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 11
Now, let's go back to item number 11. And what I did was simply to recall various comments that we have heard over the last 12 to 15 months from a variety of people, and especially residents. And in my view I broke them down into three major categories in our hopes that we can move on them. And what I see basically is the court's authorization to go ahead. The first part is for us to take a real good look at Travis County and try to identify potential landfill sites. And I have various subpoints that I think describe actions that ought to be taken. I think that I shared these with mr. Gieselman and his staff. The second thing that I ask that we do is to try to identify appropriate sites in neighboring counties outside of Travis County, and I list five of them, hays, caldwell, bastrop, Williamson and lee. And I think I got from mr. Gregory one or two other counties recommended, and I'm sure they have no problem with that. Capco fortunately did some landfill mapping a few years back and has significant information that we ought to be able to share. And they have always indicated their willingness to work with us. In recommendation number 3 or c, basically I recommend a regional summit and I indicate the various issues were topics for discussion. The list is not exhaustive, but what i'd like the court to do is to authorize that we commence doing this work.
>> judge, before we go there -- and thank you for having this on the agenda. I want to go back to about 2001 when I met with staff, tom knuckles, john kuhn and others, especially when we start looking 8 here. At a time because we did hear from the landfill operators that there was nowhere in Travis County that they could locate. Of course, we had our map, john and -- I guess we still have that map around here. So going back then we started looking at where they could locate because of the interests of this community as far as relocating these landfills. So even back as far as 2001 we started bringing this up and trying to move forward with it because of the solid waste siting ordinance at that time that included landfills. I till still would like to visit that map that we had back in 2001 or early 2000. I can't remember exactly which it is, but I think it was 2001. Secondly, on the counties, I did get a chance to -- number b, judge, adjacent counties. I did get a chance to talk with the bfi, wmi folks, and this was something that we have kind of been hammering around for quite some time is to look at adjacent counties to see if they would also encourage a location of a landfill. And of course, during the discussion with john kuhn and tom knuckles and the industry,ed fks we looked at possible remedies and how it could be proceeding. And the third thing here as far as the original summit deal, which is c, there was instances that we did talk about that as far as the capco and a whole bunch of other things, how we would put it together. And the last rendering of this Commissioner Sonleitner I think brought up some good points also as far as narrowing the hope to look at the counties that were in close proximity. Because what we've been hearing today, all of this here as far as looking at 11 here is things that have been talked about. And the judge is correct, it's been talked about for a heck of a long time, for months. And the neighborhoods, the industry, things of that nature. We've had comments from the industry and they said well, if we could look east of i-35, continue to locate in that area, well, my whole point is east of i-35 all the way to the gulf coast because that's east of i-35, not necessarily just Travis County, but also looking at other areas that maybe went into going into this thing. So there's been a lot of work going into this and glad to see it on the agenda and hopefully moving forward if the court decides to do this. But I would still like to see that map we worked on back in 2001. Thank you.
>> and on one and two, basically if it's approved today, we basically would go ahead and do it. And I think staff has already moved in that direction anyway. Three would take a little bit more work, a little bit more planning, a and I'm really pretty much open. If the court approves this, then what I want to do is be authorized to work with interested persons, including residents, landfill, both capco, the capco solid waste management advisory committee. I have sense writing this memo thought about it a little bit, and it really makes sense to me to try to approve capco as taking as big a role as we think is helpful. The one thing is I think the other nine counties are used to working with capco day in and day out. And in our last executive committee meeting, I just took a moment of personal privilege to indicate that in my view we're all kind of part of this waste management project, and the solution really depend on all of us working together. I did not receive thunderous applause, but at the same time nobody stood up and objected to it. So I think everybody is kind of thinking along these lines. I think capco can probably get a whole lot more cooperation than we can as a county. They've been working on solid waste issues for at least 10 years because I think I was here for the first two or three. And I think they can be immensely useful to us if we can use them. As to a committee, I'm open on that. If we can get a committee interested in this and move, I think that's good. What I would like to do is basically to move with the committee or without the committee. And I would give the court a written summary on a status report periodically so the court would know exactly what we are doing.
>> I move approval of that, judge.
>> I would like -- i'll second it. What I wanted to do was i'll volunteer to work with you on that committee because there are some things that I think we need to be concerned about. And that is I think all public procedures that were applied in Travis County for our citizens ought to be applied to whatever counties we talked to the region. I think that Travis County ought to pay as we throw because I don't think they ought to carry the burden for all the trash. It doesn't mean we're going to be able to generate more trash now that it's going to some other county. I think the more we generate, the more we ought to pay. And in order to be fair to people in other counties, especially small counties. And then I really want to be concerned about where we locate. We don't want to locate it by poor people, only poor people. So those are the things that I want to have included in that.
>> Commissioner Daugherty, do you serve on capco also?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> so I guess the committee want -- I guess as far as --
>> we can post the meeting.
>> you have to post it, I guess. If there's more than two persons as far as the court is concerned, we may want to --
>> I don't have a problem with posting.
>> judge, a quick question. Capco is one of the 13 counties, 12 counties --
>> 10.
>> to me what's important is that there's this core, travis, hays, bastrop, Williamson, that's kind of the planning group and we're used to it. I would throw lee in there as well. To me it's important to get at least those six counties involved. It would be lovely if all 10 counties get involved, but these are the core ones, so I know sometimes getting everybody together is like herding cats, but to me it's like if we can get these six at least to your summit, I would consider that to be a great success. If you could get all 10 of them there, cool. The second thij, it's going to be extraordinarily important to me that the judge be able to make his own motion related to this item and be the sponsor of this item in terms of any motion. It's extraordinarily important for me for the judge to be able to make this motion.
>> he's authorized -- [overlapping speakers].
>> it's all landfill related. It doesn't matter.
>> on item b, in your conversations with the capco, were you expecting them to include some staff on task number b? We had talked at one time about tnr hiring an intern to assist in that task. I don't know if you're now suggesting that capco take the lead on b or whether you still want tnr to do that?
>> my recommendation is that we meet with capco. Now, they have on three or four occasions enthusiastically reminded me that they are in a position to assist. And so what I was hoping is that we'd sit down with them very, very soon and try to figure out what needs to be done and reach agreement on who should do it.
>> all right.
>> so I'm pretty much open on that. But at some point we may have to come back to the court and say here's what we need in addition to what we have now. The idea of this intern, I wasn't quite dreaming. There have been situations in the past where we have gotten graduate students and people interested in different areas to work with us on various projects for credits. And summer is not the best time to start one of those, but it's probably the best time to touch base with professors at u.t., The l.b.j. School of public affairs has been real good at that. Believe it or not, I'm kind of convinced that somewhere in this world there are students interested in landfill, waste management issues, so this would be a good opportunity to learn more, especially if you get college credits out of it. So I think we ought to make that contact. In the end I still think Travis County must commit to invest resources to get this done. I don't have a good feel for what additional resources we may need, but I'm hoping we can get a whole lot of it done with the available resources. Now, what I have in mind is us commencing this immediately, and trying to get it done before the end of the year. That's fairly aggressive. In terms of the summit, I don't have four or five in mind. It seems to me if you work on it diligently, you can get a whole lot done in two or three months. On the other items, if I'm right that the capco landfill mapping product would be useful to us, thin I wouldn't think we would have to subcommittee on it much. And I would think that capco would be as interested in learning some of this information as we. And so I see them basically as really partnering with us and working.
>> just a quick comment. I believe the mapping product that you're talking about is the closed landfill inventory and that is sort of apples and oranges to this in that respect. I think that we can easily move forward with -- and there is also -- let me address your previous comment about the 2001 map. That was a constraint map that had just about all of our constraints anticipated in it; however, there was a big missing ingredient, and that was the buffered distances from the individual residences and the neighborhoods. And so I think that now that we've got this ordinance that will possibly be approved next Tuesday, we have the ability to plug in all of those distances.
>> in terms of relevance, though -- [overlapping speakers].
>> it was the genesis of the whole ordinance. So anyway, two points. It would be a new product, a little bit more gaild product that -- detailed product that we would do for Travis County. Then I think we sort of have to change hats to a certain extent if we begin to look outside of the county and say, instead of applying -- I'm not sure we'll have all of the data available to do exactly the same analysis that we were able to do in Travis County, simply because we work and live and breath in that data everyday here. We may not have every single debit bit of that data from the adjacent counties. The chances are we can get a good deal of it, but we will sort of have to -- it may be a little more of a macro, cruder analysis than what we do here. That's the only disclaimer I would like to put forward on that. But capco has a lot of these other layers and they do have gis capabilities and I think we can strike an arrangement that would be favorable.
>> any other comments that we need to hear?
>> judge Biscoe, I'm very thankful and grateful and I really want to go on the record saying that I would like to think this is a step forward. Unfortunately, I feel like a pin ball, a little ball in a pin ballgame where I keep getting kicked up and down, hearing whistles and bells and eventually a crash right through the pit. If this is going to be another process. Because frankly, Commissioner Gomez, I am fed up too. You have taken action over the last year, but it's always been against us. So I don't think you are listening to us. And comiser Sonleitner, I am concerned, just as you are, about where your garbage is going to go when you're 65. If you don't take action right now, there will be no place to put your waste in 20 years or whatever when you're 65. Because that's all that's remaining in this area. So what Commissioner -- what judge Biscoe is proposing is the real intelligent approach to waste in this county, with, of course, some profits being put into place, such as reduction of waste, increase in recycling and diverting a lot of the waste that is now being landfilled into other processes. So I agree that this is needed, but frankly, I feel that you're just giving us lip service, that's all, because we don't have an ordinance that protects us and we're not facing, you know, a channel modification where they're moving the creek 400 feet north towards blue goose, which is a ways to circumvent the floodplain ordinance. So while I'm very appreciative and don't want to sound like an ingrate, I just don't want to be going back to the pin ballgame where I think this is maybe doing something to us and eventually maybe we crash again. If this is genuine and you really, really intend to do something for the waste capacity in this county, then I would suggest that you take a resolution right now and propose a moratorium on all expansion of all landfills in Travis County. That would be something serious because at least what we're working on some things, they're not continuing with the process of expanding, which is what they've been doing for the last 18 months when we were working on all those projects that you put us on and now we keep running in the other direction trying to come up with some solution to the problem they've created.
>> and we all keep generating trash too. We're all part of the problem. We have to be -- we all have to be part of the solution.
>> that's right.
>> but while being part of the solution, we can work on it. We have the assurance that it won't expand, whereas at this point that has not been the case.
>> but what if they don't expand and we keep approving subdivision plats? That's more homes generating trash. What then?
>> we're talking about a moratorium until the end of the year.
>> on everything?
>> right. [overlapping speakers].
>> legally they cannot expand without going to tceq and filing an application to expand and getting a permit.
>> just what happened today is opening the door for expansion.
>> I don't think that was the effect of what we did. I hear what y'all said and the reasons why and I can see why you can reach that conclusion. I disagree. And I think that the rest of the work we get done this year will determine what my position is if an application to expand is filed with tceq. If one is filed before we get this work done, then at that time I think Travis County as a governmental entity will decide what our position is at tceq. Now, I will put that item on the agenda. Obviously I only have one vote. But what I have heard the operators tell me basically is they are awaiting the results of the order study, same as we, and I'm thinking these additional steps ought to be taken while the consultant is trying to do the work on bad orders. It makes all the sense to me to try to bring this to a head in December. If there's an application to expand before tceq filed before then, then I commit to you i'll put on the agenda an item that will enable the Commissioners court to address it. Obviously I cannot guarantee the outcome, but I will put that on the agenda. And I have indicated that my position is before that study is done, these issues are resolved, my position basically is in opposition. Now, at the same time I don't know that as the governmental entity that -- [ inaudible ]. The big thing is you deal with the orders and force the county's position on a request to expand where they are. If the channelization is better at bfi today and under the current permit for the next six or seven years, then it seems to me we ought to approve it, which is why I voted for it. These steps ought to be taken. In response to ms. English's concern, I'm as genuine as one out of five people can be. And if the court authorizes me to move on this, which is what I'm asking for, I will move on it. That ain't to say you will agree with every movie make, but I will report back to the court periodically to make sure that i've got a majority of the court supportive of the steps that I take. On number 3 there, it is not only what Travis County does that's important, but it's the other counties in the region. And I'm thinking we have to work with them, probably share a little bit more information and then try to partner with them on a permanent solution. And if we get an appropriate site, my view is that the landfill operators that I know will do what they can to go there. I mean, I don't know that they plan to stay forever where they are. I mean, obviously it is difficult to locate a new site and it's more convenient, less costly to expand where you are, but at the same time a new beginning with fewer and newer neighbors may be a factor to them.
>> with you consider putting that in writing? Would you consider putting that in writing?
>> what's that?
>> basically what you just said, that at this point until these issues are resolved, that you do not stand for an expansion of the northeast landfill?
>> I am going to put that in writing, but we have that in television, we have me saying that to the world, and we have my sterling representation for not going back on my word. That's better than in writing. [ laughter ]
>> effectually that's what we did when we asked tom about the language, what we do know was not --
>> take a position one way or the other.
>> it's a question as to how I feel about expanding, and I voted for it. And I did because I felt like that the channel is better than what there is right now. And that we have the ability to go and go to the industry and say, we have got to have all sorts of things before we're going to grow, before we're going to allow anything like that. I mean, it is -- I mean, I know how frustrated y'all are. Y'all have been at it 10 times longer than I have and I'm already goofy crazy over it. [ laughter ]
>> kimberly, you had one. And I have been listening to you and I heard you all saying why are we a reposetory for everybody's garbage? This is the big picture you've been asking for in terms of what is everybody else doing, what is everybody else's responsibility and to act as a region and to try to deal with this issue. For the record I will be 65 in 18 years. [ laughter ]
>> I have to say that I have listened, I have heard. What I'm frustrated is that i've said it before, it's almost like I'm just spinning my wheels listening to the same stuff. We need to take some steps to move forward. And that's what I get very frustrated about. There's nothing -- I think we're in the same boat. I think we're both frustrated about the constant conversation of what's going on. Let's do something. But i've heard, i've heard you.
>> but why have we been the repose terry for these counties the last 20 -- I think we have been, not why. We have been. So now let's move on and get somebody else to be the reposetory for the future of however many counties we want to get. I'm not going backwards, I'm just going forward also. I'm just saying we've done our duty, we've taken garbage for a long time. That's enough.
>> yes, but --
>> that's what we've been saying for with two years.
>> but I don't want to turn around and go dump on somebody else.
>> why not?
>> I don't think so. Idon't think so.
>> you're making it sound like --
>> we're not going to repeat it with a bad process. We need to refine the process to it's much better in the future of how we deal with trash, which is probably always going to be there.
>> well, the reason I asked for a resolution, for a moratorium is because you took a stand, again, the people are desperate and the stuff is not under your purview either. You took a stand and a resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty. And I feel that we should be just as protected from you -- from the process as these people are. After all, they're on death row because they did something bad. We haven't done anything bad, we just happen to live there. So I think taking a resolution for a moratorium to protect us from expansion is not quite as far a reach for your court than what you did a few months ago for people on death row.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Mcafee, any brief or final words?
>> well, I just wanted to state very clearly for the record that we do all create the waste and it is all our responsibility. We have taken our lead in this. We have carried the trash for these counties long enough, and I'm not -- and we, I'm not saying Travis County, though that's true as well. I'm saying that section of northeast Travis County has carried this burden for a long, long time. And without any other permitting. It will continue to carry that load for possibly -- not quite until you're 65, but close. And so I just wanted to make that very clear that we have already done our duty.
>> but mark, there is something that's bigger here. If we didn't take another ounce of garbage from the other counties, and I think that that's -- I'm willing to fight that fight as well although I think it will be a big battle. We have enough garbage that we create in Travis County that the landfill is going to be open and is going to be there because -- it will just take longer to do it. But it's not like all of a sudden if you just stop 40% of the flow that the garbage stops. I mean -- because I don't know that it stings any -- stinks any more just because there's 30 tons of garbage there versus 20 tons of garbage there. I mean, so I really -- I'm really looking for that odor thing. My little bitty receptacle that I have, it makes it smell bad enough, I mean, just from one house. So I think we've got all the garbage in this community that we can tolerate ourselves and I'm willing to fight the other fight once the time comes.
>> and judge, I appreciate this approach to it. I think it sounds at this point like it's the way to go. And I would like to -- y'all to explore and see if you think there's anything you can do to protect us during this process at all because they are Marching forward with plans and we're spending all of our time down here fighting this fight. And they have the funds to fight a lot of battles at the same time.
>> and in the meantime, waste is being generated everyday.
>> in the meantime, we're taking it.
>> I'm promoting, judge.
>> motion by Commissioner Davis to approve, seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion?
>> judge, just one thing. That is, when you do have your summit, whoever will attend, it would be good that we do have information from like fort bend county where they have a (indiscernible). I think it generated over three million dollars or something like that. For collecting garbage as far as a a landfill is concerned. So there are some incentives maybe that may need to be highlighted on as far as maybe a location of a new landfill. And I wanted to just throw that out when you have your presentation.
>> I think staff will probably have two more updates on the summit before it takes place, and I also see us putting together a packet of relevant information that we all should share before that summit takes place. Not only that, but I think we need to be kept up to speed.
>> sure. Thank you.
>> I still am going to consider this the judge's motion.
>> any more discussion? Commissioner Davis and judge Biscoe's motion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:52 AM