Travis County Commssioners Court
July 22, 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 1
Number 1 is a public hearing to discuss proposed Travis County solid waste facilities siting ordinance, including readoption of floodplain ordinance under the health and safety code.
>> move the public hearing be opened.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> morning. John kuhl, environmental officer. The item that you called up is the solid waste siting ordinance that does not apply to the landfills at this time. And it's been advertised and posted for the required period and it is back before you today possibly for adoption. Has everyone knows, this has been a long road and perhaps we may find ourselves at the end. There have been some comments that have come in. I can go over those if you would like to hear those.
>> can you give the highlights?
>> yes, sir, real briefly. Primarily we've received comments from industry. I'm frankly not aware of too many citizens comments that have come in, any at all actually. And there have been folks asking for copies of the ordinance, and it has been posted on the internet for this entire time. We have received comments again primarily from the solid waste industry that deals with municipal solid waste landfills and not actually, you know, the other types of sewage or other types of land application facilities. And I suppose it's material to their business as well because this ordinance does cover and apply to transfer stations and recycling facilities. The comments that we've received have been from waste management, bfi and eds. I won't go through all the details on them; however, in waste management's comments they scr specific editing kind of comments, especially in the order, and then they basically challenge the receptor distances, stating, of course, that they are too great, stating that they're not face based in science or fact, which the staff disagrees with. And the ultimate effect is eliminating new sites being put there, which again staff disagrees with. Bfi's comments had to do with primarily clarifications in the variance sections of the ordinance. And in some cases actually there were some fairly positive comments bolstering the areas that put the burden of proof on the actual applicant to demonstrate that they comply with the setbacks and that kind of thing. They also ask that we add a specific statement about the ability for an applicant or a person at a receptor property to be able to appeal a decision in court. They also ask that the executive manager have the initial approval ability as opposed to having it come as a public hearing in Commissioners court with the executive manager having initial approval authority and appeals coming to Commissioners court in a public hearing session at that time. Tds's comments were --
>> didn't we do that last time? That last comment. I thought we did that before we approved the transfer.
>> we did. We did make some changes in that area. I was understanding bfi's comments to be to change it back to the way it was before.
>> right.
>> okay. But where it is now, the department would make a determination, and if either the applicant or residents disagreed with the department nation, that decision is appealable to the Commissioners court.
>> right. The public hearing is before the Commissioners court. We understood bfi's comments to be that the public hearing should be by the executive director.
>> that's right, because last time I remember us arguing that on all other matters the application is filed with staff and administrative determination is made. If there is disagreement with that appeal to the Commissioners court for a public hearing is conducted and we basically make a final determination for the county. So my understanding is that that's the way the ordinance is now. My understanding is --
>> really bfi's comment is -- the way I understand we've written the ordinance right now, now that i've looked at it --
>> i'll go with the drafters --
>> that's the way I described it, right? What's in your ordinance is an administrative determination by the staff, partners that can appeal to the Commissioners court for a formal public hearing and it would be had.
>> right. So they were basically commenting that they approved of the way that we've drafted this in that part. Tds had, from what I could gather -- I don't know if you have any other interpretations, primarily just clarifying unit and distance related comments instead of referring generally to facilities itself and so forth. They specifically recommended going to the unit.
>> they did have one substantive change recommended. And by the way, bfi in their comments concurred with this. Tdi's proposal was that the measuring point, instead of simply being 100 feet from the receptor, as is in the proposed draft, it would be either 100 feet from the receptor or the property boundary, whichever is nearer the receptor. So a minor change on where you start the measurements. The measuring point would be either 100 feet from the receptor or the property boundary that the receptor is on, whichever is nearer to the receptor.
>> I remember during the testimony from the community, I was commenting -- (indiscernible) the receptor location. I think mark mcafee ended up doing some statistics as far as what they determined as the distance from the receptor, and I believe they were basically somewhat in compliance to what we have here, but then again, I guess they will need to say that on their own if this is adequate. (indiscernible) and if what bfi and also tds is concurring with what the residents had stated earlier, in earlier testimony.
>> what's the effect of that language?
>> on that last comment specifically?
>> if you have a small lot, it will reduce a little bit the setback between the receptor and the solid waste unit. Basically if have a receptor that's less than 100 feet from its property boundary, you will be reducing the setback distance a little bit.
>> I think you would find that most common in single residences and perhaps places of worship and that kind of thing that aren't necessarily placed on large rural tracts like farms.
>> it end up being a matter feet in most cases?
>> right. Any others?
>> those are the ones that stand out. Did you receive any others? I have to apologize, I was out of town for the last four working days, so I don't if there were some comments that slipped by.
>> there's one that stands out in my mind, and that was reference to the whereas clauses. And tom was incredibly harsh in his language. Now, the legal effect of the whereas clauses is what?
>> well, I would say it lays out why you're doing this. And basically, you know, the whereas clauses say solid waste can cause problems in some circumstances.
>> it says you are in charge of the incredibly harsh language.
>> I would say harshness is in the eye of the beholder, judge. [ laughter ]
>> considering where we were when we first started, the very first draft, there's been substantial change of things that are -- because if one runs a good operation that's in complete compliance, these kinds of problems -- so it's a judgment call. It just says it can be, but it doesn't have to be.
>> we interpret this as being sort of general declarations to the background.
>> the only ones that concerned me were the challenges on local governments and authorities, and I'm assuming tom agrees with those. Those problems were in the fifth and sixth whereas, according to waste management.
>> the other thing is I think we mentioned when we looked at this draft last time, at some point in the future we will address an appropriate siting ordinance for type 1 and type 4 landfills. And in my view we should look at the history and whatever is to be learned from the application of this one as soon as we adopt something today. And in terms of precedence setting, it is of some value that I don't know this that I will be 100% tied to what's in this ordinance. It may well be that we have siting ordinance for type 1 and 4 landfills, we will see the need for this. My point is that i've said before that I'm keeping an open mind. That is still my position.
>> well, judge, along with that, I know definitely that this trouble has been going on for a hell of a long time, all of us are aware of that and everybody else; however, I do feel very strongly that this is a step in the right direction. And again, it does -- it does have some type of ordinance regulating power as far as dealing with other than landfills and solid waste facilities, which is still a constant combative issue as far as trying to make sure that they're site siteed. And I know this is not addressed in the landfill and wish it was. But of course we're not at that point yet. But for those others that operate, the waste facilities, it's something that I think that we can look forward in moving forward with and bringing some of this stuff to closure. And I think the community is definitely ready to come to closure, along with a whole bunch of other folks. So I'm still letting you know the position and the direction I'm going as far as this ordinance is concerned. I can definitely appreciate where we are at this point, but we've still got some hurdles that we must cross at some later stage as far as the overall picture as far as dealing with the old solid waste facilities issue. It's not over, y'all. It's not hardly over, but I think we've made a hell of a lot of progress as far as where we are now.
>> this is a public hearing. For those who would like to give comments today, please come forward. There are four chairs available. We would be happy to get your comment.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners. I've appeared before you last year and several ' times, mostly with david samuelson, who is now deceased. We as a community owe a lot to david.
>> would you state your name. I know everybody --
>> he did.
>> my name is henry trail. I'm a member of the park springs neighborhood association. And I want to say this morning that I appreciate tom's work on this ordinance. And if the industry objects to something, I think that speaks well to the citizens because the industry obviously has a vested interest, and they would like no ordinance at all. But I want to commend you for the work on this and I want to urge you to adopt this ordinance and resist the urge, if you have it, to comply with the industry's request to weaken it or modify it. Thank you. Please come forward if you want to speak. This is the last invitation, unless we get more than four. If you would like to give comments during this public hearing, please come forward.
>> good morning, my name is trek english. And I'm here to endorse the comments made by the previous gentleman. And there was only one thing that was not incorporated in this ordinance, which I'm hoping will be incorporated in the next ordinance. And it was something that we had discussed openly during all of the meetings with the solid waste facility is ordinance. And that was that it not be within a mile of another facility. And I would hope that would be entertained in the neck ordinance. As for this ordinance, I'm going to on go with Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Gomez last week that we need to move on. And I would hope that you've left enough room for the public to properly appeal a decision, especially a variance decision. And I'm kind of concerned when processes start to copy the 100% of the processes that you've down administratively and it's already complete when the public has a chance to address the situation. That's the thing that always concerns me is I think the public needs more time to prepare a case rather than just appeal it in a hearing without all of the data available to them. But other than that, I think at this point if you think you have a draft, I think the comment is the day before the hearing. [ inaudible ] I think the comment should be -- [ inaudible ]. Thank you very much.
>> I move that the public hearing be closed. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:52 PM