In other words, have them in front of the same language as far as the ordinance is concerned. Is there any discussion? I guess I need to find out if there's any other problem with that because I have received e-mail from folks that do want to see type 4 landfills treated as type 1, 2, 3 and 4, all in the same category. So is there any --
>> judge, can I ask a technical question? One of the things that was originally in the ordinance that was put out for public comment was whether the type 4's would be in there or not. That was a matter of public discussion, public input and the public hearing because it originally exclude them. We've heard the input on that, and now I'm appropriately, I think, hearing a motion that says the 4's get added in here, meaning we're ready to -- we've heard the input and we are at a decision point. And I would urge that we act on the motion that you have made because we have heard considerable input on this subject, and there may be disagreements with whether we should or should not do that, but I think it's time to take a motion, to act on a motion.
>> well, we have a motion and a second, and I thought --
>> yes, I call the question.
>> does anybody have any comments on this?
>> when you call the question, you go straight to the vote.
>> judge, excuse me. The constituents are saying they're having a hard time hearing. I don't know if media needs to perhaps turn up the pa.
>> media, could you turn up the volume? We did discuss this issue one hour last week. I don't know that there's any new information for us to receive. Any more discussion by the court? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. I'm sorry. Show Commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly vote in favor of the motion. Voting against, commission Davis and Commissioner Daugherty. What I handed out were three point that I would like to turn to next. The first one is, and I would say what I think this means and then let legal counsel tell us why this is important. This amendment is meant to basically put the floodplain ordinance into the sighting ordinance, and tom knuckles has persuaded me that in order for tceq to know about this and apply whatever siting ordinance Travis County has, this really ought to be -- the floodplain ought to be in the sighting ordinance to make it clear. And this is intended to be simple language that pulls the floodplain ordinance into 62.006, right, tom?
>> yes. And is there any further explanation from you?
>> well, the floodplain ordinance was adopted in chapter 16 of the water code that gives local governments the ability to develop floodplain regulations. The sighting ordinance is being adopt under the health and safety code. And the health and safety code section there's a specific provision that says, tceq is required to honor the local government's ordinance and all its requirements, and can't issue a permit that conflicts with those local government requirements. That provision is not in that section of the water code that we adopted the floodplain ordinance under. The main reason I'm asking y'all to do this is to the floodplain ordinance is given that binding effect on tceq that's in the health and safety code.
>> as adopted, no changes.
>> no changes. Whether you leave it as it is or whether you change it, I would suggest the cross-reference, so basically the floodplain ordinance, there's no doubt that tceq is obligated not to issue a permit that conflicts.
>> and i'd like to make a motion right now to leave the current floodplain ordinance in place as written, as we've adopted on October the second of 2001. And i'd like to make that motion because I really feel that we need to leave that in place as it exists.
>> the way I understand it --
>> do I hear a second on that?
>> I second it.
>> it does, but this would simply adopt additional c, item c with the other -- c-1, 2, 3 and we added on to the 62.006, and that that -- and that in effect strengthens what we have. It doesn't change the floodplain, Commissioner. It doesn't change it. This strengthens it if we adopt this additional c-1, 2, 3.
>> what happens is that -- if what happens is that we are weakening -- I have letters here from the sierra club -- and let me say this. Let me say this to you, first of all. I have been working for years in this community to achieve water quality, not only in eastern Travis County, but also in the water protection zone over there in western Travis County. And I can remember very well testifying before the city council. In fact, there's a little celebration here the other night with the city where we testify to ensure that the s.o.s. Ordinance became a reality to protect the water quality drinking water quality of that part of the county. So it's been many years that I have been working on water quality, and this particular ordinance as stated at this point will continue to give eastern Travis County water quality protection also, and not interfere with our floodplains by having facilities such as these here, which are horrendous, ending up screwing up with the water quality over there. It just doesn't -- we're talking about an ordinance that gives us the protection as the s.o.s. Gives -- the s.o.s. Ordinance gives protection to the drinking water quality zone in western Travis County. Why should we not want some of the same standards? These things that we're putting in before now gives an opportunity for eastern Travis County to have water quality and to protect our floodplain. And by having this in place it does that now. And I think if anyone would like to have less water quality in their own precinct, then I think they ought to do something else.
>> I worked for the same laws that you've worked for in the communities --
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> but my intention has never meant and been to make any change to the floodplain ordinance that we've passed earlier. And that's why I couldn't understand some of the e-mails that I was getting that we were trying to change. We weren't trying to change anything on the floodplain ordinance. And I'm sorry that people got the wrong information about that, but what I see here is that this particular paragraph, c-1, 2, 3, stren things, if we adopt that to include in the 62.006, it strengthens, it simply adds that whole section to what we have here, and the pages aren't numbered, but anyway, there's just a and b on what was posted. And so -- because I have no intention of changing that floodplain either.
>> so it needs to be tweaked. And Commissioner Davis' motion, seconded by Commissioner Daugherty, is basically not to change the floodplain ordinance that's proposed and advertised, which would leave out this provision. Motion and second. Legal counsel has told us basically that tceq is not obligated to consider the floodplain ordinance now because it is not part of the siting ordinance. This language was really intended to put whatever floodplain ordinance we end up with into the sighting ordinance to ensure the obligation by tceq to consider the floodplain ordinance. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> yes, sir. I have a technical question.
>> okay.
>> does the floodplain ordinance in and of itself go away with the proposed motion. Because the key word I see here is it says it links the floodplain ordinance. Does it still stand alone? Terms of an ordinance?
>> yes.
>> but we would be, i'll call it, doubling up, to ensure that tceq respects the floodplain ordinance, it is double done.
>> and suspenders.
>> right. And thereason that it's important to keep the floodplain ordinance separate unto itself is that the sighting ordinance that we're talking about today excludes 1, 2, 3's and 4's, which means that we still have a floodplain ordinance, stand alone, separate, that applies to 1, 2, 3 and 34's until such point we decide to make any changes, if any. Is that correct?
>> yes.
>> so the reality is this motion, as -- if we don't do this, Commissioner, then we will not have tceq respecting our floodplain ordinance with respect to the sludge, recycling and transfer stations. It does not take away from the floodplain ordinance, it only respects it. In law. And does nothing related to the 1, 2, 3 and 4's, which will why I will not vote for this motion.
>> I don't think it's necessary.
>> my understanding is this would require tceq to consider the floodplain ordinance for all of the solid waste facilities covered by the sighting ordinance.
>> I don't think it's necessary.
>> staff is bringing you this remediation insert on what we handed out and you haven't had enough time to look at it. With all due respect, I think that's the biggest problem right now is you're looking at something on the spot and it's just not perhaps the best way to do things. But I think, again, what tom is suggesting about the link is just they use computers and it's a hot link. It provides a direct reference in the sighting ordinance to the floodplain ordinance, whichever version we have. I mean, no one is suggesting a change at this moment. There is the suggestion on -- that we were going to get to next about the remediation. And that's -- that's there, but again, I apologize you haven't had time to look at that.
>> let me say this to you, john. When -- the testimony that I heard last week, we were coming back. I have the -- the version I have is the latest version that was given to me by staff. That's the only thing I can go bay.
>> that's not on the table right now.
>> I made a motion to keep it on. To keep it in existence.
>> with the exception of yours.
>> right.
>> and, of course, untouched and unchanged because that's what we've had to protect the water quality and also let the solid waste operators to not encroach into the floodplain. This particular solid waste siting ordinance we have before us now, what you're suggesting is that the floodplain language, unchanged, adds -- I'm recommending for it not to be changed or modified, is included in this particular ordinance unchanged.
>> at this moment it provides just a link to that floodplain ordinance as it exist today. No changes. With all due respect, Commissioner, the thing that happened was your motion jumped the gun. We were getting ready to --
>> okay. I'm ahead of myself then. That happens sometimes.
>> as usual.
>> I'm focused here on this stuff. Go ahead.
>> with all due respect, we were getting ready to discuss what I would suggest to you, with all -- you know, with all confidence is an improvement to the floodplain ordinance.
>> i'll withdraw the motion until I hear the rest of it.
>> good. I think you may want to owe.
>> let me do that. Let me hear the rest of the story because I know last week the floodplain ordinance was under attack.
>> right. There was one thing that was discussed last week that I think you would agree was a strengthening, and that was the judge was discussing the issue of remediation. In other words, if there is pollution that does happen, none of these other links to the land development code, none of that, okay, what we're just talking about here is if there is -- if pollution is in, we are incorporating measures in there under the variance section to make sure that we can require remediation in a timely fashion basically. And that's it. That was the next item we were going to discuss. That was sort of the sequence we were going to take prior to you putting your motion on the table.
>> I'm not sure -- (indiscernible).
>> we are posted to discuss and modify, if the majority chooses to do so, the proposed siting ordinance. So this language in 1 of the three pages that I handed out, basically is designed to change the proposed siting ordinance to incorporate the floodplain ordinance at this provision.
>> right.
>> that's kind of simple. I don't know that a motion dealing with the floodplain ordinance under this item is appropriate today anyway.
>> agreed.
>> this deals with the sighting ordinance. And the -- my idea, and what I was about to move was is that tceq is obligated to look at the floodplain ordinance as it considers applications to site waste facilities covered by the sighting ordinance, it had to look at the floodplain ordinance.
>> I would second that.
>> it can be done as a substitute motion.
>> yes.
>> I have a question. As I understand it, the present floodplain ordinance requires a 500-foot set back from the walnut creek tributary. Is that accurate?
>> from the 100 year floodplain? Associated with that tributary.
>> so I think people would feel a lot more comfortable with the motion that you all are proposing if you've reiterated that requirement and stated it once again in order to be sure that there was no misunderstanding on the part of the tceq.
>> I'm sorry. I thought we reached --
>> in other words, I think people are -- the reason a lot of people have been uncomfortable with what's been going on is the fact that they have felt that the only protection that they had over the waste management landfill out there has been the floodplain ordinance. And any possibility of weakening that floodplain ordinance was -- has been alarming to a lot of the people who live in the area.
>> I don't know where they got that information. I haven't seen anything, you know, that would take that action. -- that would lead to that action.
>> well, at least a lot of people felt that that was in the offing. And I don't know where it came from originally. I know that the waste management people have been very involved in trying to lobby a lot of their proposals through among members of the Commissioners court. And so because that was the only -- the full read of protection that people had, felt that they had, people have been alarmed at the possibility of losing that protection. And I'm just wondering if people wouldn't be a lot more comfortable with what you're proposing if you reiterated that you firmly adhere to the 500-foot set back that's currently in the floodplain ordinance.
>> judge, I guess that's -- I guess this is added to as referenced in the floodplain ordinance that was approved what date? Approved --
>> 2001.
>> the motion is to add this one language to the sighting ordinance. It would be to put in the sighting ordinance basically whatever the floodplain ordinance is.
>> yeah.
>> as is.
>> right. Now, when we took out type 1 landfills, what that meant was even if it was a siting ordinance, we would not deal with floodplain issues as to type 1 landfills. And the floodplain ordinance is the force today only to the extent that we put all or part of it into the siting ordinance that covers non-type 1, 2, 3, 4 landfills. What kind of complicates is is on one hand we're dealing with solid waste facilities other than 1, 2, 3 types.
>> let me yield to trek english, who is a lot more knowledgeable about all the issues involving the landfills than I am.
>> now, the floodplain ordinance is not posted today, only to the extent that we receive comment about it in the site ing ordinance.
>> good morning. My question to you is I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. What I would like you to specifically address is you gave us three pages. Which of these pages is the language that you're introducing today in this motion? Is it number 1, 62.006? Okay.
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> can you narrow down exactly what we're addressing it? Is it number 1, page 1?
>> if you'll look at what got handed out, for each page there's a heading. The motion the judge made deals with the language, and it says linking floolain ordinance and siting ordinance.
>> so I have the handout. I just wanted for the rest of everybody that's out there, in case we did get it right, you were just adding the language in 62.006.
>> that's my motion. To put this language into the siting ordinance.
>> right. Which would make the tceq then having to follow this ordinance in order to permit in the future.
>> right.
>> this is something that was just handed out to me today. And the remediation stuff, I think it kind of significant as far as what we're doing here.
>> we're not on remediation here.
>> that's the part he handed to me.
>> the motion covers number 1 there.
>> any more discussion on 1, siting ordinance and floodplain ordinance because we're going to the remediation language next, Commissioner.
>> I know, but I'm saying that the new stuff that's just been handed down here and I think it's not really fair to the community to have to deal with this and digest this stuff. I guess what I want to hear is from the community and see what they think as far as this -- including the floodplain ordinance with-- and if it's required by tceq. And I want to make sure that I want to see something in writing that says that this is a requirement by tceq, to ensure that the floodplain ordinance must be a part of a siting ordinance, in other words, for the siting ordinance to be effective.
>> my advice to you is this strengthens the floodplain ordinance legally, makes it stronger legally.
>> it's not being required by tceq. This would require tceq to respect the Travis County floodplain ordinance. In considering applications under the Travis County siting ordinance.
>> right.
>> which as currently written does not apply to type 1, 2 or 3 or 4 landfills.
>> and it seems to be consistent with what we heard from the community in terms of respect the floodplain ordinance.
>> right.
>> and if anything, we have strengthened it, not weakened it. It stands the way it was and it is codified in the sighting ordinance, that teak must respect floodplain ordinance.
>> I'm a little disappointed because even with this stuff we have before us today, I just talked with my staff and we haven't received anything on this at all. And this is the first time I'm being exposed to some of this stuff. And it is not really fair for us to have something put in front of us this significant to be looked at right now and haven't had a chance to go through it. That's the same position this community has been faced in, and it's kind of mind boggling to me of -- I don't see anywhere in writing where it says as far as if the tceq does not require this, well, I'm kind of confused, I thought that's what we've been using right now for leverage all this time is the floodplain, and they have respected that.
>> this language, if adopted, they'll respect it even more. This basically makes the 500-foot requirement binding on tceq. That's the net effect.
>> it's better.
>> and this linkage was one of the issues that we did talk about in detail last week, and it's -- I mean, as far as this individual issue, there's no smoke and mirrors here. This is straightforward right here.
>> so what in essence happened here? Last week this wasn't part of the process. What happened in -- what's the impact?
>> Commissioner, let me address that. At the end of last week's meeting, the judge said if anybody else has any other issues they want to discuss, e-mail me? And I e-mailed this to the judge and I said from a legal perspective this is something I would recommend that the Commissioners court do. And when the judge got that e-mail, he said tom, draft something up and we'll talk about it.
>> okay.
>> so I did it yesterday afternoon.
>> right. And I guess my point was I didn't understand the variation of change as far as the hard work effort that was given by all of us as far as the siting ordinance, no changes were to be made.
>> this is a democracy. You can have three votes.
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> there are four other people on this court.
>> I understand.
>> we have talked about this stuff. I sent tom an e-mail on Thursday I seed here are my three idea, put this in writing. I got it yesterday aind had a chance -- I left my last meeting last night at 8:30, the campo meeting. I had a chance to review it this morning, and I said okay, have my staff make 30 cops of it. You don't have the right to insist on stuff that the other four of us don't want to do. [overlapping speakers].
>> we will not recognize anything further because we're not making progress. Ms. English?
>> I mean, I understand what you're doing, again, trek english, but you're linking the floodplain ordinance to an ordinance that hasn't been passed. You haven't passed the sighting ordinance. How can you link something to --
>> and it may not pass right now if we don't have three vote for it. But if this passes, we advertise it again, we have another public comment period, we take a final vote, and if this language is in there, when tceq picks up the Travis County solid waste siting ordinance, among all the provisions that Travis County has adopted will be this -- these two lines that basically pull into it the floodplain ordinance.
>> right. But the sentence is what is the final siting ordinance that's going to be drafted? At this point if it is something that the community doesn't want, then linking it to the floodplain ordinance may weaken it.
>> it should not. You should like it. If you like it now, you should like it even more with this language.
>> with the sighting ordinance?
>> with the floodplain ordinance.
>> no, we like the floodplain ordinance, we're just not sure what the floodplain ordinance is saying in terms of --
>> we are not posted to change the floodplain ordinance. There is no way for us llly to do that today. It's not on the agenda.
>> I understand. The language itself is -- there's no consequences at this point because you have not passed the sighting ordinance. If you pass the siting ordinance, it is -- > what we're trying to do is putting siting ordinance to go. This just says among the other provisions, put in this language that requires tceq to consider doing our floodplain ordinance when it considers applications made under the siting ordinance.
>> right. Which would be the list that Commissioner Sonleitner says, without the last thing.
>> that's fine. All I was bringing out is that this really doesn't do anything at this point because you haven't passed the solid waste facility siting ordinance.
>> we are trying to put together the siting ordinance. The changes that I'm talking about, the four, five, six I have in mind, we would put together another draft that puts together those, circulate it, I think it would be a whole lot better than what was advertised. If not, I have missed my goal. Any more discussion about the motion, which is to adopt basically 62.002 into the sighting ordinance?
>> 6.
>> question on the motion.
>> on the motion?
>> yes.
>> I wouldn't dare think that.
>> I hope not, judge.
>> again, i'd like to hear from the community and see what you think about thvment I would like to see that all this was passed out to me, this morning right on this dais. And I asked a few minutes ago did we receive anything on this? No, we did not. So you're just receiving the first inkling of this as I am this morning. And I would like to hear what the community thinks before I act on this. I do not want to take a position in which you are in opposition to it. I just don't want to do that. So I want to hear from you before I take a position on any of this stuff. Now, again, last week we had a floodplain ordinance that it's basically the same language that we have here before us today, and it was all right to discuss it last week and deal with the floodplain ordinance.
>> we had a two-hour discussion last week that covered two or three hours --
>> judge, let me finish my comments.
>> but you're talking forever and forever. [overlapping speakers].
>> can I ask a technical question first, judge.
>> I'm a educator here in Austin with aisd. I do have problems seeing this for the first time today. I'm lucky that I saw the broadcast last Saturday night, two hours I sat there. And when I walked away I thought I had some ideas, but I felt a little bit confused, and as I sat and listened today, I feel like maybe i've gained some more clarification, but I see that there's a lot of confusion that still persists. Commissioner Sonleitner, when you summarized awhile ago, I got a little bit clearer. And when Commissioner Davis started asking the attorney to walk him through it, I started getting some more clarification, but as I sit here today, my former occupation was as a legal investigator, and when I see the remediation part, which has --
>> we're not on the remediation.
>> I'm wondering if legal language opens legal doors on some of this stuff. But like I said, this is the first time we've seen it. I can't see how we could move forward on it without more discussion and education on it.
>> what problem do you have with the -- number 1, what problem do you have with that?
>> the language variance order.
>> no, sir, number 1.
>> okay.
>> that's the only one before us now, number 1, the linking part. What issue do you have with that?
>> I don't have any issues with this first one.
>> ms. Mcafee?
>> i'd just like to kind of ditto what jerry said, but from what it sound like, number 1 from how I understand it sounds fine. My question is since we're all concerned with what happened last week, if you could give us an idea of when those issues that were discussed last week will be on the agenda so that we'll be better prepared. When will the issues of the 500-foot set back and engineering plans be discussed again? I came thinking that would be talked about today. It obviously isn't.
>> no. Last week we spent the first hour on whether type 4 landfills should be included or excluded. That was my first motion today. We started talking about that. In my view -- I said I had five or six issues that I wanted to lay out. It's not nearly as simple as I thought. I really thought the first four would be pretty simple. I thought on type 4 if you wanted them in or out you cast your vote accordingly. After an hour's discussion, I don't know if there's anything new that could be said. I said I think we ought to just remember to the type 4 landfills. If they think it's a good deal with type 1, they know a lot more than I do about the future.
>> I understand that and I felt like that issue has been dealt with and discussed and acted on, but now we've moved on to the floodplain.
>> the floodplain is not posted. Per se.
>> it's not?
>> I think we will deal with some of your concerns before we finish this item. Now, that's not saying we'll finish this item before. Before we finish this item. Around here, I guarantee you, if the floodplain ordinance is good, this makes the siting ordinance better. All this does is to put the floodplain ordinance into the siting ordinance, so that tceq would be required, required, to consider the floodplain ordinance when they consider an application under the siting ordinance. Without this language, maybe tceq could pull out our floodplain and look at it, maybe not, but this language and the siting ordinance under the law they'd be required to look at the floodplain ordinance. I don't know --
>> so are you saying that the 500-foot set back in that number one is part of it and you have no plans to change or discuss that at a future date?
>> I'm saying that today we cannot change the floodplain ordinance, so this language pulls in the floodplain ordinance that has been on the record, what, a year and a half. That's what this language does. That's why they keep saying it. That's the intention. It is not true that we discussed this for the first time today. It is true that this is the first time we have a motion for action. It is true, too, that when we ask for things that we were not able to discuss on Tuesday last week, we only discussed the thing for two hours, two or three maybe. I got the e-mail from tom as a reminder that among my many other things to do, on Thursday I recalled that we ought to get something in writing to hand out in court. And tom got it back to me yesterday afternoon, I got a chance to look at it a little bit last night, the rest of it this morning. And I said let's make copies so we can hand it out. I thought in writing would be better than me up here reading off of notes.
>> tom, does that open any doors or change any of the factors we talked about regarding the floodplain?
>> this language changes not one letter of the floodplain?
>> explain that if the issue comes up, whenever it comes up.
>> absolutely not.
>> can we act on the motion before us?
>> after we hear --
>> I do understand exactly what you're trying to do with the linking. I think the consensus of the neighbors is that -- [audio difficulties]. I think it is a good thing. It's simply a matter of trying to understand it. I further understand that if and when this part is adopted at some later date, welcome back because there will be a discussion of the things that were introduced last week in terms of setbacks. I think I understand you correctly on that. So right now what we're adopting is what's in existence?
>> absolutely.
>> however, part of the confusion on the part of the neighbors is that we're operating under a couple of different versions of the ordinance. You're referring to a version dated April 4. We have a may 30 draft. On that draft 64.071 is the section on prohibition. Is that really what it's supposed to be?
>> judge, we're operating from one that's proposed as of April 15th, 2003, not April 4.
>> all I'm saying is what the neighbors have is one that's may 30th.
>> that's the floodplain ordinance.
>> that's the modified portion, though, of the floodplain ordinance, the one that was brought here last week. That's what you're looking at and that's the confusion that the floodplain is attempting to be modified.
>> are you looking at the siting of solid waste ordinance?
>> okay. Let me ask this. 64.071, Travis County code, is there only one 64.07 # in the Travis County code?
>> there's only one. That is the 500-foot requirement. 64.071 is the requirement that a facility be 500 feet from the edge of the floodplain.
>> okay. All I can tell you is on my version that says may 30th is says 64.071 and the tieltion is proceed -- title is prohibition and that's where all the of the items are listed that were discussed last week. That's one reason I'm confused.
>> well, the language you're referring to is may 30th is draft language that has absolutely no legal effect. What's in effect right now is 64.071, the requirement is that the facility be 500-foot from the edge of the floodplain. The language we're discussing and that the judge made the motion on, the net effect is that it makes the requirement that a facility be 500-foot from the floodplain binding on tceq.
>> okay.
>> one thing I realized or that I thought last week is if you had ideas, if you -- if you put each idea on a separate sheet of paper, I had this thought on Thursday, so I said rather than try to put these in a draft ordinance, let's just list it on a separate piece of paper and show where it would go. That's why I could have gotten all this on one page, but I tried to separate them out to discuss each of them separately. And --
>> and I understand that, and we have no problem with that. We're just having trouble trying to plug the things in to where they're supposed to go in view of all the different versions of things that we've got.
>> the floodplain ordinance legally cannot be touched today because it's not posted. The siting ordinance is.
>> I understand. I understand.
>> any more discussion about the motion, which deals with number 1 on this list here?
>> good afternoon, Commissioners, judge, mark mcafee. This sound good to me as the floodplain ordinance is presently, as the setbacks are presently. But one concern that I have is that I'm concerned that maybe later on when we get into discussions of the set back that it will be easier for you all to make modifications in this setback as opposed to going and tackling the entire floodplain ordinance and making changes in that, and that concerns me.
>> I assure you it will not be easy. [ laughter ]
>> good. Thank you.
>> if there is one thing I can guarantee, mr. Mcafee, it would be that. Now, I guarantee you too that what we're trying to do isn't as simple as it sounds. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion to put number 1 in the siting ordinance before us. Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty, Gomez and yours truly voting for it. And Commissioner --
>> I'm noting against it.
>> Commissioner Davis will explain whatever his vote it.
>> I would like to hear from the community and see if you're in agreement with this because everything i've been trying to do you up here have been reflective of what you want. And if you are really strongly believe that this particular deal simply included in this -- of course, I think you may have expressed that. So i'd like to see if this is what you really want because, again, I have definitely tried to work hard with -- and keeping in the discussion last week was to keep the floodplain ordinance separate, keep it separate from the site solid waste ordinance. That's what the discussion was yesterday, especially with looking at the modification that we had. And the draft floodplain ordinance of last week. Keep that separate because we were careful that it should be modified within the floodplain ordinance itself. So I want to make sure that you understand that this vote that we're dealing with as far as including this particular floodplain ordinance in the solid waste siting ordinance may come back later to be modified. I want you to understand that. That means you have to be down here for that too because I'm quite sure the proposed draft to the floodplain ordinance that came up last week is still real and alivment it's still alive. It's not dead. It's not a dead issue. So there may be somed for modification to the floodplain ordinance from that respect. So I want to make sure you understand what's going on here.
>> judge, I move we recess owe. So I would like to look at this and let you know that I am supporting this basically based on your assurance that you continue to be here tomorrow for this as it goes in the direction we hope it would go because it a big bill. And I don't know if we're going to hear anything to that degree because the floodplain ordinance has been the only leverage' we've had in this community. Of course, the solid waste ordinance would also be that, but I'm supporting it because of the fact that I want you to continue to be with me as far as what we think is the best thing to do, but be here with me tomorrow as it goes through and to also provide your input. So I want to make sure of that.
>> move we recess until 1:30. At 1:30 we have the corporations. 1:45 we already have a posted item related to the health insurance situation, so, judge, my guess would be 2:15, 2:30 before we get back to this item?
>> I'm not showing support on this particular motion based on the comments I just made. They will be contingent on the comments from the community and if we have to look at something different later on.
>> I think we're looking at -- I would say 2:45 at the earliest. If we call this item up at 2:45, it would be the only item left today. My preference would be to call it up at 2:45, try to get all of the issues covered before we adjourn. And at the end of the day be able to direct staff to incorporate the changes into another draft, advertise that, circulate it, that's another 30-day comment period unless legal hi we can shorten it to 15. And then we're moving toward getting it done. I apologize for the lunch break. We have told a lot of other folks to come here on a health insurance item at about 1:45, so at 2:45 this would be the only item and we'll be able to work on it until we're done. All those in favor, signify by saying aye? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez away.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 10, 2003 7:52 PM