Travis County Commssioners Court
June 17, 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 11
11. Consider proposed solid waste facilities siting ordinance and comments received, including comments regarding incorporating the Travis County flood plain ordinance, and take appropriate action.
>> if you can quickly lay out one of the changes that have been made. I'm assuming that they were made pursuant to the discussion and action that we took last week as indicated in the draft provided us by john on June 13th.
>> if you will look at that -- at has we are calling the [indiscernible] 2003 draft, this was circulated last week. In the body of the ordinance you will see the first change under 62.001, we have added the definition of receptor, that relates to -- to the language you all voted on, which -- which creates what I'm calling a 100-foot halo around the receptor. That's where the measuring point begins. In 62.002, b 1, you will see we've -- we've excluded type 4 landfills from the ordinance. There's some -- some renumbering, there were a couple of just typographical or language changes in there, but get down to 62.006, that's where we bring the floodplain ordinance into the sight ordinance. And in 62.007 starting with 5 and going on into -- I'm sorry, 62.007 starting in b 5 and going on to -- to c, is the revised variance process and then 007 d 2 is the remediation language. And then in the order itself we've added what I'm calling ratification or even readoption of the entire floodplain ordinance under the health and safety code.
>> the only other thing that I had left over, just in terms of just clarify for me, under the definitions, under school and daycare center, which is in, you specifically have as they existed on the effective date of this chapter for those two receptors. But we did not do that for public water wells, public parks, historic facilities, place of worship, neighborhoods, individual residents, health care facility and I think we had the same thing in mind that it's basically as it exist on the day of the ordinance as opposed to somebody could put in a place of worship after the fact and throw something out of kilter that was --
>> the as it existed is referring to referring to the human resources code. What I was trying to accomplish was freeze that definition in the statute, the legislature changes that definition, it doesn't automatically change our ordinance.
>> you see I read that to say that meant that the school or daycare centers as they existed. I read it that way, someone else might as well. Although I'm not an attorney. Is that something that -- that needs a little bit of clarity?
>> well, I think by discussing it today we have made that part of the record. It referrals to the actual statute. What we are trying to do is freeze the statute so that we don't, you know, the legislature could come in and completely rewrite that statute .we don't want them to rewrite our ordinance for us.
>> okay. We have got that in the order then, thank you.
>> motions from the court?
>> judge. I have had an opportunity to review this on -- in detail and I know in talking with the residents and identified had an opportunity to review the ordinance. And of course I know that we are looking to move forward as quickly as possible with this. And of course with that I -- I want to ensure that some additional language was brought in with the Travis County floodplain ordinance dealing with the health and safety codes which will also be part of what we are doing here, as being entrenched. I have not heard any disagreement from the neighborhood as far as strengthening this particular ordinance, especially with the language of the health and safety codes embedded. So I guess to hear from the residents and I have spoken with -- of course I'm ready to move forward, I know maybe the community may have a few things to say, but I feel that we need to, if there's any critiquing that needs to be done as we go through this process, I know this particular action that we may take today would be a 30-day posting of this ordinance. During that time frame I think it would be the ideal time for any person that would like to give it more teeth, more strength, whatever comments they would have to make to this particular ordinance, [indiscernible], it would be appropriate to do that. But if there's anyone to speak on them, of course we will allow them to speak. I'm ready to move forward. I think that we have been grappling with this for a long time. Of course the community is waiting for some -- some action from this court.
>> we are ready to move forward, too. [multiple voices]
>> I would second that.
>> so what I would like to do is -- is maybe make a motion if that's appropriate, judge, at this time. I would like to move that we post the solid waste siting ordinance for 30 days, for 30 days, I guess tom what would that be as far as, when would that be when it come back to us? For 30 days.
>> it will take a few days to get the newspaper notice out. So -- so we don't know for sure. Because we don't know when the newspaper notice publishes for sure.
>> okay. Okay. And then we also post the Travis County floodplain ordinance with -- with a remodification or readoption for 30 days under the health and safety code. I think that will all intertwine with what we are doing here as far as what's been recommended and as far as what the court has put on the table for -- for the same time period for both of these particular -- 30 days, I guess that would also include notification to the [indiscernible] of that nature. So with that I would like to put that in the form of a motion.
>> the only problem with the motion I think as to the floodplain ordinance, since this is county ordinance already, you don't --
>> readoption.
>> if you do the draft, do the draft siting ordinance, a provision already pulls the floodplain ordinance into it.
>> it's linked.
>> so what we -- I think the motion should be for us to advertise, post the city's comments on the draft that we have before us, unless we change it during this meeting. See what I'm saying.
>> all right. I guess my point was I wanted to make sure that the health and safety code language is -- is embedded in that. [multiple voices]
>> in other words, in other words, adopting it I guess in the sense of the --
>> we are not posted to do that. 62.006, we basically take the floodplain ordinance and incorporate it into this one. Posted on the siting ordinance. Not the floodplain ordinance and really on the floodplain ordinance if we don't plan to change it, there would be no reason to post it or take any action on it. [multiple voices]
>> legally.
>> that -- the difference is the floodplain ordinance as it exists was adopted under the water code. And the water code there's no posting requirement, if you will remember, we adopted the floodplain ordinance, we didn't have to post it in that -- didn't have to publicize it in the newspaper or take comments or anything like that. Under the health and safety code, you do. So to give the floodplain ordinance the weight of all of the stuff that's in the health and safety code, including the language that it's binding on tceq, you have got to go through that posting period.
>> but don't you need a posting --
>> judge, I think the language -- I think the language that you have got is adequate to do that. Because you talk about incorporating the floodplain ordinance. So I think it's covered.
>> then we --
>> which establishes the link for sludge facilities and compost and transfer and recycling and missing pieces landfills.
>> we did that last week.
>> are you saying as we post the siting ordinance, then under 62.006, we ought to have a copy of the floodplain ordinance. Advertised at the same time?
>> well, I think you can just -- since it's adopted, it has got a section number in the Travis County code. You can just refer to the site.
>> uh-huh.
>> that's not what we do here?
>> well, the way that I have drafted the order it is what you do. You refer to subchapter c, chapter 69 Travis County code as adopted on October the 2nd, 2001.
>> legal I the motion should say what? -- legally the motion should say what?
>> simply readopt the -- readopt subchapter c, chapter 64, Travis County code as adopt odd October 2nd, 2001, under the -- adopted on October 2nd, 2001 under the health and safety code. Readopt that ordinance under the health and safety code.
>> where does this agenda item say that?
>> this talks about incorporating the Travis County floodplain ordinance.
>> do you think it's legally sufficient?
>> yes.
>>
>> that's your motion, Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, it is judge.
>> I seconded it.
>> now, any comments? Would anybody like to give comments today? If so, please come forward.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners, my name is trek english. Just a minor detail. My last draft still has two sections, 62.007, and you have 62.007 variances and it's 62.007 severability?
>> thank you. We will need to renumber those.
>> thank you. That needs to be 008, right.
>> [multiple voices]
>> the last page 009, the last page.
>> I just would like the definition, I don't want to argue the point. What is the definition to reaffirm and ratify, what do you mean by ratify?
>> well, again, to give the floodplain ordinance all of the benefits of the language in the health and safety code, you basically have to go through the posting process. That's the big difference.
>> okay.
>> the 30 days.
>> so you are at -- okay.
>> it's a --
>> okay.
>> -- procedural difference.
>> okay. And basically my -- my last comment will be -- my pet peeve about the age of the unit. I sent you pictures yesterday, at the edge of the unit can be very subjective depending on who the facility operator is. And the fact that tceq, I don't know if you got the last e-mail, but that tceq is actually -- looking at -- looking at tightening rules -- let me see.
>> [indiscernible]
>> right. The sham recycler issue, people just take in recycling, actually don't do anything with it, just spreads, spreads, spreads all over the facility and eventually causes fires and all kinds of problems. I'm not sure where tceq is on that. I didn't have time to do the research. But this was supposed to have been implemented or at least worked on last summer. And so I just would like to be on the record that, you know, I think the edge of facility, the boundary of the facility, the language is okay. I just think that in some instances it's -- the facility, the boundary of the facility is the edge of the unit. And I guess that's the way that we are going to have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It would probably be the easiest thing, because I don't think we can predict what they are going to do. Other than that, give this to john. Thank you very much, that's all that I have to say.
>> thank you, trek.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. [indiscernible] johnson, northeast Travis County property owner and grew up there. I just want to express my support for the Commissioners court taking action on -- on the siting ordinance. I am disappointed in one thing, I don't know what we can do about it. But the grandfathering aspect of the -- of these clauses may give people like -- like captex and [indiscernible] and his operation access to operate in areas we don't want them to. But I think we need something like this. And I think it will be a benefit to the citizens of the county. And thank you for your support of our situation out in northeast Travis County in the past and -- and I look forward to -- to working with you and look forward to your help as we continue in our opposition to this [indiscernible] out there in the community.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> judge, can I ask a question?
>> yes, sir.
>> tom, was -- ratifying this siting ordinance, in your opinion, what does this really do with regards to prohibiting any other site or any other location within Travis County with regards to landfills in particular? I mean, is this -- does this get us into a spot where we basically are creating something where there's going to be no site that will be accepted in this community for -- for sludge, for landfill, for -- you name it.
>> I don't believe so. And I will invite john to comment on this, too, he may have looked at it more than I do, but we don't think that it excludes -- we don't think that it's a prohibit active ordinance. We don't think -- let's a general prohibition on solid waste disposal in Travis County.
>> right. The thing that -- the change that we made to this amendment in terms of the measure distances, put it right back, I think into the more reasonable scenario where there are spots and particularly for these types of facilities that this speaks to, they tend to be smaller and not require as much land base, so my answer would be no, I don't think we have been prohibited.
>> the reason that I ask this, as supportive as I am of -- of -- if allowing this community to dictate, especially with neighbors that have had these issues, which is the reason why we are here, I just -- I want to make sure -- i've often said that -- that I am not looking for a way to take this industry and to create a situation where we can't do something with garbage. I am look knowledge for a -- I am looking for a way that we can get industry to -- to comply with rules and regulations that we do have that are reasonable. But I am cognizant of the fact that we have got to do something. We have got to have a situation where this industry can operate. I have, you know, resisted getting into the siting ordinance language to date because I really feel like that -- that not that I got drug into this thing, but when we first started, when I went out and talked to the neighbors, odor was my issue. And I -- I'm a little apprehensive about -- about doing something where I feel like that what this is going to do is prohibit us from being able to find places in this county, because I do think that we need to take care of our garbage in this county. Don't think that we need to take care of everybody -- of all of the other counties garbage, but I certainly think that we need to take care of ours. I'm going to have to really rely on, john, you and tom with regards to the legalities of this, that we are not boxing ourselves into something where we have really got a fight that we, number one, that we can't win, number two that really is not the intent of the -- of what we are trying to get done here. So if.
>> that probably leads into something I want to make clear as well.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> good-bye.
>> will you tell I think it is an achiefable bar and there will be things and there will be projects that will be able to meet the variance if for some reason they don't meet the main core of the ordinance to begin with. And again, in terms of precision of language here, today we are talking about recycling transfer, which are your minor facilities, and composting and sludge, which are the major facilities. When we use the word "landfill" I think a lot of folks think what are the type 1 through 4, and that is not what we're doing today. Although they are covered by the flood plain ordinance, which I do want to remind folks has been in effect since October of 2001. So in terms of this court taking acon almost two years ago, but i'll say a year and a half ago, we quickly got that flood plain ordinance in effect. It's the first line of defense related to this issue, but it's no longer the only line of defense related to recycling, transfer, composting and the sludges. So there is a high bar, but I think it is one that the proper project could meet, and then they need to know there is language that says shall, although there is always an interpretation as to what is satisfactorally meeting all of the requirements.
>> mr. Mcafee.
>> good morning. I wanted to get back with Commissioner Sonleitner on distances and that sort of thing. I made a little map here and [inaudible] but bar mansion is right up in this area right here. And the presently permitted areas are the parts with the stripes. The flood plain setback is this line right here. In terms of just I did it in terms of this side of the landfill. But -- thank you, travis. And the 1500-foot setback, if it were measured -- I did this measuring from the structure itself. I know that we were do 100-foot from, so it would be 100-foot past this in all actuality, which is a quarter of an inch. The present distance to the closest cell that's permitted is right here, which is -- unfortunately we were not able to stop that expansion in '91. The -- and I did not bring you all information on where the other nationally registered historic places are, but a band around an historic place, again, is not going to exclude much of the county. I think that in terms of percentage of the county, when I did do this research a year ago, it was only 3% of the county that was excluded because of historic if we did a full one-mile setback. And that was because they were already excluded, those areas were already excluded because they were downtown properties or close to the new regional airport. Abia. And so there really was only three places, I believe -- and the other ones were out in the edwards aquifer zone. So it really boiled down to that there was probably only 3% of the county that was excluded if you gave a full mile setback to protection zone to historic property. So i'll pass this on to you and.
>> I would appreciate that. Thank you.
>> if I could add something real quick, when they got that expansion back in '91, we had to fight for landscape features to help mitigate the impact of the landfills. And I realize we're not talking about that type of landfill here, but I think something should be incorporated into this ordinance in terms of landscape features. Some buffer zone that is on their property that is ever green, that is call growing, that mitigates the effects of this. It shouldn't be something that each individual location has to band together and fight for something like this. Thank you.
>> trek english again. I wanted to bring up a point that I forgot to talk about, and Commissioner Daugherty more or less brought it up. I think that the future will bring more and more recycling stations and transfer stations. So if we had some top-number of operators, it would be -- top notch operators, it would be fantastic, and I think that Travis County needs to work towards getting the best operators out there because recycling is going to be the wave of the future. We just can't keep putting everything into landfills. And I was kind of disappointed that no language in the ordinance addressed what mr. Robbins testified to last week. I felt that tom and paul were going to work together on this particular issue. So since it wasn't address understand the ordinance, I'm hoping that the county will take a resolution in the future address ing this very issue of encouraging more and more people to recycle through perhaps the language that could be worked out between the groups that wouldn't be so controversial, that could encourage people to recycle more. I think that needs to really be addressed seriously so that landfills -- landfill problems do not become -- or landfill capacity does not become a problem in Travis County. Thank you.
>> thank you, trek.
>> it does seem to me that while we're doing the orders, remediation, et cetera, we work on other items. The regionalism recommendations [inaudible] in other counties. I do think we ought to see the practical effect of the distance requirements that we have. Seems to me there ought to be a way to look through our Travis County and see if there are appropriate sites where a landfill may be located. And the other thing is that I have no problem with pursuing waste handling strategies other than an ordinance. I'm not sure language would help there. Where you have public education and more action over a unit may help some. The irony is that I think that probable Travis County does more recycling than probably most our counties as a governmental entity and probable from a resident's perspective. We probably can do much, much more. I [inaudible] while the studies being done and us trying to implement whatever the recommendations are, that we try to look at some of the other options.
>> judge, I'm glad you brought that point up. From a regional approach, I have had a chance to speak with b.f.i. And also w.m.i. In the presence of john kuhl and tom nuckols in a series of meetings. And of course we discussed the original approach for them since we -- they basically serve and bring in garbage from as far as 30 counties and some 20 bring it to Travis County. So that was discussed as far as what you are talking about. Things about capco, things about looking for a new location. And I think the neighborhoods have promptly brought that up and they did not accept the [inaudible] on those type of conversations in the future. So it's something that we can maybe look at in the future.
>> judge, I have a specific suggestion related to that, and I guess it was our situation related to clean air that got me focused on this. And capco was extraordinarily helpful in terms of helping pull together the working group related to clean air. But capco is a 13-county region. I think we need to get a little more focused related to -- I don't think hauling of garbage is going to go out 13 full counties, but I think it is appropriate for the five counties that are currently working together very closely on clean air issues. I hate to use the word "summit," but it seems to fit. Perhaps the county judges could take the leadership role here the same way that they did related to clean air. If the five gts of hays, Williamson, travis, bastrop and caldwell together related to the solid waste issue much because it seems like that's kind of a decent radius in temperatures of hauling distances and for people to exchange information, talk about what everybody's needs are, but I was a little -- I just felt like talking about the solid waste management needs of the capco region is too broad, because that's 13 counties, and quite frankly, their solution might be, as it is on some of the other issues, let Travis County pay for it and let Travis County handle it. I don't think we ought to be the receptor, different receptor definition here, for 13 counties. But I think it is -- it does make some sense for the five counties to get together and talk about this and for everybody to lay out what plans they know about, because some of those counties, I think Williamson to the north, they actually own their landfill site, although thee lease it to a private operator. We need to get a sense of what's out there, but on a smaller regional definition. And go from there. And capco could be very helpful the same way they were helpful in terms of being the focused agency helping us out on clean air.
>> in addition to that, I think we need to be real careful what is taken to the land full. That needs to be worked out so that they don't take things that are recyclable to the landfill.
>> the five counties.
>> yes, sir.
>> I think that's a great suggestion. I think you might want to also add lee county to it -- to the list because they do -- they are adjacent to us and have --
>> but they are a considerable distance and they are quite a --
>> I also looked at their soil structures and they have the same type of soil structures, from my limited expertise as what we have. But I may not know something about lee county.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? Any more discussion of the motion? Please come forward. There are four seats available. We would like to get comments today -- if you would like to give comments, please come forward.
>> judge, for the record, my name is paul gosselink and I represent b.f.i. I just wanted to -- I'm not sure I understand the full discussion in response to Commissioner Daugherty's question about would this ordinance be prohibitive in nature as to siting of these facilities which are not landfill facilities. I don't think it's prohibitive to these facilities. I worry it would be if these distances were maintained at the landfill facilities would be prohibitive. And you've made a stud that I supports that concern. I just wanted to make the decision in my mind. Thank you.
>> thank you, paul.
>> all in favor of the motion? It passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> judge, I would like to thank you personally, judge Biscoe. You've put in a lot of hours on this. I would like to thank the entire Commissioners court for working on a very tough issue. It's been a long ride, and the ride isn't over with yet. Persons in the community, I would like to thank the industry because being a part of the working group with the neighborhoods, staff, and also the residents around the area, you worked hard together and we've come up with think, and I really [inaudible] david samuelson, all these groups out there who are worked so hard for a long period of time, I would like to say thank you. Hopefully we'll continue to participate in the same level as we did before. And thank this entire Commissioners court. Thank you all very much.
>> judge, could I ask one question, clarification? The last time we posted the impact assessment and the ordinance on the county website, am I assuming you all's wish is to do likewise this time?
>> I would.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:52 AM