Travis County Commssioners Court
September 9, 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 12
12. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed agreed order from tceq regarding waste management of Texas, incorporated's alleged violations at the northeast Travis County landfill
>> judge, I had a chance to get the neighborhood to talk to staff, on this item on the agenda, we wanted to make sure that we had the necessary involvement of the particular -- before we went to tceq and according to the neighborhood folk and according to the way things have been laid out in this particular order, [papers shuffling - audio interference], conflict opposition to what we want to do in the particular order. So based on those terms and conditions and hearing from the neighborhood folks as far as reaching it this morning on item 12, I would like to go ahead and move approval of that.
>> second.
>> the one question that I have is -- when I looked at the two amounts, on page 7, if you have 100,000 and 4,000, you get $140,000. 100,000 and 40,000, you get 140,000. The waste management settlement is for 119,000. So did that difference come from the b.f.i. Deal?
>> yeah. I mean, I think the agreement, john kuhl environmental officer judge and Commissioners. I will say I have not, you know, had any interaction with tceq on this project. But I think both of the -- my understanding was both companies ended up with approximately the same fine, but in any case it doesn't add up to -- to that total. So I'm not sure where that balance is going.
>> okay. I don't have any problems with that. We did say now that you don't get -- it did stand out you don't get 140,000 if you -- if you read the first six pages you ends up with about 119,000. On number 7 their total is 140, but the money would be used for two purposes, and they are described in attachment a, page 7, basically it would be walnut creek erosion control and the second part would be illegal dump site and cleanup. Any more discussion of the motion? We will have that clarified I guess if we need to put it back on the court's agenda that will be the case if there is $140,000 that will be fine. The other thing is us taking the money, putting it in basically a dedicated account. And us managing cleanup efforts in both projects. According to my reading.
>> uh-huh.
>> right.
>> and t.n.r. Is in a position to do that.
>> judge, just a clarification question in terms of is there anything in this legal document that obligates the county to make up the difference between these costs and what eventually might wind up in terms of an s.e.p. Contribution? Back to Travis County? I'm just making sure we are not on the hook to -- to spend money that at this point we don't have authorized, but I'm happy to spend their money.
>> I want to make sewer that when you said t.n.r. Has the capability, we would probably contract out this work.
>> yeah.
>> as opposed to doing it with our own workforces.
>> but we will manage the contract.
>> we would manage the contract. Okay. Because it's not clear that we have legal authority to use our road and bridge crews for this type of work. I want to make sure, we can spend the money, we can wrt contract to have the work done, but reasonable not by our own crews, I just wanted to add that.
>> do you think the -- we believe the tceq understands that?
>> I'm not sure that it matters to them, as long as the work gets done.
>> but we haven't cleared it with them?
>> I have not.
>> then I think we ought to and if there are issues we will bring it back.
>> all right.
>> okay.
>> judge, do we need to say for the record, I know that we have seen this, but I'm not sure if people in the audience, about which two projects we are talking about?
>> i've tried to -- on page 7. You may be able to do a better job of it.
>> I'm happy to read it.
>> project title on one of them is the walnut creek erosion control project, the description: the county will clear out debris including trees and municipal solid wastes from walnut creek. The accumulation of debris has diverted the natural flow of water and accelerated erosion of the creek. Also pooling of water in many areas which are breeding grounds for mosquitoes, it describes the benefits and dollar cost is approximately 100,000. The second project that is on this attachment is called illegal dump site cleanup. Description the county will clean up illegally dumped debris and municipal solid waste in areas near walnut creek where no responsible party can be found to clean up the debris. The county will put up no dumping signs. Again a benefit and estimated cost of approximately $40,000.
>> thank you for reading that Commissioner Sonleitner. The neighbors have had an opportunity to review this?
>> yes. In fact they called this morning, judge, again, to -- [indiscernible] the process.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2003 7:52 AM