Travis County Commssioners Court
November 4, 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 31
Now, on 31, receive update and take appropriate action on regional solid waste summit, john kool -- I'm assuming the county clerk needs to be on a-1 also. If you are looking, we need to take I guess a-2 and a-3 next, if we can. But now we're looking at 31. Update on regional solid waste summit. Late yesterday, and this is in the backup that was provided by I guess john and purchasing previously, john and I did chat and we have been working on a proposed agenda for the summit. And although we have not gotten authorization for all of the people we list as participants, john, we are moving in that direction, right? But I did think it was important for us to share with the court what we have in mind. If I can just get a couple preliminary remarks, then we'll turn it over to john. We did chat with capco, who is sponsoring this summit, and based on capco's input, the best time was decided to be from 9:00 in the morning to about 3:00 in the afternoon. People who come here from other counties kind of like to get started out of town at least before the after-work traffic congestion so we're ending at 3:00. So that forced us really to try to put in a six-hour time frame as much as we could. We divided it into five main categories including lunch. Which we hope to provide so that will not be purchased by the county. But in the memo we did indicate that we felt Travis County ought to commit about $2,000 that would be used for the hotel. And we do think we need a moderator in order to get all of this done and stay on time.
>> I agree.
>> to be honest, I think if we set aside an hour for a certain discussion like at 10:00, we need to cover as much as we can during the time allotted and at 10:00 we pretty much have to end that session. Otherwise we don't get -- we don't cover the whole agenda. The most important part in my view is a grain storm, number 5, -- brainstorm, where do we go from here. We're hoping elected officials will review backup materials we send to them and in order to have a meaningful discussion we need to set aside an hour. The good thing about that I think if the discussion is moving in the right direction, we may be able to go over a little bit, but at the same time our experience has been those from out of town do try to get to to borderline -- to the borderline before traffic gets heavy. John?
>> judge, and before you go there, it may be also good to maybe on the day have it posted because I feel that it may be more than a couple of us that may attend.
>> I'm assuming that the whole court may be there.
>> I hope so.
>> in and out. I don't know if we can commit six hours, but I certainly intend to be there for the elect officials [ indiscernible ].
>> it will be posted for those who want to go.
>> john kuhl. I think judge Biscoe gave a great overview. The way I look at this is three substantive sessions with the brainstorming session at the end. The first being the problem statement, hey, this is what we're experiencing in Travis County and this is where all the waste is coming from and that type of thing. The second one actually being number 3 where we discuss, you know, what are some of the solutions that aren't landfill oriented that get us towards better regional accomplishment of waste minimization and recycling goals and moving into some of the more difficult discussion of what options in the area of the landfills can we discuss and kind of trying to -- kind of hopefully lay out the problem, part of the solution, and then getting into perhaps some areas of compromise and relocation. So that's really the way that the substantive sessions are set up where we've got some presentations and questions and answers and so forth. And then we move into hopefully a fruit full problem-solving session at the end of the.
>> john, I wasn't able to attend that last meeting, but my assistant [ indiscernible ] to attend that meeting with you and the judge and others a few weeks ago, and -- but what has continued to be brought to my attention on this is that the participation level of the community such as, you know, the treasure englishes and the neighborhood and folks like that, and I guess is that still part of the process as far as their level of participation?
>> definitely. The meeting Commissioner Davis speaks I have is the capco meeting October 15th where we put together a brief presentation along with capco staff and presented it to that committee which is elected officials and so forth from the capco region. And I think the judge and I were both -- or everyone on staff and elected officials from Travis County's side were pretty blown away by how ease think went through. They were very -- easy this went through. They were very supportive. That was great. As far as the -- you know, keeping the neighborhood representatives in the loop, we've definitely done that. I feel very well we've done it from the beginning and even as most recently as Friday we met with some of them to go over this very agenda and get their feedback. And it's still a moving target. I mean, this is a draft agenda that indicates at the top there -- as it indicates at the top there, but I think this is the waterfront that you can expect to see covered.
>> in terms of jim, we've used him before, haven't we?
>> right. He was the moderator for the stol identify waste work groups -- solid waste work groups when we did the work towards working on the language of the siting ordinance. So far pretty good support for using him again, whether or not he's interested in doing it again.
>> one of my questions, I was checking on the Williamson county agenda and they've been having a number of items over the last couple of weeks talking about a new regional site. And I don't really see them as a -- you know, a real part of this. I see it as the players here in Austin, and I just want to make sure that when we talk regional that others understand that they are part of the regional solution and that they should not be a presumption that the regional solution is located on Travis County land. And so I just want to make sure that the Williamson county folks -- I know you have a thing on here about their model in terms of [ indiscernible ] and they've got a private, but I want to make sure whatever is hang, and quite frank hreurbgs I don't know what is happening up in Williamson county, they are talking about a regional site. And I want to make sure that somebody -- some authority from up there is part of this and that their ideas get folded in. Because I'm seeing this in terms of we know all of these folks and we know all of their sites and we need to be looking outside of Travis County for land possibly --
>> right.
>> -- and not preassume that's stuck here.
>> first, if you look at number 4, the very last clear bullet under the very last dark bullet is constraints analysis, preliminary map will be distributed showing areas for regional landfill and that is a regional map. It's not just Travis County. And so that's one way that we're going to address your concerns. The other is we do have words from Williamson county specifically that [ indiscernible ] that has had confirmed yesterday as well as I don't know about the county judge -- the judge as well.
>> good.
>> so those two have confirmed they will be there.
>> excellent. Appreciate it.
>> my plan is to call all of the member judges and maybe even city mayors and make sure they get a special invitation to come to the summit or send somebody. Our goal is to get as maximum participation from the 10 state of Texas counties.
>> judge, during the time of the budget, we circled some money and I'm wondering in this particular item you mentioned that the county would maybe have to spend certain x amount of dollars. Would that be basically part of the money we set in reserve during this effort for the regional deal or what idea did you have as far as funding?
>> well, in joe's memo, he requested Commissioners court to transfer $2,000 from the solid waste reserve.
>> right. That was the $100,000.
>> right.
>> I want to make sure that they are still in agreement to utilize that money eye certainly am, and we think 2,000 would be our maximum cost based on what we think we ought to cover. That would be the moderator's fee and basically hotel expense. The others we think we can get the other participants to pick up. I do think that in order for us to really maximize participation during our six hours, we need to have lunch right there and it really ought to be free. Because we may have to work through lunch. We have set aside 30 minutes, and there's really no way for us to close down, let you go to lunch and come back and gear back up in 30 minutes. It just won't happen. But it may happen -- we're not paying for lunch, we're paying for the moderator's fees and hotel expense. We're working with the others to get the other expenses covered. So -- and to me the logical source of funding for 2,000 bucks would be the solid waste reserve.
>> okay.
>> I'm okay with that.
>> yeah, we were hoping, when you think about it, capco is sponsoring this, it really benefits us. What I have learned is if we're out there kind of taking the lead, everybody else will chip in. And on the funding aspect, I think the same will be true.
>> and this is, again, kind of like Karen's strange little day. Can we just being thinking as we do the working lunch of what kinds of things we're using for the working lunch? I can just see us having a regional summit on waste and we would use styrofoam cups as opposed to things that are recyclable. Let us skwru think through that so we are being good examples as well.
>> I was hoping we could do barbecue and butcher paper, but that might be a little messy.
>> just think through that. That would be the last thing that I would want.
>> point tafpblt we will do that -- point taken. We will do that.
>> we need to get this city a bit more engaged than they have been. Having a telephone conversation with them today, mr. Rhoades. We have kind of put the city in here. They have not committed to participate yet. But if you look at waste generated in Travis County, a whole lot of it comes from the city of Austin. So it's fair that they be an active participant. The second thing is that we meet with the operators early Thursday afternoon. There's a lawsuit penning that involves two of them so I know they will be real sensitive about some aspects of our discussions. In my view, we really ought to be kind of forward-thinking about a solution which right now it says to me relocation is most important thing in the world. Part of our challenge will not to be get bogged down and fighting about stuff that's already happened. Kind of stay focused on what options do we have and what -- and how do we work together to get it done. And I'm hoping that we leave the success mitt with a lot of partners -- summit with a lot of partners that we know we can tkefp on or with partners telling us, Travis County, we feel very sorry four, but you've got to go this on your own. In this case we have to get a set of options to deal wilt. -- deal with it. I mean, I would encourage all of us to participate as much as we can. Kind of hard to challenge the other counties to get engaged if we don't. Now, that does not mean all of us necessarily have to be there, but my words of encouragement will be for as many as possible to be.
>> on my calendar, that was the only question I had. If I put it on my calendar, can I count on [ indiscernible ] that day?
>> we have not set the day and time.
>> what is this cross -- the cross street, what is that?
>> that is at the northwest quad quadrant of --
>> is it where marco polo chinese food?
>> headed south, exit at oltorf, before you get to oltorf, it's on the right side.
>> on the west side of 35.
>> west side. Got it.
>> when do you think the agenda will go from draft to final on the judge's plan? We have one or two more meets with participants. That's all -- meetings with participants. Do you think this will be final next week?
>> yes. It's fairly nerve wracking to be looking at this thing on the 21st and not have this finalized. We're all moving towards doing that as quickly as possible. The good news is that, you know, most of these players that we anticipate being panelists or presenters know bit and are pretty -- know bit and are pretty well engaged to do it. There's a few exceptions. We've still got to nail down some of the tceq folks. And as we meet with neighbors and industry we get new ideas about panelists and we have to mull those over and identify whether those folks are available. So there is -- I mean the judge and Commissioner Davis has kept this on a very fast track and it's just the way it has to be. I mean if we're going to do that, things need to be fairly fluid and people need to just trust that we'll pull it off. So far it looks like it's headed in a good direction.
>> I think the agenda is in final. It's just that the participants are not locked in. We ought to give ourselves this week and what participants we have locked in, lock them in. That and others who are invited -- I mean if tceq, send somebody else, I think we can make that change somebody else. But I do think this is one of those summits where if we can distribute some backup material before the summit, we would likely be a whole lot more productive.
>> that is the plan, judge, right.
>> and then I think we want to leave participants with the -- prospective participants with the impression this is more than a discussion. And this is really to gather information, reviewing options with the intention of leading toward action. And that's what I have said so far and I believe that and we ought to try to achieve it.
>> that will be the big challenge in the last session there.
>> do we need to bring this back to court unless we dramatically alter it?
>> I don't think so.
>> can we provide instructions related to the $2,000 so joe can get -- is that -- I think tha was a separate reserve as opposed to -- I don't think it's embedded in your budget, is it joe? It requires a transfer.
>> one issue on that is that we would like to have it directed actually to capco for disbursement if that's not a problem. They are handling the details of those arrangements.
>> hold on.
>> sometimes it's easier to have direct pay so we have an absolute assurance our dollars are going to be specific items and not things like food.
>> I stand corrected. We can just rely on the line items indicated in the backup.
>> I was hoping to get a motion for that, to transfer from reserve into the t.n.r. Line item identified in the memo.
>> second that, judge.
>> that's my motion, seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner and we'll be able to use it as necessary. Any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The other thing would be basically the authorization to proceed with this agenda. Try to get final decisions on the participants. May want to share that with the courts individually at the appropriate time. Does not necessarily have to be back on the court's agenda unless there is dramatic modification.
>> we'll do that.
>> that's a motion too. Any more discussion?
>> I would just like to thank the --
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> I would like to thank the Commissioners court for this move of the regional -- for solid waste is a concern. I know the community really apprectes this and especially those around the 290 east landfills. So, again, I would like to thank the Commissioners court for moving in this direction. Thank you.
>> judge, clarification. Was it just the 2,000 we're moving from the reserve or the entire --
>> the 2,000.
>> thank you.
>> I didn't want joe to think he had money there -- [ indiscernible ].
>> not that we would ever waste the money.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 5, 2003 9:52 AM