Travis County Commssioners Court
June 24, 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 19
Number 19-a, receive update on actions taken by various political jurisdictions in the Austin-round rock msa regarding purchase of Texas low emission diesel this summer and other actions taken to reduce emissions and improve air quality. And number b is to consider actions taken by Travis County to comply with early action compact and additional recommendations and take appropriate action.
>> good afternoon.
>> 19-a, we discussed this issue about six weeks ago and you asked me to get additional information about the purchase of Texas low emission diesel and trucking it into our area. So that's what we've tried to do is provide it in the backup in in your packet. Basically the main question was how much we spend and what kind of benefits would we see from purchasing this low emission diesel and what we asked -- we asked the folks from erg to help us with that question. They were able to do so, modeling it and came up with basically if we purchase Texas low emission diesel in July, August and September of this year and did it in conjunction with capital metro, the city of Austin and Williamson county, who have also agreed to purchase this, we would save about a 10th of a ton a day in nox emissions. We would lower nox emissions in this area by about a 10th. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a start and a 10th of the amount is nothing to sneeze at. So that's the information you asked. It would cost us about $75,000 -- it would cost about $11,000 for 75,000 gallons of diesel over that three-month period, which is what we estimate we would need.
>> 11,000 more than we would spend --
>> incremental cost.
>> and that's because the diesel has been to be trucked in. We can't get it through a pipeline at this point. It is outside of san antonio, so they would trg truck it in, but we can do that through a state contract and our contacts through txdot. We don't have to go out for bid or anything like that. And there's a breakdown, basically nine thousand of that could come from the road and bridge fund and two thousand from the general fund.
>> sound like a good dividend on an 11,000-dollar three-month investment.
>> yes and no.
>> I was looking for a yes answer. [ laughter ]
>> what we're doing is we're starting the process to get this diesel into our area and to get us to provide a market for not only political jurisdictions, but private jurisdictions as well. So that's the main reason to do it. That puts it at costing probably around -- one of the estimates is $25,000 a ton to get that emission, which is not on the low end, but it's not on the super high end of getting a ton of nox emissions. So it's not the cheapest way to go about doing this, but at the same time it is definitely a start. And a 10th of a ton from just these four entities doing it is a pretty good deal. So I would say it would be worth the money.
>> the real good news would be the possible 3.26 tons per day that the project will provide.
>> thanks for bringing that up. Basically the way we get all of our fuel is through the pipeline and they provide 95% of the fuel in this region through that one pipeline. They've kind of got a monopoly in our area. They have committed to start supplying us and we do not have to do anything to get it with ultra low sulphur gasoline. So everybody who drives anything or uses any kind of engine that uses gasoline will start getting ultra low filtered gasoline in the next couple of weeks, I hope. Very soon. So when we combine what we're doing to diesel with that, you're going to start seeing some real effective monitoring, which is the ultimate goal.
>> that's an additional cost for that fuel?
>> you know, I don't know if there will be a penny or a 10th of a penny, and we haven't been told the numbers yet.
>> we recognize some of the transportation costs?
>> it would be through the pipeline.
>> so the increase would be much lower than the ultra low sulphur?
>> yes. We're looking at a cost of 17 cents a gallon for the ultra low diesel to truck it in.
>> we are committed to use the ultra low sulphur and working together and if we've got one 10th of a ton, the city of Austin probably a few times that, Williamson county is doing it too.
>> all four of us together, it is a combined effort. Because it's -- our needs are much smaller. The regional impact is if we can start getting some of the private contracts using the same diesel. So what we're trying to do is get it in here, make sure everybody understands how it works and that it doesn't have any negative effects, which doesn't, but we want to introduce it into the market. But later on down the road we could look at contract provisions to require some of the private consultants to look at if we have it on our property and that sort of thing. We'll just have to see how that works.
>> (indiscernible). In order to really solve the problem, you've got have something, either the fuel or something else.
>> the fuel is one of the biggest things you can do. Changing the fuel gets you a lot of nox emissions reductions, which is what we're aiming to do.
>> something that everybody understands, which we talked about a little bit after last week's agenda, if you ask people on the street, are you for clean air, they go well, sure. And what would you do in order to help clean the air up? There is a cost factor there that you have got to get people to really submit to doing something other than paying you lip service. 80% of the emission issues that we have today is really caused by -- if you're talking about the road, is on about 20% of the vehicles that are on the road. Because the cars that have come on to the road in the last 10 years, their emissions are a lot cleaner. As a matter of fact, air quality is probably cleaner today from our emissions than it was 10 years ago. The statistics will show that. So we've got to find a way to really get people to really do what they say they'll do. I mean, for example, I would love for the county -- and the county has 4,000 employees -- to do a survey out that said, if you had the opportunity to buy a low sulphur gas and it cost you 13 cents more a gallon or whatever additional it is, if there's some figure out there, that's really where you're trying to get. I mean, and if we don't -- if we can't give a compelling enough argument for enough people to really get involved and to go through these motions that a 10th of a ton when you start loading up all the entities we're taking to do this at a cost of 11,000, 75,000 or whatever it's costing, it really does not make a lot of practical sense to the person on the street. You can always say, well, yeah, but it does something. The cost benefit is where it is. So I would love to see us have the opportunity to -- because we certainly have the opportunity to poll our 4,000 people and ask them the simple question, is this a big enough issue to you that you would spend -- and I guess whatever the figure is, which is maybe 13 cents is not right, but we can find that out.
>> 17 cents, yeah. It depends on what kind of bulk you buy it in basically.
>> I知 talking about a gas tank that has 40 miles -- 22 gallons in a tank. That will tell us a lot. I think people would be pretty honest with you. If you're talking about 13 or 15 cents and you've got a 20-gallon tank, you're talking about three bucks every time you fill your tank up. So that would at least give us some indicator as to whether or not people are just telling you that they want to do something about it or whether they're really willing to do that.
>> and we can do that. There's a number of things that we can start doing with our employees and about other things that we can do. That would be one thing is to start getting the people that you employ at least to get involved in ways -- ask them to start getting involved in ways. I would recommend that you really -- I mean, yes, I think most people would say that they would purchase it or they would want to purchase it, but then when you get to the pump and you're short three dollars and you're just trying to get on down the road, will people really -- if they had two pumps there and they were given the choice, would they go for the cheaper one or the most expensive? I think a lot of households out of necessity go for the cheaper option.
>> speaking of employee surveys, though, we do have about 2,000 surveys among our employees, some have been returned to my office, some have not, but it asked several questions and it's a survey being conducted by the Texas clean air force. And that's a start. And if county employees, if the personnel liaisons could pick those up for me within the next few days, get those in my office and we'll get them to the clean air force as we promise to do. We have received back four or five hundred, so we only have 1500 to go. So if you get those back to us, wield appreciate it. And there are other actions that you recommend today or next week.
>> in 19-b. So I guess if the court sees any need to take any action in order to purchase the low emissions diesel --
>> I think I see it.
>> especially you need to authorize me to take whatever actions we need to with txdot to piggyback off their contracts, and it would be good if I wouldn't have to come back to court to do that.
>> so the cost that we're looking at today is the cost that would be piggybacked with txdot.
>> the cost which is about $11,000.
>> so we need to execute this purchase. Okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? Yes.
>> (indiscernible). I am very concerned about the efforts that the Austin area that is taking and making -- to improve air quality, primarily because there is a proposal right now that would divert our bicycle and pedestrian funds to be used for air quality improvements. Let's talk about some of the improvements that are being considered --
>> we're still on the purchasing of this here?
>> this is one of the air quality improvements that are --
>> we're not dealing with the item. This is just to purchase the fuel and authorizing purchasing to do it. You are about to discuss the campo issue, right?
>> I am.
>> which is good. Any more discussion of this motion? There may be some other motion oz this same item. We'll be right back to you. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now you can go.
>> this issue deals with all of the air quality proposals that are being -- the actions that are being taken to improve air quality. And one of those actions that is supposed to improve air quality is a proposal to change the policy of campo whereby 15% of the metropolitan mobility funds are set aside every year for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Now, if you're concerned about the amount of vehicle emissions, I can tell you that 100% of the vehicle emissions come from motor vehicles. It makes a lot of sense. Bicycles are not producing vehicle emissions. Now, to eliminate the money that you use for bicycle projects, not to mention for sidewalks, is not going to improve air quality, it's going to degrade air quality. And yet this is being done in the name of air quality for what kinds of projects? Intersections, lightning projects, ramp and merge projects for highways, changeable highway message signs? Traffic signal synchronization? How are these projects going to improve air quality when you're taking the money away from bicycle and pedestrian projects? I can tell you they're not going to improve air quality, they're going to degrade our air quality. And this is supposed to be done in the name of the early action compact. They're going to degrade our air quality. We're going to end up violating the federal standards even more than we already are, and then we're going to lose our highway funds. The main reason this is being done is just so that we can add on to the number of roadway projects that can be done. I suspect that txdot is behindt
so I知 opposed to everything that is being done in the name of the early action compact because I don't want to see our air quality degraded because of the poor choices of some of the people who are responsible for improving our air quality.
>> you didn't find a single one of the 30 that you liked? There was about 30 recommendations. You don't like any of them?
>> I don't like the --
>> you don't object to the bicycle and alternative metes of transportation?
>> I don't like the fact that you're diverting money from bicycle and pedestrian projects to be used for this early action compact, that's correct.
>> so you think that as a matter of record we ought to ask campo not to do that?
>> I think that would be an excellent action, yes.
>> that's your recommendation?
>> that is my recommendation.
>> and I think we made it really clear at the campo meeting last is that that is something that is being talked about at a staff level. It has not made it to the full campo. I will guarantee if you it gets to full campo, I have ever intention of voting against it. I think we ought to find money for the early action compact stuff. I don't think the 15% set aside is the place to find it. I think it's not one of the other, I think it's both. They're all good things, but I don't think that's the appropriate source of money. That's how I intend to vote.
>> my problem with it is I think 15% is too much personally. I think that if you loaded up every bicyclist that gets from home to work and every pedestrian that goes from home to work by that way, it's .01 to the 32nd power if you round it off by stow. I知 not saying that we shouldn't spend money on pedestrians and bicycles, but to really think that 15% is -- let me tell you what, it's so much more ludicrous than mandating that you spend 50% of your dollars over the next 30 years for alternative modes of transportation, so I probably have as big a problem with that as you do cutting the 15%. I do think there needs to be some -- there needs to be some areas that we reevaluate that unfortunately, where you and I will disagree, is that I don't think that it needs to be 15%. Now, once you can show me that there are enough people -- owe I mean, I can't fill up two hands on people that I know that get on their bicycle everyday and that's how they get from point a to point b. Now, I know that you do because you're a bicyclist, but let's face it, tommy, what percent -- it's not anywhere near even one percent. I mean, and it's not like you're going to be able to get out and give people incentives to ride their bicycle. I mean, there's nobody in this room that's going to tell you that I知 chunking my car and I知 getting that new schwinn bicycle or whatever it is. It's just not going to happen. But that being said, I do think that we need to pay attention to not cut the 15%, but when it comes time for me to voice an opinion on that, it will be lower than 15%, but something commiserate with what is the amount of time that bicyclists and pedestrians go from home to work and work back home.
>> what kind of percentage do you think would be appropriate?
>> whatever is accurate. That's the figure that I知 looking for. Give me something that's fair and -- we know that over 90% of the people get in their car everyday and take a single occupant vehicle to work. I知 one the them. I知 the one that stood at first and -- at cesar chavez and congress and it took me 48 minutes to count one thousand cars. And there were 937 single occupant vehicles that came along in that 48 minutes. Now, that is telling me something. I mean, I don't think that I can go out and change the dime mibz of how people get around in the united states of america. And I don't think that there's anything that you or anybody is going to do to change the dynamics of that. Obviously you've got a hot button with me, but we will agree to disagree on some of the things, but I do think there needs to be some dollars spent in the eye irene in a that you're talking about, but I think 15% is too much.
>> and I think on balance if this were the only money where the campo had funds spent on transportation, we could have a really healthy argument, but clearly it's not. We just wrote a check for $90 million to the state of Texas for sh 130. Not one dime is going for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. So to me I have to look at the big picture. And 15% of this small pond of money in the context of everything that the city -- all of the cities and Travis County, Williamson county and Hays County are doing in the transportation arena, that 15% is not even close to being 15% if you look at what everybody is doing to help out. And again, we have to have something balanced. In the pot of money, 15% is on the high side, but it clearly isn't the only money that's being spent on transportation. Again, 90 million, not one dime. We're having to beg to try to get a trail on sh 130.
>> (indiscernible). That's something to be proud of. You need balance there and you need time to work on me. Thank you.
>> thank you, Commissioners.
>> any further recommendations?
>> well, 19-b is just asking to update you all on actions already taken by Travis County as well as proposed actions that should be taken to implement plans this summer as early as possible to start early improving air quality in our region. But I just have to -- what I have in the backup is the most recent reporting document, which we have to do every six months. We were in the middle of trying to get the eap signed. So this covers October 2002 through may 31st, 2003, even though it says March up at the top, they hadn't changed the time on there. So this is what you have been doing basically. These are the things that you've committed to do as a county, which is again only trying to keep us in compliance with the one-hour standard, not the eight-hour standard. The next document is the list of potential emission reduction measures that the clean air coalition on which judge Biscoe sits, along with representatives from the other 12 political jurisdictions are working with us on this, this is the list that they turned in to tceq and to give them an update of where we're at and what image and reductions measures we're looking at to comply with the eight-hour standard. That's a very long, exrens active list. This is by no means what the plan will include, it is simply a list of measures that we are looking at a at this point from all sources of air emissions. The last document attachment c is basically the stage we are in now of the early action compact. This is the evaluation worksheet that staff, technical staff from all the jurisdictions, the private sector, and other public entities, are using to basically score each of those measures and bring that information back to the clean air coalition so that y'all can actually weight these different measures and see which ones you think would work best in this region. So basically the voluntary stuff that you've done under the -- (indiscernible). Other measures that you could take you've just taken. One of the biggest ones, which is to purchase the low emissions diesel for this summer's use during those months when we tend to have the highest number of high ozone days, which is August and September. And July just to ramp up for it. Other steps that you could immediately take that are voluntary that could have some impact would be I believe one of the biggest things that the county could do is sort of create a position -- and I have not given this much thought, but some kind of almost cheerleader, if you went to a&m arks yell leader, if you will, for air quality within the county to help our employees really start doing some things that could have some impact.
>> that is not in your job description, I take it?
>> it could be. I think it needs to be there in due time and somebody who is available, and it could be me, it could be somebody else, it could be tnr, it could be hr. I知 more than willing to sit down and talk with anybody about that.
>> should we get a collie as a mascot? [ laughter ]
>> what's the clean air? That's not a collie. [ laughter ] there are other things you can do to really start energizing. As I say, we have as you know a notification process when we have high ozone days, ozone action day days and I get feedback from numerous people when we send out those notices with ideas about what we could be doing and what they could be doing and how do I get more information, that sort of thing. I think it needs to be institutionallized a little bit better about where people go to get information and how that information gets disseminated to all of the employees throughout the entire county, and I知 talking about the other elected officials' offices as well, so there's just some sort of institutional work that needs to be done there.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I think that's the most useful piece of our time today.
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> if you would like to move in that direction, I would be more than happy to get that done.
>> let's have it next week. Time is of the essence. This really involves federal transportation dollars. If we're going to get serious, it was yesterday, not tomorrow. The other thing is that these actions do in fact have health effects. The 85-point total a few days a year, but health effects are day in and day out, right?
>> yes.
>> then you're talking about economic development because more and more big companies don't want to move into areas where there are air quality problems because they don't know how they'll be impacted once they get there. And so more and more it's becoming a big economic development issue. And then when I met with the central Texas judges recently we met with mr. Houston from tceq commission. That was clear. And he thought it was time to get serious. And the finding that basically we're non-compliant in central Texas was a big deal. Joe had suggested -- had asked me whether the county judge ought to send tceq something that says basically you've been saying that you only have records for Travis County, but you've got to understand our problem is in part caused by our neighbors who have agreed that they must be part of the solution. So I took your e-mail to the state and call it to the tceq's attention that you've got on to Travis County, but not all that pollution is generated in Travis County. Some of it came here from other counties. And not wanting to point the finger, that is a reality that we have to deal with. So my motion is to authorize the county judge to work with joe to put together sort of -- because what we said before was what the court approved and we all signed it. It is not too late to send in more comments, I take it?
>> he said postponed. They had a hearing on Friday, the 20th and they proposed taking action until their next meeting, which will be next month on that eight-hour non-attainment designation recommendation by the executive director, which is what you've been commenting on.
>> right.
>> I did not hear whether or not they reopened the record for more written comments, but the comment -- they have not said that the comment period is not open for this record.
>> they suggested that we may have taken some of the neighborly love too far. And I think we probably need to get it out if we can't because it's true. I don't think the others will deny it, it's just that it sort of makes your big part of the solution a little bit more duty bound, I think. So you're not just volunteering to work out, you're agreeing to help out with a problem that you are part of.
>> there's no doubt that the citizens of Travis County can address this issue on their own. It simply would not happen.
>> I would also request if we're going to do anything in terms of you're going to ask us to take those specific kszs, there -- we ought to label them very clearly on our agenda, a, b, c, d, e, f, because I知 concerned is that under a broad umbrella heading like this one, people would not know if we were going -- let's say, for example, we're going to go to a testing program. It seems like we ought to be pretty darn clear about if you're asking us to take specific action that they ought to be -- my preference, very specifically listed on the agenda that people have a clue that's what's going on here so that we make sure people are part of the discussion and don't feel like that we've been less than straightforward about what might happen here.
>> or opposing regulations or something.
>> is there anything in what Travis County is doing with the city of Austin, any other immediate jurisdiction that would actually be in the -- in the position that we've got ourselves in today as far as us purchasing these different types of diesel? (indiscernible).
>> yes, sir. In our region, Williamson county has committed to purchase iting capital metro has committed to purchasing it rear round on a demonstration basis and the city of Austin has committed to purchase iting it for the three months, July, August and September. Txdot, Austin district took a look at it and it has not committed, basically decided not to purchase diesel, even though txdot states as encouraging all of their district to do so.
>> that's very interesting. Okay. Thanks.
>> any more discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes unanimously. We'll have that back on next week. We need to in traik do better ourselves. We can improve on the last discussion and asking private industry to do certain things and one of their first questions will be what are you doing? And I think we ought to be able to give a good, positive answer to that. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:52 AM