Travis County Commssioners Court
July 15, 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 10
Item no. 10, discuss and take appropriate action on a restrictive covenant for maintenance of proposed floodplain modifications at the bfi site at 10200 giles lane. It would help us to know a brief history for what government entities has this request already gone through, and specifically what we are asked to do today and why.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners, john kuhl. This is a project that bfi had been considering for some time. Actually, prior to even the passage of our floodplain ordinance, which was October second, 2001. And at that time at least some preliminary plans had been circulated through tnr by virtue especially by going through the floodplain administrator because this is pure and simple a floodplain modification project. Basically this is the type of project that requires a conditional letter and map revision from fema, and so in that process it's a general federal review. Since it does pertain typically to floodplains which by their nature have streams in them, it also is routed through the u.s. Army corps of engineers. So the applicant, bfi, has set the stage at this time where they've essentially gone through those federal steps and are at the point where they need to secure as a part of their fema requirements some sort of maintenance agreement. And that's where we come in. My understanding is that, excuse me, fema traditionally uses contractors to review and actually execute the administration of many elements of their program, and this is one of those. And recently -- I don't know exactly the dates, but they have changed that contractor, and that contractor has now made a requirement or wanted to see these maintenance agreements with the actual entities. The idea for this maintenance is that you are insuring that the flow of a channel that's modified is maintained because obviously that's one of the most important functions of a floodplain is to actually convey the water down vem so that you don't get it backed up and to cause flooding. So that's what this document is essentially about is that, you know, it is our floodplain easement; however, we don't seek for perpetuity to have to maintain that. So we feel the applicant should have that responsibility, and that's what this document does. Today -- obviously we're here as a staff recommending that this go through simply because we feel like there is a responsibility on our behalf to make sure this is maintained, and we don't necessarily feel like we should be doing that. So there are assurances. This is similar to an item that we brought through without bfi a few months back. Obviously a very different location and a more controversial applicant; however, the same basic process. We're here as the staff to answer any other questions, but we also felt like it would be valuable for you to have the applicant actually walk you through the the project. And so whatever time you would choose, we do have people here from bfi to walk you through the project.
>> what we have before us is a maintenance agreement?
>> yes, sir.
>> and the purpose of the maintenance agreement is to ensure that there is proper flow in the channel that's modified.
>> correct.
>> now, has the modification been approved?
>> no, it has not.
>> so we're asked to approve the modification and the maintenance agreement?
>> we can't approve the modification until the maintenance issue is settled.
>> and the modification really is to alter the drainage.
>> right. There's a tributary at decker creek that runs on the northern boundary kind of parallel to this, and as the engineers like to say, it's an ill-defined floodplain that they seek to define with an excavated channel that has an effective narrowing of the floodplain.
>> so the modification comes after any maintenance fix.
>> correct.
>> and the modification is within the purview of Travis County. Under our floodplain regulations. And the maintenance agreement is something that fema sort of insists that the local enkaty does -- is that what I read in the backup? Fema is saying we approve this modification and we don't want a maintenance agreement in place because we want to be sure that the channel design works, and there's appropriate flow. Okay.
>> once the maintenance situation is solidified, would this application for floodplain change meet all other Travis County rules, requirements, etcetera?
>> yes, it would.
>> okay. Yes, sir.
>> does the approval of this modification alter the site or would it alter the site for what bfi were to be able to use, would they pick up additional ground on their site with the approval of this modification?
>> it's our understanding that it would.
>> so in other words, this would allow them to -- you're going to pick up square footage on the surface by doing this, which in essence allows you to increase your capacity for the site, right?
>> Commissioner Daugherty, i'll go sort of just to the heart of the question I think that you're asking, and that is this is basically en-- does this basically enhance their possibilities for expansion. I mean, the answer is yes. It may have predated your place here on the court, but I think it was probably about a year and a half ago or so they came to Commissioners court, bfi did, with their landscape architect and gave us a presentation that showed basically a two-level vertical expansion that would require a certain amount of lateral expansion to give it engineering stability. I've never heard them say that they've changed from that ultimate desire to do that. This modification of the channel is a part of that overall scheme; however, i've also asked the question of the applicant, if this modification were not able, for whatever reason, to be achieved, would that prevent you from expansion? The answer is it would prevent them from achieving perhaps that maximized expansion that they've portrayed to us in Commissioners court; however, some element of expansion would be able to be at least applied for at tceq. It wouldn't -- in order, if this is denied, there are other ways that they can expand to a certain extent. Now, obviously we've got other ideas and hopes for that site and some of those will be discussed later today.
>> but in the meantime, this also helps us comply with the floodplain ordinance that we have in place in Travis County, which affects every resident who is under flooding conditions.
>> because legally, from a legal perspective, if the court does not agree to approve this particular maintenance agreement with bfi, I guess the question is is there any legal requirement that we must approve this maintenance agreement with bfi?
>> well, it's an oddly worded question.
>> this -- (indiscernible). I guess I need to know that because I don't want anyone being under the impression that I think we have to have approved.
>> let me ask a couple of questions. Stacy, they've gotten their conditional letter of map provision approved?
>> that's correct.
>> okay. So fema has tentatively -- fema has signed off on their deal and said, if you go do this project, we will revise our floodplain maps to show a narrower floodplain, which is what this is all about. The purpose of the maintenance agreement is fema wants to be -- fema basically looks to the local government and says, you're responsible for maintaining your floodplains. That's part of the national flood insurance program. In that case Travis County is the local government. So if bfi goes out and does this project and narrows the floodplain and then goes to fema and says we've done our project, now narrow the floodplain, fema is going to say, we have to hear from Travis County that the maintenance is going to be taken care of. If they don't have this maintenance agreement approved by Travis County, they can't meet that requirement and I suppose fema would refuse to change the floodplain map.
>> I just want to make sure --
>> I'm speculating somewhat because I don't know that that's ever happened and I don't know that fema wouldn't say, well, we haven't heard from Travis County, but we're going to approve this anyway and we're just going to assume Travis County is going to approve that floodplain because they're in the local government in that area. It's a tough question, Commissioner, because it's never happened before. These kind of floodplain modifications are allowed under Travis County's floodplain ordinance. We approved them all the time. The maintenance agreement in this case is very much in line with the maintenance agreements we have approved in every other case of this type.
>> right, but I guess in other situations, we are embarking on quality of life of people, which is a real legitimate concern of mine. And of the advent of future expansion at this facility where we have residents that have been complaining for as long as i've been here almost as far as dealing with this issue. So I wanted to hear what the role would be if the court did not take action on this because I'm really concerned on, number one, the expansions capabilities that this may attribute to in the future. And as you and everyone here know that this community has been bucking and fighting expansion of this particular operation and there are, of course, a lot of factors that we've heard from. I won't go into the details. So I think that i've looked at a lot of this and i'd like to at some time hear from the bfi folks -- my position is not to support this particular agreement or any future expansion of bfi, wmi or anybody else at that site is consistent in what i've been dealing with as far as protection for the quality of life for the community. So I want to make sure I stay consistent with that. Thank you.
>> three quick questions. If we approve this today, would that be another item on the court in the future dealing with the modification?
>> stacy, don't we have to approve the map once which he change it? Es that come back?
>> in this case probably not.
>> so I know we've had map changes on the agenda before, but those are usually a detailed study.
>> when there's a new detailed study when an entire map changes. In this case fema will probably just a letter. And this would be after the channel is built.
>> so you were using modification to mean the same thing as map change.
>> yes.
>> you believe that the request meets Travis County requirements.
>> yes.
>> have we had an opportunity to address a similar request funding landfills recently?
>> yes. In December we did a maintenance agreement with iesi.
>> now, that's a different kind of landfill. We've talked about that during previous meetings. But other than the type of landfill, is there any difference between -- what are the differences, if any, between the requests?
>> I suppose the fundamental -- with regard to the floodplain itself, probably it is very similar. The consequence of the moving of the floodplain is really more of the issue here. And that is the expansion of the landfill.
>> do you think that granting a request may make it easier for tceq to grant an expansion request?
>> I'm not sure i'd would word it that way. I think it would be a building block, yes.
>> without the change you think it would be --
>> physically it would be a little bit more difficult to expand, yeah.
>> I will add, judge, that it is also in iesi's plan to expand. They've already purchased planned for that purpose. Obviously it's purely the differences that are related to the proximity to the neighborhoods and the type of materials that are deposited in the two landfills that are different.
>> any more questions of staff?
>> yes, sir. Well, and I guess I could eventually get to a question here, but let me say, I really feel frustrated in this process because we kind of get anybody he would on about -- nibbled on about what we allow the industry to continue to do. I have said from the get go I wouldn't -- I probably wouldn't be as involved in this thing if it weren't for the odor. And I can tell you that I came back from houston last Thursday afternoon and specifically drove at 3:30 in the afternoon, and my wife and I like to not have gotten down blue goose road. It was the most unbelievable smell that I had ever come across. And I thought, this is what this is about. This is about odor. And for us -- and we're sort of our own worst enemy, I guess, because flooding is an issue that we need to consider. There are all sorts of things that we continue to allow these things to creep along, and it's so frustrating because I can see that this clearly will allow them to continue to grow at this site. And what we're trying to do is that if they can stop the smell, then I don't care if they put the thing 500 feet in the air, but I am -- I mean, the fact that people have to live in these conditions are not acceptable to me. And so I'm not comfortable voting on this. I guess fema can come and say you've got do these things, but it really puts us in a spot that what we're really allowing is the continued growth of these landfills. And so I'm -- I'm just not supportive of doing anything at this stage until we find that the industry can stop the odor. And I think that -- and I don't know. I mean, I'm still hopeful that they can. I am told that that industry can't take care of odor. And I am willing to allow them to do that to a degree, I guess. There's some point that I will -- if they could have done it, they would have done it by now because let's face it, the community has gotten their attention, as it has everyone. So I am very skeptical of doing any sort of approval of a modification. I suppose neem ma can -- fema can come and force us too, but fema is kind of like tceq. I mean, it's obvious that they don't really care about the smell. I mean -- and we are as a governmental body here obligated, and I think we do have the responsibility to take care of the citizens of this community. I will guarantee you there is no one that wants to live under the conditions of the smell that i've witnessed last week, so I suppose if we vote --
>> well, I think -- and thank you for those comments, Commissioner, but it's deep. This is a very deep, deep, deep issue. And it does affect people. The quality of water, as you know, I'm a champion of the quality of water issues here. I don't mind saying that. And when you get into the watershed of decker creek and i've heard people complain of stuff being washed downstream in decker creek, but not only that, you have another watershed that's running through here that's running through wmi and bfi, that's walnut creek. There's a lot of stuff that's being emitted from this area, compliance history of the site as far as violations and things of that nature really is not up to snuff in my opinion. So I'm really having problems all across the board. But again, no one should have to be under siege the way this particular project has presented itself. And I just think this is another way of expanding a situation that would be more devastating than what it is now. So, again, you know, as i've said before, I'm going to stay consistent and I'm not going to support it. And I'm not going to change my mind on it. So that's my position.
>> well, and I think I have to absolutely say that I have to speak up for the southeast part of Travis County because of the way the layout of Travis County. All of the water, all of the rain always flows to southeast Travis County, and families' lives, they're not subjected to odor, but they're subjected to the power of water, the velocity of water and how it can easily wash people out of their homes. And those are lives as well that are on the line. And so I want to look at these issues from a Travis County point of view. And lives are in peril if we don't continue to support a strong floodplain ordinance and comply with a fema requirement. And that's everybody, all of us, including landfills. And I still hold out a lot of hope that this community will find a solution to the landfill issue. And it's going to take every one of us looking at how we can handle our own trash that we generate everyday, every week. It is picked up and it smells at home too. It also smells at home. And that's the reason we want people to pick it up fast. And when they don't pick it up, we make all these phone calls to the company to get that trash out of our yard because it smells. And we're going to have to all kind of just join the fight and let's see how we can generate trash a little bit differently. And there are a lot of different ways to do that. But I don't want to destroy the floodplain ordinance that is in place. And I realize that all of these issues open up the door for us to continue addressing odor, but let's remember that all the new subdivisions coming on are also going to generate trash and odor. So what are we going to do about that?
>> let me ask the 64,000-dollar question. There are one, not two, but three landfills in that area, so can you speak with certainty -- I'm just asking the question -- that was coming from the bfi site as opposed to the waste management site as opposed to the closed Travis County landfill site? Because simply in terms of us looking at tceq's analysis of what's been happening out at northeast landfills, they seem to have a varying opinion just in terms of their enforcement odor -- order about the odors in terms of what's happening out in that area. And certainly the findings out there would seem to indicate there's varying opinion about what's happening, where it's happening and the severity of where it's happening, right? I just lay it out there in terms of, you know, I believe that carolyn smelled the smell, but how do you know which site it's coming out of?
>> Commissioner, I'm not picking on bfi. I was driving down the road and it's obviously coming from that I guess collective 7 hundred acres there. I guess one has 300 and the other has -- and some of ours. We all know that there is a possibility of some of that coming from ours, I mean, although I think that most practical-minded folks are going to say it's coming from working places of two landfills. I'm not selectively saying that bfi. I'm just saying that there is an odor out there and it obviously is coming from the garbage. It would be the same if waste management were asking for this. What I'm saying is what we're asking to be done. I guess the question I would ask is can you selectively -- in other words, the issue of -- I mean, I'm cognizant of flood issues. What we are being asked to do on this bfi site is not a -- per se is not a flood issue item for us. I mean, let's call this thing what it is. I mean, the flood issues that we're talking about in southeast Travis County, I am fully aware of the onion creek and everything that's happened out there. I mean, if this situation were being asked if this is applicable to that, then I would say okay, we've got a life issue here. This is not what we're talking about here. And I suppose that we can collectively as a body here decide, okay, we're going to take this action on here and even though it's being selective, we know that it's being selected because we have a different situation here than what we do southeast. I didn't mean to stray from your question Commissioner. I don't know that, but I'm saying it is my opinion that it is coming from one of those two, and I guess you dthrow in our landfill. But the point I'm making is until we decide that we can stop the odors from going on in the northeast landfills, I am very apprehensive about promoting anything or voting for something that would allow the continued growth there. And we all struggle with that. How do we deal with it?
>> Commissioner, I don't think it pertains to that particular issue that you mentioned. There's not an isolation of issues. It's that everything is connected to everything else. And in this particular case it's the flood ordinance and the fema requirements that we all come under. And everyone in Travis County is affected by whether we get the insurance or not. And a lot of that I think is dependent on whether we comply with the fema requirements. And that's the way I'm seeing this issue. But I too get very frustrated that we seem to isolate just little pieces of issues. They're not. They're connected to something else. And so I have to -- when you say fema, I have to respond to fema very positively because they've done some positive things in precinct 4 where it has flooded forever.
>> would bfi representative or representatives please come forward? And if y'all would basically indicate to us what is proposed and why. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> it's really going to improve the vegetation and landscaping. We're going to plant over 400 trees as part of this project also and just make this area look a lot better. It's been coordinated and approved with by Travis County as part of the [inaudible] process back in early 2001. City of Austin also did that same process, fema, corps of engineers. Tceq approved it as part of the drainage improvement site modification we did in late 2002. Even applied materials got into the game. They sent us a concerned letter. We met with them numerous times and addressed all their concerns. The city of Austin site development permit should be issued very, very soon. They are waiting on basically Travis County to finish their process and they will issue that also. We put copies of all those letters in your pack et cetera so you can see. We've been at this some time and we think we're near the end of the process. We put a drawing that indicates where the new channel will be. It will be -- it varies between 50 feet and 1515 feet in width, pretty much parallel to blue goose road. It will have three pools that will act as sediment tracts. It's intended to be an area where aquatic life. We'll have trees on both sides and more aquatic vegetation, cattails and things like that. If you've seen the wetland applied materials created on their site, this is similar in function and appearance. One of the area that i'll point out is the pond at the northeast corner. That pond may qualify as a federal jurisdictional wetlands so we'll stay out of that area. We'll fence that. We'll put control measures to control filtration and all. That that's part of our city of Austin site development permit we'll have to do. So we're staying out of that completely. One bit of the relocate channel is -- look at our -- our development plan for the site, which is permitted. It's part of the tceq modification. We're going to add a detention, retention pond and without relocating the channel we really don't have any plates phra eus to put that pond. That's one of the primarily benefits of relocating the channel. As part of this process, when we met with the county staff as far as what we were trying to do and their comments, one thing they said was, well, we would like to see another sedimentation pond. We're adding two to better address erosion and silttration. We're going to agree to add that. It's probably a good suggestion on their part. That will basically take all of the areas from the landfill that drain into that. The runoff will go through a sediment pond at that point. One thing it's important to keep in mind is the size of this watershed we're dealing with is fairly small. About 450 acres. A large part of, about half of that is on our site so it's a very well developed watershed at least on our site. The other site is on the north side of blue goods road which is primarily open land. Our channel was designed by city of Austin criteria to handle the flow from the watershed, assuming fully developed conditions. Which is basically 65% impervious cover, or if that was all residential development as far as the impervious cover limitations. The corps of engineers and fema required that we design a channel assuming current development in that area. So it's been conservatively designed as far as the corps of engineers is concerned. And will handle the flow from I guess the most worst case condition you could imagine out there. And even though it's fairly wide channel, 75 feet to 150 feet, the water depth during the 100-year storm event is only planned to be one to two feet in depth. It's a low flow so we don't want you to think this is going to be a raging torrent during any scenario. That won't occur. The maintenance agreement provides some significant benefits to Travis County. It prevents contractually the deposition of any waste that would get into this channel, which that currently doesn't exist. It requires monthly inspection -- or weekly inspections by b.f.i. To see if any waste has been stkaoe positive it in the channel and removal. It requires monthly inspections of the vegetation in the channel to make sure the channel can still function in its normal configuration. Quarterly inspections are required to determine that the channel hasn't been damaged or erosion has occurred through wear and tear of flows through the channel. And those quarterly inspections will be prepared and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the state of Texas. Also after any major storm event an inspection will be required of the channel out there to ensure that there was no damage due directly to that storm. So those are provisions above and beyond what normally occur on drainage modifications like this.
>> who do you report to as far as producing the reports to show that you are in compliance within the bounds of the agreement itself? Who gets those reports?
>> the quarterly reports will be submitted to the county. To whoever they designate.
>> the reason why I ask that question is because there were other reports been brought to my understanding as far as the water quality reports as far as looking at the water that's been out there. They have not been, according to sources, have not been filed or submitted in a timely basis to determine [inaudible]. And I guess a lot of this stuff as far as ions and a bunch of other stuff that gets into the table so that's why I pointed this out as far as determining this in the report as far as water data and stuff like that. It has not been coming out in a timely manner, from my understanding. So I want to make sure whatever you are suggesting there has to be some enforcement or some leverage. I don't know what the court is going to do this morning, but whatever happens, needs to be some leverage to ensure that you comply because apparently there has been a history of non-compliance out there on some of these things. So what makes you think that you will comply with us when you've had a long history of in some of your areas not complying. So that's a legitimate question that I think needs to be addressed.
>> well, the site functions currently under a storm water pollution prevention plan which governs all discharges from storm water from the site. We have five permanent [inaudible] at the site for storm water, and there is quarterly reporting required for that by the tceq. And if that's what you are referring to, there's additional storm water monitoring that the site is [inaudible] and that requires periodic reporting also to the tceq. I don't know of any instances where the reporting has not been complied with. I'm just not aware of any.
>> I guess on a quality basis there have been some reports that have not come in in on timely manner as far as water being discharge understand that area. And I do know -- a couple of questions for the number of outfalse falls that you have here and another concern was also the discharge and stuff into the other watershed. So still concern about those particular questions, but not only that, let's go a little deeper and let's figure out what -- if the court decides to vote in support -- vote and support this agreement, we did mention expansion capabilities. And I think I asked you earlier on in some meets as far as the -- meetings as far as the life expectancy of this particular landfill and with the additional expansion, lifetime of the landfill. So what is that answer?
>> I'm not -- are you asking what the current life of the landfill is?
>> and even with the included expansion.
>> as it's currently permitted it has about six to seven years of remaining capacity out there. We don't have any -- we haven't submitted any expansion plans to anyone at this time. So we have evaluated expansion configurations that would add another nine to 12 years.
>> that's the point I was getting to was that additional 12 years add to do what you have now, which you are talking about in 19, 20 years additional capacity. But anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt your presentation. I just wanted to make sure that if there is any teeth here, enforcement capabilities, of course who would be able to enforce it. And if you violate the reporting mechanism, there's a lot of things that still aren't clear in my mind. But again, I didn't mean to interrupt your presentation.
>> I think you have a valid point and it's what mr. Nuckols referred to before, the maintenance agreement gives the county the ability to transfer the maintenance of the channel to the applicant, b.f.i. I think fema looks to the county for that maintenance responsibility unless they contractually transfer that responsibility to b.f.i. And we're certainly willing to take that responsibility. That's what I would like to, you know, I guess close by -- this is a channel relocation project that's already been submitted and reviewed, you know, years ago. We're now down to the point were willing to enter into a long-term agreement for the maintenance of this channel and the configuration we've all signed off on. This will improve the drainage characteristics of this site. It will help flooding configurations by defining our channel much better than it currently s it allows better utilization of a very important area of our site for such things the primary use will be this detention pond. And this does not authorize the expansion of the landfill in any way, in any shape or form. That will have to be subject to extensive public notice, public input, public comment and evaluation if we ever do submit that. So this is not a request to expand the land full.
>> but you are shrinking the flood plain so it does give you additional capacity. The flood plain is being shrunk. You are moving it and it's coming down where there are channels that wasn't available to you and it will be available. So there is some area here whereby you will be able to possibly utilize. And it's all just not erosion and to cap sedimentation and I know it's part to do just that, but there's also some possibilities in here. So that's the point I'm bringing up.
>> can I ask a question a slightly different way because I know when we went through the analysis on iesi, it was the what if we do nothing. And I was propelled by their case. We were better off making these improvements to the channel on their property because status quo is not a good thing in terms of where that drainage was happening. It was better environmentally to move it, and yes, there were consequences in terms of moving it and in terms of how they were able to utilize it. We asked a question in a different way. What if we do not do this? What are the environmental consequences of a poorly defined drainage area? And I'm using your words when you talked about how this all came about. What if nothing happens here and status quo occurs? What happens with a poorly defined drainage area in terms of what bad things can happen, could happen, will continue to happen?
>> well, it's -- as much as anything we can't access that portion of the site. You know, during rainfall events and thereafter. You know, it's probably a 20-acre area that we just can't get into from the majority of our site. And, you know, I'm not sure that it's significantly adverse to the site in that regard because, you know, it's been brought up, well, will we expand the landfill if the channel is not relocated. Yes, we can do that. We'll do it in a different fashion than if the channel is relocated. What we're providing, I think, are the benefits of significantly more aesthetic channel. You know, 400 trees will be planted in that area in addition to dozens and dozens of smaller brush and acres of, you know, prairieland grass and wetland in the channels. If you've been out there and seen the constructed wetland channel, it's a very attractive site. We plan to do the same thing, construct an attractive feature that we're proud of and will really benefit that area.
>> and just to make sure I understand, we've got on our backup there's been [inaudible] by applied materials. They are one of your biggest neighbors. What exactly did they say when they said concurrence? I'm just trying to get that on the record.
>> they wrote us a letter dated March 17th, applied materials pressures having the opportunity to further review the potential hydrologic impact of the flood plain modifications and we appreciate your and b.f.i.'s cooperation in this effort. This was a letter addressed to chris johnson with the city of Austin. We also thank residential neighbors for bringing this matter to our attention and prompting [inaudible] to ensure against unexpected consequences. Based upon our professional engineer's reviews, it does not appear the modifications have negative impacts on applied materials' property, consequently we have no objections to the modifications.
>> any other questions of b.f.i.?
>> yes. I'm real interested in what you have said that you really -- you all don't have intentions of increasing the size of the landfill by what you are doing here. Is that right?
>> that's going to be a complete independent exercise.
>> so you all would -- and I don't know, tom, I mean, do we have the ability from a legal stance to say can we enter into an agreement, a written agreement that says that if you do this, that you are not going to take and increase your site of the -- size of the landfill. Is that something you all would be willing to sign?
>> we're not asking for any expansion authority by this request at all.
>> all right. I know you are not asking, but -- [laughter] but what it does is it gives you the ability to come back and say, okay, now we do have some acreage here that we could -- I mean if you can go through the permitting process with tceq because we're obviously not going to have much to do with that. I understand the design behind what you are doing and I think it makes sense. I know that you all are not doing it just for the one reason that some people are going to think that you are doing it for, but it does make me nervous to allow you the ability to say, okay -- because let's face it. We're fighting it now to stop the expansion or to stop, you know, to stop the operation, but we know we can't do that, and I don't real I have a interest in doing that if you all can stop the odor. But if you can't, well, then, you can see where I am. I'm very resistant in allowing you all additional square footage out there to then start building vertically. So I -- I know you can't say that you are not going to, and I don't know that we're going to get to where I'm going to be comfortable because, you know, it's not like you are going to sign an agreement that says we're never going to come and ask for that. I mean, if you did, if you would be willing to do that, well, then, I would probably be willing to say this makes sense with what you are doing with this channel. But I'm hearing -- I'm not putting words in your mouth, but that's not what you are telling me, right?
>> but I wouldn't be comfortable with you making that deal unless we said no more subdivisions, then we can guarantee you won't need additional space in the meantime. I really do not feel comfortable with that.
>> okay. If and when we plan and present an expansion plan for this landfill to the appropriate authorities, Travis County is the top of that list. We're going to have to come right back to this group and justify any expansion and get your approval for that. And we can't do that without convincing you all that it's a good idea at that time.
>> well, we don't really have the authority to stop that, do we, tom?
>> no, I don't think so.
>> I think Travis County would have standing to participate in tceq's process on whether to approve that expansion or not. An expansion would be a permit endment, and a permit amendment is subject to a contested case hearing. And Travis County I'm convinced would have standing to participate in that contested case. Oppose the tceq decision if the county felt the tceq decision was not in the county's best interest.
>> but I think it would be an unfair thing, if my opinion, to do that unless we go up to the hearing and we also make an agreement that the reason they need expansion is because we approved subdivisions. Are we willing to make the agreement that we won't approve any more subdivisions so there won't be any need for expansion?
>> well, if you are saying -- when you are saying subdivisions, are you saying just because --
>> well, because it's households that produce trash that require landfills.
>> but wait a minute. Wait a minute. I think that we probably could take -- if we were to only deal with Travis County, I mean, we probably wouldn't fill up a landfill. Our issue is we've got -- then you get into the argument about are you going to continue to take 30 or 40 counties of garbage.
>> okay, that's a different deal that we can make with all the landfills. No more trash from outside of Travis County.
>> and then that is a major battle as well because --
>> well, can we require the landfills to do that? Only take trash from Travis County? Can we make --
>> well, Williamson county does. I mean, so you have the ability to do that.
>> can we do that, tom?
>> Williamson county, they own the land where that landfill is located.
>> and we don't.
>> so they have rights as a landowner and whoever operates that site, I can't remember, basically leases it from the county. The county is in a better decision there because they own this land.
>> any more questions on this issue?
>> i've got one more. If indeed this relocation occurs, you would still have to comply with the setback requirements of the Travis County flood plain, the new flood plain ordinance that has to do with siting of solid waste? There would still be that 500-foot setback?
>> I don't believe this relocation project affects that ordinance at all.
>> so that would still overlay in terms of the movement of the -- it would still be the set back requirements from the actual flood plains.
>> that's correct.
>> any other questions of b.f.i. From the court? It may be -- if you would stay there, we could get those three seats in the middle.
>> i'll be happy to move, judge. Can I bring up one housekeeping issue on the -- there have been some -- some issues that they have conceded to just in the last few days, and that was the additional pond that they mentioned and the quarterly inspection and reporting by a professional engineer. I just wanted to mention that those are not a part of the agreement right now. What we will do is when they come in for their actual development permit, we will make those conditions of the permit.
>> and that also goes to the enforcement issue because we make those conditions of the permit. They don't comply with the permit, those are permit violations, and we have remedies under the statutes including penalties and the like that we can levy in the case they are not complying with the permit.
>> that was appointee brought up --
>> if I might add, the third thing we agreed to is staff was to acceleration the construction of the detention pond. To build it earlier so it would benefit the water quality of the area that much earlier.
>> tom, what enforcement language would be in the maintenance agreement?
>> well, the enforcement language that's in the maintenance agreement itself is basically contractual in nature. So it's like any other -- it's a deed restriction, a covenant that runs with the land. And so there are injunctive-type remedies if they are not complying with that. We could sue them to enforce. The benefit would be part of the permit language is you bring in all the statutory remedies you've got in terms of permit enforcement, like penalties, monetary penalties and so on. So I think basically having it enforceable in contract form and under the permit gives us belt and suspenders on the enforcement issues.
>> okay. Ms. Sheffield, it may help to be on the end here if possible. That way if there are questions from residents or whoever speaks you all will be available. Could we get three people to come forward if you have comments? Good morning.
>> good morning. My name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin.
>> good morning, joyce.
>> of course it's apparent to all of us as residents that the only reason this measure is necessary is because they are wanting to expand. So we can get that out of the way. I have a very nagging question that I just have not been able to resolve. Blue goose road, as ms. Sheffield says, is under the county maintenance. However, if you drive down blue goose road to the west, there is a sign approximately two-thirds of the way down the road on b.f.i.'s stretch there that is not maintained by the county. In fact, there's a sign that says Travis County maintenance begins here. And from there on the road is very nicely paved. The beginning portion of that road is not in good shape, and so if you assure me that the county is in fact responsible, the first thing I'm going to do is request that be paved because it jars your teeth.
>> that's in the city. It is in the city.
>> it is in the city on blue goose. Okay. I -- perhaps I misunderstood when we met. If that is the case, my concern is that in the event the channel should fail and there is an enormous amount of drainage into the b.f.i. Site running under blue goose road, and it's my understanding that eventually that road is going to be widened and will be known as braker lane or I'm not sure exactly where all that plan is. But my concern is making sure that whatever that channel does is going to be able to handle all of the drainage that's going to be coming from that area because there's a great deal of development going on out there. I appreciate the fact that they are wanting to do extensive landscaping and all of that. However, the landscaping that they have done on their site within the last year or so has -- is not -- what did mr. Shoals say? Is not an attractive feature we will be proud of. They've planted a number of of what appear to be junipers and about half of them are dead and have been for some time and they are still standing. My concern is what happens when they get a bunch of vegetation in there that is not only not attractive but may in fact impede water flow into that site. And outfall 1 there is the primary drainage. So I'm concerned about Travis County not being entirely responsible for that road, as you have indicated now, and where that leads us with regard to possible failure of the channel.
>> okay.
>> thank you, joyce.
>> good morning. Judge and Commissioners, I'm mark mcaffee. This is about odor and it is also -- it is not only just about odor, but it's about the health and welfare of our community. And this is not in the best interest of the community. The tceq is not interested in the health or the welfare of anyone other than that of the industries that they are supposed to regulate. I could ask for some guidance and perhaps you will know this, it is my understanding that they have never not approved an expansion of a site in Texas.
>> I don't have that information. Aoe I'm pretty sure if it's not true, it is such a high probability that in effect the consequence, the probable consequence of this action will be to allow and to get an expansion. So -- and for them to say that this is in a totally separate action from an expansion, I mean, if they just want to run a good, clean operation, let's just run a good, clean operation, design a good system over there that will work. I mean, not that long ago we had a large silting of a tributary of one of the tributaries of walnut creek. Engineered does not guarantee there will not be a problem and this is not the same as allowing a subdivision to engineer around flood plain problems. In previously some material that we've given to you all in studies by g. Fred lee of the waste stream that go into a typical landfill in america today of this nature, not one that's rated for receiving toxic waste, just a regular landfill, and they are not that substantially -- the waste stream is full of toxics. Totally full of toxics. So we are talking about allowing something very different in a neighborhood subdivision to encroach upon our waterways. Again, this facility themselves have had problems with their waterways. It is not like we do not have enough capacity at this point. We had a gentleman's agreement at the start of this entire discussion two years ago, we had a gentleman's agreement to not proceed forward while we were in the midst of all of this. And they have proceeded totally to go forward while we've been in the midst of all of this, and this is part of it. And, you know, there is no way that this is not about expanding the height, the breadth these guys can attachment it's not like we have to rush into this. We should totally be asking for a moratorium. There should be some sort of resolution coming out of this body, you know, to the effect of, you know, we want a moratorium on landfill expansions in this county until we have had a chance to go through all this entire situation and come up with a solution to handle waste in Travis County and the other 30-some-odd counties that send their waste to us. Thank you. One final point, applied materials is a very large corporation. These folks are very large corporations. They do business all over the world together. It's not like this is two folks who have just met. So I don't put a whole lot of stock in what applied materials says. They will apply for flood plain changes all over where they do business as well.
>> thank you.
>> we have two seats visible. If there are people who want to give comment, please come forward. Ms. English.
>> good morning, my name is trek english, and I will touch briefly on some of the issues that were brought up this morning, and then I would like to go to a little map and show you my concerns. Which are two different things. First of all, I think if you really want to know whether or not there's going to be an expansion, I think perhaps the bottom question would be can you expand vertically without this channel modification. In other words, if you don't grant them this channel modification, would they be really able to expand. Because it's going to be a vertical expansion in order to facilitate a lateral expansion or a vertical expansion at the base of the pyramid. So this is going to be extremely important to them. Second, the wetlands issue that they brought up, these wetlands are documented on the Travis County map. They've been documented for several years. Many years. And I have the map if you don't have it, but I can show you where these wetlands are already documented and should be preserved and having all of the drainage of the landfill going to these wetlands is not my idea of preserving them, because eventually the silttatian will choke these wetlands and kill them. The permitting they are talking about of a contested state hearing, if you guys follow the legislature at all in the last three or four months, especially in the special session, the process of contested state hearing is being streamlined and extremely eroded. H. B. 21, which is the latest one that came out, would only allow you to have a contested -- first of all [inaudible] it's up to the mood of the executive director. Second, you have to live only within a quarter of a mile. The only people that can actually participate in this, so probably none of us will even know bit. Second, they do not even want to put in the paper until the permit has gone through complete review at tceq permitting process, and then they let knew. So by then it's been approved. Basically it's been technically approved, and then you get to say your screaming and whatever about why it should not be there, but by then it's too late because everything has been presented and studied. In depth and they've met whatever they feel is required by the tceq, so I don't think that's genuine. Now, I would like to -- I don't know if you can see it. I -- this is development. This is where b.f.i. Landfill is right here. This is blue goods. This is cameron. And the old cameron road. And this is springfield right here. This is samsung. All of this area here is harris branch industrial park and has been permitted. All of this has been permitted in the industrial park. This is all pioneer processing. Pioneer hill is coming here with 1400 acres. This is 1500 acres. You have all harris branch industrial park here, and then on giles road you have giles old english which is also asking for a permit to develop right in front of the landfill. And then you have the -- so what I'm showing, this map is five years old. I'm sorry, I meant to bring the big map, but I want to bring a parallel here. Last year we were talking about this, it was July 2nd, and it was raining from many inches from bertha. Hurricane bertha. And now we're having -- not bertha, faith. Now we're having claudette. So I had to do a lot of work just in case the water gets real high in Travis County in the next 24 hours, so I didn't get a chance to bring all the maps I wanted. But this is highway 290 east right here. This is decker lake. This is waste management landfill. And this is applied and harris branch. This is applied here and this is harris branch. This yellow mark is the two-mile radius. And you are looking at -- here is samsung. You are looking at two developments here, development here, development here, development here. There's development all around this, and the drainage -- my whole reason for bringing this to you is that the drainage is going to affect that channel. It's all going to go in this channel right here. A lot of it is going here and a lot of it is going to affect walnut creek. You are talking about thousands of acres of permitted land for intense development just north of blue goose. Just across the street from blew goose. And if it's not development for residential, it's development for industrial. And what you are going to have here is you are going to have a flooding condition, and they are going to have to see exactly what's happening with the older problems. It's not our fault, it's all this development north of us. Fema does not know -- I talked to them. They do not know that all of this development is coming in. Because when they filed for their -- when they filed for their conditional whatever it's called, they did not show the development that is proposed in Travis County and already permitted in this particular area and how it's going to affect decker lake. So I don't think that the figures and I don't think that -- I do think that applied materials was genuine in saying they approved, but applied materials did not look at all of the permits that are -- have been granted in the last two years by the city of Austin for 5800 acres and 1400 acres and almost 3,000 acres of development, plus the industrial park at harris branch, plus giles road, and plus any increase in future landfill capacity concerns in terms of vertical and lateral expansion. You are going to have a massive flooding problem. To conclude my tirade here, in the maintenance agreement that they are proposing, if you read all 10 pages of them, all I can see is one paragraph on page 2, paragraph 2, which says systems. This system shall be maintained in accordance with all duly promulgated and applicable ordinances, regulations, orders, permits, and other enactments of Travis County and in a good and functioning condition by the owns of the property comprising the system. That is what they are promising to do. It just boils down to one paragraph. If you can enforce that, if there is major flooding, I don't know. That's very vague, if you ask me. That's all that they are required -- that they are saying they are going to do. The rest just -- just look at the title of each paragraph and there's no explanation how they are going to keep the waste -- that's the only paragraph. It goes on. The owners shall ensure that solid waste is not stored, treated, processed or otherwise knowingly discharged into the system. Knowingly discharged. Into the system from ongoing and future municipal solid waste management activities on the property. They are going to visually inspect the system. Visually inspect the system on a quarterly basis and promptly repair any material. I mean, that's the paragraph where they are saying what they are going to do is very, very small, and if someone is not there to make sure that it's done properly, I don't have any trust. After what they've done to the landfill and the conditions they are in now, I don't have any trust the channel would be making any better.
>> if we assume that the development will occur that you outlined for us, are we better off with the channel in current condition or as modified? Ms. English.
>> oh, you are asking me?
>> yes.
>> I think that the -- the channel modified would be too restreubgd for the amount of water. The amount of water that we witnessed last July on the property was so intense, it was way beyond -- it was from the -- there's a huge cell right now that is going to be landfill. Right fronting blue goose. That was a lake. It was full of water. Where is this water going to go once they landfill it? Where is it going to go? All of that water got contained in thatcell and did not travel through the blue goose under the bridge to applied materials. I am concerned that we have not seen -- see, all of this water used to drain towards walnut creek. And because on the wet side of the site. And because of the tremendous amount of carnage created in 2001, they had to modify all their drainage and make it drain towards applied materials to the east. Now, it has been draining to the east for the last two years, but most of it -- a lot of it, not most of it, but a lot of it is contained in that cell that they excavated. When that cell is pool, where is all this water going to go? And whether or not it can be contained in that channel. I have a real concern about that, and I do not know that their proposal would enhance or make it better.
>> a comment on the wetland earlier and how this particular proposal will disturb --
>> the wetlands are very large. Very large right now.
>> will disturb the wetlands. I would like staff to address that, please. That comment that she just brought up about disturbing the wetlands. How is this particular proposal will not disturb the wetlands I guess is the question.
>> Commissioner --
>> what trek's concern is there.
>> I believe the [inaudible] if I understand correctly she is referring to are the ones sort of on the downstream end of the site and very close to giles road. Is that correct?
>> [inaudible].
>> I mean, I think that the concept here is that when the channel modifications have been completed, it will also -- the overall project will also include sedimentation ponds that will trap and remove sediments that would ultimately, you know, silt in the wetlands. I mean, you catch me at a point where, you know, I'm not necessarily -- i've always been a fan of the natural cleansing processes that natural wetlands provide, you know, in these days when these projects are done or subdivisions and other places, these ponds appear to function and they have to be maintained to keep that functional part of what the overall engineering promise is. So yes, I mean there is a reliance upon maintenance and the solidness of design that's been brought before us. And I suppose there is a possibility too that to the extent it will be possible, those wetlands could be maintained as well. I mean, that's not something we've talked about and I don't know that it's feasible, but that is also a possibility.
>> well, she brought that point up and I wanted to make sure that she got an explanation because if the failure of the process as far as the channelization, failure to maintain properly would have an adverse impact on the wetlands, and I think she brought up a very valid point. That's why I asked the question earlier about enforcement and a whole bunch of other things that this maintenance agreement should have as part of it. But again, I wanted to make sure that ms. English's question was addressed.
>> uh-huh.
>> does that answer your question, trek?
>> well, yeah, what I'm concerned about is that we are not looking -- the shifting of drainage from the landfill is going to take place because it has to meet this problem on the west.
>> right.
>> and we have not seen the consequences of them shifting that drainage to the east. Because a lot of the water has been contained in that cell, so once you have the water from that cell that adds up to the runoff and you have all of this construction up north at the runoff, and you have giles holding that wants to develop that strip right across the street from applied materials, when you have all of that draining into -- into that area, that northeast corner of the property, I don't understand -- I don't understand how we can permit something that we haven't seen the consequences the way it is right now.
>> trek, can I try to respond to that?
>> sure.
>> because the regulatory standard on designing this channel since tonight's the city of Austin e.t.j. Is for both the city and the county fully developed conditions. In other words, when they design the channel, they have to assume that all that development has already occurred. They have to assume that the watershed draining into this channel is fully built out. So in a way, all that development has already been accounted for. Is that correct, ron?
>> that's correct. When I indicated the 65% impervious cover, the evaluation we included in the channel design, that's the fully developed conditions for the area of the watershed. Trek's map which shows the development around samsung and pioneer, whatever, that's all outside this watershed. The watershed for this channel that we're relocating outside our property is about 250 acres. It's all on the north side of blue goose road bakely between blue goes and the elementary school.
>> and the regulations require you to assume all that development has taken place.
>> Travis County. Fema did not, but the city and the county did.
>> yes, but if we go by what's been happening on walnut creek and everything that's been permitted on walnut creek was supposed to take that into consideration also; yet even though they are not allowing any additional increase in runoff, the erosion on walnut creek is so you cannot get more than two inches of rain without losing massive amounts of land. So if you call that taking into consideration all of the fully development watershed, then I think there is a serious problem with the engineers that are looking at the figures. Somebody is not giving the right figures.
>> I can't speak for the engineering. I'm just trying to clarify what the regulatory standard is. And the regulatory standard is totally developed conditions.
>> well, I realize that, but what we're basing our engineering figures on do not work because people keep flooding worse every year. And I think that we need to relook at our data and say, okay, it's not working. Too many people are being affected. I mean, when you have a piece of property -- I can't move, you know, I can't move my house, but -- and everybody downhill from them will not be -- applied materials cannot meet their property unless they move out. So what happens when it's too late? Like in five years when we find out that all of this -- what we thought was going to work is not working. And the city of Austin did not take into consideration any increase in capacity. That I know for sure. That was not in the calculations because in their application to the city they said no, that this was not for an increase in capacity of the landfill. And I asked the engineer if they were to increase the property would it change your opinion or the way you are looking at this project, and they said yes, definitely. But until b.f.i. Comes forward and admits that this is done -- you know, this has 20 years to improve this property. Why didn't they improve it before? They are improving today because they need it. This is not just because they are kind and want to make it look better. This is an increase in space that they need. And the city did not look at it in that respect. Now, you know more about it, but the city doesn't.
>> trek, I had a curious question that occurred to me as you were going through the map talking about everything that's occurring within the two-mile radius. Knowing what you know and knowing what you have been through and what melanie and mark and joyce and all your neighbors, why do you suppose everybody is continuing to build in that area in spite of what's been going on in the last two years? Why would they build houses out there? Why would they put businesses out there?
>> pioneer crossing was being permitted --
>> why would they do that knowing what you've been through?
>> they didn't know. They met with the developer.
>> I'm saying know. People have known now, this has been going on for a couple of years related to odors. Why would people continue to build and expand in that two-mile radius knowing what you all know about living out in that area?
>> I don't know. I do know that pioneer crossing, pioneer hills were in the works way before the odors started.
>> ms. Mcaffee, don't miss your opportunity. You are next and we need to move on.
>> I would like to answer that question, if I may.
>> well, judge, I think five minutes for everybody has really been exceeded.
>> ms. Mcaffee, your turn.
>> well, I don't think on that particular issue, I don't think that they did know. So I think that to assume they think it's out there and fine. I don't think that's the key thing to be assuming that is the issue and I don't think it is. The two things that I wanted to bring up were brought up earlier, and I don't think were resolved. And I think before the court votes on this, they need to be resolved. It was discussed today, but I did not hear an answer and I saw some differences that didn't seem answered. And one was the flood plain. What impact will this have on other areas? I heard various answers through the court, and I think that you don't -- you must not have the answers or they would have been stated.
>> areas outside the landfill?
>> yeah. That on one handy hear someone saying -- hand, I hear someone saying if you vote against it, that it will hurt other areas. I think you need to get an answer will it or will it not. I have not heard the answer.
>> well, again, i'll go back to what the regulatory standard is. I'm not the engineer, so I can't say whether the standard has been met, but the standard for something like this is that the modification will not increase flooding on anyone else's land. And I think that was the purpose of the letter from applied materials you because they are the landowner immediately downstream, so to speak, and they've had -- what the letter said was their engineer looked at it and they agreed that this was not going to increase flooding on their land. And i've heard t.n.r. Say that all of the county's regulatory requirements are met in this case, so that is one of our requirements, so I'm assuming t.n.r. Has reviewed this and agrees this is not going to increase flooding downstream.
>> no, what I'm addressing is how about the decision that's made by the court on this issue affect southeast Travis County. How will it negatively impact south Travis County. -- southeast Travis County.
>> again, I'm assuming since everyone who has reviewed this agreed this does not increase flooding, that approving it will not harm southeast Travis County.
>> I guess that's the issue I was andre agassiing is that flood plain insurance. -- was addressing was. Certain things have to be complied with with fema and the flood plain requirement so that flood plain insurance is available to every citizen in Travis County, not just precinct 4 or, you know, where there's upstream. And so my concern when someone talks about fema and -- is I don't want any part of the flood plain insurance program to be -- to be changed at all because that will have a affect on folks in all of Travis County in terms of flooding, but flooding has been there in southwest Travis County forever and ever and ever. And I'm trying to do everything at this point to make sure forever comes to a halting screech here.
>> I think that issue needs to be clarified and if that --
>> and I have to rely on staff. I really do on their professionalism and their knowledge in this area. And I hear what all of the citizens are saying and I know that we all have different opinions about different issues, but, you know, I eventually have to rely on the professionalism and knowledge of the staff that we have because they understand the whole issue of Travis County and all of the citizens in all of Travis County and the impact that our policies can have on them. I hear what is happening in northeast. I hear it loud and clear. And I really would like to just be given the opportunity to move on and make some choices here. Let's make some decisions. I don't need to hear any more. And, you know, but I really want to back to the report from staff.
>> second point, ms. Mcaffee.
>> all right. I would like to hear Commissioner kuhl whether or not her worry is -- you know, I would like to know that too because I don't wish any flooding [inaudible] is that true or not.
>> I don't want our flood plain ordinance or insurance program to be affected by anything that we do. I want us to be in compliance with everything that fema requires of us. Regardless of the little other issues, serious issues that are involved here. I'm focusing on fema, the flood plain insurance program and the flood plain ordinance.
>> would you like me to respond?
>> please.
>> okay. Thank you. I think the scenario that we're talking about here is ms. 1bgs laid out if you don't approve this -- the only thing in potential conflict with fema is we don't approve, b.f.i. Builds, channel is not maintained, flooding ensues, we find ourselves in some sort of la igious environment. I guess is there a risk to our ability -- I don't mean to insult ms. Mcaffee. I just think that's a little far fetched at this point. I think it is a safer option to stay in compliance with fema and, you know, if they are requiring such an agreement, then it seems simple to me. Either the agreement is entered into and it's built or it's not built.
>> that's what I need to know and that's what I want to focus on. And we have been very patient letting everybody get off into other areas, you know, in order to continue this debate. And I guess if we want to have a debate, I think we ought to set this at a special time and let's debate until everybody gets really tired of saying everything. I am interested in making some decisions. Let's move on. Please. I have a lot of patience, but it's really running short.
>> ms. Mcaffee, is there a second point?
>> the second point is -- the second thing I heard that was not resolved was that the bigger issue iwhether or not we're going to continue to take the trash from 30 counties. Since this issue does deal also with the bigger issue, which is that Williamson county was mentioned, but I felt like, oh, well whatever that is, that's the end of the discussion. And I think I have spent a lot of time looking at lots of other counties, not just in our capco region, but all over Texas and all over the united states, and I think there are solutions out there. And to just stop at Williamson county and say we can't copy that, end of discussion. That seems to be a little short-sighted. So to totally stop discussion there, I think --
>> my idea is number 11, which we'll get to hopefully real soon. Anybody else who has not had an opportunity to comment on this matter today? [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> and that we would also evaluate what the further approval of subdivision plats would do to the landfill capacity.
>> Margaret, is it okay to keep that piece of it separate? It seems that logically goes under number 11.
>> right. But I think that all of those three go together. If we're not going to approve any more expansion, then I think we need to take into consideration the subdivision plats that we approve because that adds pressure. We also want to increase the capacity in Travis County, then let's -- I want ms. Mac fee to be heard because there's nothing more frustrating to say nothing over and over and over and not be heard. And so let's look into the possibility that she's brought up several times of saying landfills in Travis County will only serve Travis County residents. And if it's possible, fine. If it's not possible, then let us know that.
>> if it passes without an opportunity to look at specific language, I guess.
>> yeah. I think, judge, the language we used on ies aivment is basically what you've just laid out. I think for the sake of consistency treating everybody the same. I think it better to stick with the language we've already used.
>> could you restate that?
>> it basically says that approving the modification of the floodplain is not in any way, shape or form an authorization to dispose of solid waste at any particular, you know, location. So it basically says this is not a variance to the 500-foot requirement.
>> but an opportunity to see specific language in the contract later?
>> if you want to.
>> I think so. If this passes. And I think the specific wording is important.
>> okay.
>> now, after hearing comments today, is staff's position still in favor of the requested modification?
>> I haven't heard anything that I haven't heard before. You know, trek brought up the development issues, but that -- it concerns me a little bit that perhaps fema and the corps were not thinking of those things, however, ray's design is intended for a 65% impervious cover full buildout, so the capacity should be there. So no, I don't think that the engineering director or scy has changed their positions or they would have let us know.
>> okay.
>> tom, why is the wording of the item a restrictive covenant for maintenance?
>> because that's really the piece that tnr has been bringing to the Commissioners court on a regular basis. This idea that we require maintenance agreement is really relatively new. It's really something fema has only in the last couple of years, been sort of pointing out to the local governments that hey, we expect you guys to maintain these modified floodplains. And I think tnr looked at it and said what we really need to do is pass that obligation through to the developer, the owner of this land. And so we've just developed a practice of bringing these maintenance agreements to the Commissioners court and put them -- putting them on the agenda so that y'all are aware of what's going on and can get comfortable with the practice.
>> so a restrictive covenant for maintenance is the same as the maintenance agreement we've been talking about?
>> yes.
>> okay. I move approval of item no. 10, which is a restrictive covenant for maintenance at the bfi proposed floodplain modifications.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, that's inclusive of the language that tom was tawnging about that this does not take a position of the county?
>> we're asking staff to give us an agreement where we can look at every word, dot every I and cross every t.
>> do you want it back on the agenda when it's worked out?
>> I don't want my language to be dropped anywhere.
>> that's why we need it to come back to us. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Davis.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:52 AM