Travis County Commssioners Court
April 13, 2004
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.
Items 6, 7 and 8 - Morning Discussion
6. Consider using funds to study relocation and closure of waste management of Texas and bfi landfills along highway 290 east, and take appropriate action. It's a little different than 7 or 8. Shy call 7 and 78, up, too -- should I call 7 and 8, up, too.
>> individually it doesn't matter. You may want to call them up, folks may want to comment --
>> okay. 7. Consider proposed resolution from highway 290 east neighbors opposing further expansion of adjacent landfills operated by waste management of Texas (wmt) and browning-ferris industries (bfi), and take appropriate action. 8. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed strategy to address northeast Travis County landfill issues.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge. Item 6 basically is looking at this -- at the funding mechanism and money that we do have available to us and I basically -- brought this up because I wanted to publicly acknowledge the amount of money that we have available. And not only that, the -- the community [indiscernible] fees that are being used in other counties and what we can do to really bring these two particular landfills to a closure setting in the next few years, I think that it's something that's attainable and achievable. John, would you like to basically at this time let us know, I did give the court backup as far as that -- as far as that money because remember during that budget cycle that the money that we set aside was in my opinion was to be designed to do just what we are doing and that is to co-fund a siting location for the current landfills and how we deem to use that money is something that this Commissioners court will have to do as far as -- as far as ways of -- which we can expose and dispose of those monies. But in my mind when I discussed this during the budget cycle, sat up in my mind to let this go toward closure. Of those particular operations and also relocation. This is why item 6 is on the agenda. I want to be as brief as possible, because we have two other items other than 6. I wanted to basically let the public know let the number know of the opportunities for these two existing landfills to relocate in other areas other than where they are currently located in -- actually proposed times to expand at the current location. So -- so john if you can for me briefly, just touch on some of the things that some of the other counties are doing.
>> I will let you go through that.
>> john kuhl, environmental officer. The first question related to money and solid waste management reserve, $100,000 was set aside, 2,000 of which has been spent for the solid waste summit back in November, that leaves a balance of 98,000. The second line of questioning related to what other counties and entities have done as examples of -- of I guess public/private arrangements, fort bend county, for example, in relationship to negotiating with the siting ordinance, ended up negotiating with b.f.i. An agreement that at its inception gave 12 cents per cubic yard to -- to the county as on -- as a host community fee is what it's called. That rate was to be adjusted by the consumer price index, about 16 cents a cubic yard. They -- they are getting approximately $380,000 in revenue from that arrangement. In Williamson county an overall 75 speakers [indiscernible] -- 75% revenue on [indiscernible] that -- I don't have that information for you, I can get that arrangement. That is an arrangement that they had with waste management. It's actually a county-owned landfill that is operated by waste management. That was an agreement that began from its inception that waste management purchased half of the land for permitting cost, the early days of that arrangement. Looks to be fairly successful. Expanding, they have a permit before tceq at this time, it will end up being about a 500-acre site. The third example that we mentioned quite a bit is the brazos valley solid waste management agency. That's actually bryan/college station's agency that they formed for solid waste management operations and it has -- they currently have a -- have a permit before tceq as well. For -- for a pending landfill in neighboring grimes county where they found a willing seller and are in the process of -- of getting that permitted. It's a few years away from being opened, so we don't have any revenue numbers for you on that. Those are just three examples of what's been done so that you have an idea of what -- of what type of arrangements are out there.
>> right. I guess the -- the relationship that brazos county has with grimes county, even though especially this last example, then grimes county being the beneficiary, beneficiary of this particular relationship, is something that's -- that's basically something that's -- that has been done already and it's something that -- that I think that we, as we go through all of the different strategies, things of that nature, to look for another location, that it is a possibility that this can happen with the existing landfills at the 290 east site. John, along with that, can you basically tell me, has this information ever been exposed, the information that you just gave me, the court, and the public this morning, has this information been exposed to the -- to the capco 10 county region as far as possibility of where another regional landfill can be located? This particular information here.
>> yeah, yes, sir. It's -- at least the very bone -- the bear bones of it was presented at the solid waste summit. However, as some of us recall, the crowd began to thin a bit towards the afternoon when this presentation came up. So did a certain -- to a certain comment Commissioner yes it has gotten out thereof.
>> also to the elected officials --
>> whoever happened to be in the audience at the time. We did circulate copies of the presentation. But I wouldn't say that it's -- by any stretch has been fully presented to all of the representatives on the capco executive committee, for example. A better job could be done of that.
>> okay. How long do you think it may be to be able to get maybe some final numbers? I guess checking with how much revenue was generated from those particular operations --
>> shouldn't be a problem. Just this week to get rest of Williamson county's information. They have been very cooperative in the past.
>> okay. Well, I wanted to -- the court to basically hear this phase of -- of item no. 6 to let you know that there are some opportunities that do exist right now and -- in other counties as far as relationships with two adjacent counties and the possibility of -- of the relocation and closure of those particular landfills, that they may end up having to -- to go to another county or it's a possibility they can end up going to another county and actually move out of the -- of the -- of the 290 east site current. So I want to make sure that everyone understands that. And that exposed to that degree. Also, tom, I would like to ask you one legal question before -- before other comments are brought forth. The money that we set aside during the budget cycle, the reminder of that $100,000, can -- can we -- can the Commissioners court utilize that money to assist in any amount as far as consulting studies, other things to come up with another site to help assist in looking for another site for the two particular landfills?
>> you have to first examine what you set it aside for initially. In other words when you budgeted it, what did you say it was for? If you are doing something consistent with that purpose. If not, it's just a question of amending the budget.
>> I wanted to make sure because that was the intent in my mind when the money was set aside, I want to make sure to get some clarity on that. To do just that with that money to assist row location of these particular two landfills and whatever it took, whether it came up on the study or whether we want to go outlet for a -- out for an r.f.p. Or whatever, to make sure that we of course are in line in assisting or doing what we possibly can do in this regard. I did get an opportunity to speak, that will be coming up later, but I did get an opportunity to talk with both the landfill operators, the b.f.i. And also the w.m.i. Landfill operator representative john joseph and -- and.
>> can you --
>> yes. Pretty tough last time in to pronounce [indiscernible]
>> yes, both of those persons, of course they both at the same time, two Fridays ago, said they have no problem in relocating those particular landfills from the current sites. So without any contingencies, based on the fact that they are going to continue to look for the site, that was top priority. That was discussed and disclosed to me, I hope the b.f.i. Representative here today could actually support that statement that I just made because it was discussed. I understand that b.f.i. -- not b.f.i., But w.m.t. [sic] will not be present today. After talking with john joseph that he would not be able to participate.
>> john is here.
>> he's here today? Oh, great. I?m glad. He said that he would be here on the 20th, but he's here today, that's good. But anyway the relationship, the conversation that we had was just that they would prioritize, be looking forward to moving this particular operation and -- and -- we demonstrated the tax per se, maybe a [indiscernible] fund themselves to do a final location, but of course I want to do what we can do to assist, as much as I can possibly do and the court can properly do to get them to relocate. That was basically discuss for the particular item and if there's anybody else that would like to comment on this, you know, it's all welcome and all good. I wanted to put this on the table. To let the money that -- let the public know that the money we set aside was to be used for this purpose. As far as facilities operating under different type of settings that john kuhl discussed in the other presentations. So that would -- that was -- that was basically what I would like for us to move forward on.
>> what's the recommendation for 6?
>> the recommendation is that -- in fact I would like to move approval of item no. 6 to utilize the necessary moneys that we have available for relocation purposes of the two -- of two landfills, in other words, to look for other site and assist as much as possible Travis County to do just that.
>> what's your response to the landfill's position that initially it makes more sense for them to try to locate appropriate land, try to negotiate, try to get the best price they think is possible, that if they need the county's assistance, basically by using the condemnation authority, they will ask for it. That our assistance up front may well drive prices up and be counter productive. That's what they have told me.
>> well, they haven't told me that. So --
>> well, why don't we hear from them then.
>> they haven't told me that. I think maybe we need to get them exactly what they told me this past couple of Fridays.
>> the other question would be if we say okay, let's use the $98,000 to assist with the effort, specifically how would we use it? Does the motion say that?
>> yes. In other words it would be used -- I would like to have assist as far as getting maybe an rfp or some other mechanism maybe involving capco in this particular situation, I think that's what we really need to do. I think they do necessarily need funding. I think they all want assist and it does take money. Any way that we can use that $98,000 for relocation purposes and bring the landfill to closure, I think we should do that.
>> I don't guess -- [indiscernible] I don't think it's done. In my view we ought to urge and encourage the landfill operators to find suitable sites. If we can help them at any point let us know. We will decide at that point whether we will give assistance. The other thing is I think that we ought to go ahead with the original study that we have all talked about. I would presume that we need to locate both new lilds assuming they are found in Travis County. Landfills. I would try to give us an opportunity to find suitable sites outside Travis County, but there's no way to take us out of the picture because of the waste we generate here. That's why I?m against number 6.
>> there is a motion -- there is a motion, is there a second?
>> that did not preclude regional study. All that we can do with this particular landfill, this particular money that we have set aside, even if it include regional study, that -- I was very general --
>> we never allocate money that generally, that's why we put it in reserve and it's been there two careers. The money is -- two years. The money is not going anywhere, in the Travis County reserve, it's been there two years. Is there a second to the motion? Basically the motion is to use $98,000 to in some way help landfills, b.f.i. And waste management find new sites the way I understood the motion.
>> yes. In capco has to be involved with that, judge, just fine. I?m not opposing the use of that money not going to capco to help and assess as far as what -- I think the more that we have persons working on, there I by the better we are. I understand the landfills are trying to get themselves to -- trying to invest themselves to do a lot of things on your own. That's what i've discussed with them. Any time you need assistance, you need help we are going to try to do what we need to do. Of course if capco is the second that we use, that's another story. I think that was all basically inclusive in that motion. If capco needs assistance with any funding to assist, looking for another location I think we should do this. The bottom line is bringing the landfill to closure.
>> the bottom line is -- [multiple voices]
>> the bottom line is that they have told me and us the best we can help right now is staying out of the way. If they need help later oh, chiefly by way of us using the condemnation authority, they would ask for it, at that point we would decide whether to give it or not.
>> I wasn't told that.
>> judge, is it more appropriate for me to comment on this before you ask for a vote on this? I feel compelled to --
>> there's not a second.
>> okay.
>> is there a second to the Commissioner Davis's motion? On item no. 6? That month goes dies for lack of a second.
>> let me -- that motion dies for lack of a second.
>> can I have --
>> let me try to be county judge.
in 7 and 8 there are two proposals. There is a resolution in number 7 that neighbors and residents have urged us to adopt. Number 8 I put forth what I think is a more appropriate strategy. That is basically to get the landfills in northeast Travis County to agree not to file an application to expand for six months. During that same six-month period we would not file the siting ordinance. For those who have been working on this issue for the last couple of years, as I have, we lose that shootout because it would take us anywhere from four to eight weeks to really adopt a siting ordinance that covers type 1 and type 4 landfills in my view. It would take a matter of days for the landfill operators to file an application to expand and that really has been pretty much clear. In the April 8th, 2004 memo, that I provided the court and other residents who indicated an interest in this item, I indicate the 6 points that I think we ought to move on and I think we ought to do that. The operators have said they would agree to withhold any application to expand for six months. During that period they will accelerate, prioritize, efforts to find new sites. And if they find new sites and need Travis County's assistance they would ask for it. The other thing that I put out here is that we have been working, but slowly, on the regional study and I think that we ought to go ahead and move on that if we can. The last thing that we had was tceq telling us that the scope of work was too specific to use state money. They wanted to be a lot more general. That's about 11,000 buck, we have indicated that we thought that we needed 40 to 50, so we need to put that together. I indicate in bullet number 5 other specific things that I think we need to do to get that going. In my view it's a lot more specific, it's action-oriented and it's a lot more focused. My problem with the resolution it's more symbolic and political than anything else. That's why I will not support it today, I have told everybody that asked me exactly that.
>> judge. I will second your motion on item no. 8.
>> okay. Well, before we go to item 8, we still haven't finished 6 yes.
>> we have.
>> it is [multiple voices]
>> I still needed to ask -- you asked the representatives to come up here. I didn't get a chance to ask --
>> the representatives did come. There was no second to the motion, 6 is done. 7 or 8 are the items before us. There are residents here I know to speak on 7 and we need to hear them.
>> okay.
>> from a procedural point of view, 6 is done, there's -- there were no seconds on 6. 7 and 8 are the ones before us now. All that I was trying to do then is contrast the two options before us. There the residents here before us, two members of the court -- not me, but two members. Do you have others --
>> start calling on residents, but I would like to say this -- if -- this $100,000, $98,000 difference as far as what we looked at, as far as relocation efforts, the intent and purpose of that Monday to do just -- of that money to do just that. I intend to do just that, assist as much as we possibly can. Whether it's capco or anybody else as far as looking for a relocation site. Now, I did again speak with the particular -- particular operators and of course they have no problem with that particular proposal as far as what we are doing. Now, if they don't want to go up there and testify, that's fine. But again I will go ahead and regard and relate to the neighborhoods and if you want to come up here and -- and speak to this regard, but -- but I think we will see the way things are going right now. So the resolution is up before you now. It does contain various language in here, as far as opposing various language in your resolution, opposing expansion and also not supporting variances. So again I think that it's very, very critical. So you can come up at this time. So --
>> john, we ought to you a seat.
>> can I get a procedural question answered first.
>> if I?m hearing correctly, there is a motion from the judge and a second from Commissioner Gomez related to item no. 8 in terms of a strategy on how to move forward. I?m telling folks right now I have every intention of supporting that. I think that it's a proactive way to move ahead on this issue. I want to say out loud that there's a huge difference from where we were a couple of weeks ago related to the wilder tract. I am defense the expansion on the wilder tract. That's part of the wm proposal, especially because it was going to put the county on the hook for development costs if we were unsuccessful in trying to find an alternate site and I didn't want to have anything to do with those development costs. That is now owe that has mow been dropped. I noticed that, I appreciate that. That is not on the table. And with the judge's strategy, we are still not giving up our opportunity six months from now, 12 months, whatever, to still oppose the b.f.i. Expansion or the wm expansion. It allows us to move through in a proactive way with these operators using their dime first, not the county's dime first. So I suspect if there's a positive vote on number 8. It makes number 7 impossible to happen, even though there are large chunks of some that I personally agree, but now therefore be it resolved, I can't get there because it was contrary to what I?m going to vote for under number 8 and makes it moot.
>> if that's the case then Commissioner, then I think it ought to be a matter of record that if you -- if you are supporting the judge's motion, Commissioner Gomez is supporting the judge's motion, then I think you ought to go ahead and vote on it. Item 7 is of course contradicts basically a lot of things that's what's going on here.
>> that's my point.
>> exactly. It's [indiscernible] if that is the case then I think we need to take separate motions on this and go on. Because now you've -- you are talking about you made a motion on 8, here comes the residents up here to deal with the resolution and of course I think we need to get on about the business of the court. I think the residents ought to have an opportunity to speak. I would like to make a motion on item no. 7.
>> we have two more chairs. As one resident speaks and leaves, if somebody else wants to give comments today, come forward, we would be happy to hear all of you. If you give your name and comments we would be happy to receive them. Yes, sir?
>> judge, Commissioners, I?m lee leffingwell, chair of the city of Austin environmental board. I?m a little confused by the subtleties and the differences in all of these different agenda items. I do want to express my support and the support of the board for the resolution proposed by the neighbors, who is to oppose expansion of this landfill. It's a bad area as you I?m sure are aware, future expansion of the city, the next big expansion I think will number the northeast quadrant of the city. In the e.t.j., Plans are already wound way. Please -- oppose the expansion.
>> have you seen the memo that back up item 8? My memo dated April 8th?
>> now, I have not.
>> dan, can you make about 20 copies of my memo.
>> here's another copy if someone needs it.
>> if we could get one other resident to come and take that seat. Yes, sir.
>> yes, sir, good morning, judge. Commissioners. My name is hugh mayfield, a member of the city of Austin solid waste advisory commission. I?m here today on behalf of the tax base of northeast and east Austin, they are calling in reference about the stop expansion of the northeast landfill. At this time until the year 2006, that's why I?m here today, thank you all.
>> thank you, sir.
>> have you seen my memo?
>> no, sir, I just got here a few minutes ago.
>> here's one.
>> [multiple voices]
>> received one from -- from trek I will read it. Thank you.
>> I?m alfred stanley, here today of the Texas league of conservation voters. I just wanted to say, yes, I have read your memo, thank you, judge, for sending to it me yesterday. And your views on -- on 7 and 89. 8. I would like to say I think item no. 7 is more than symbolic. It puts the county on record as what the county desires to see happen. Or not happen. As the case may be. I think that it's important for the county court to take a position opposing expansion of the existing facilities. As a first step. I would like to see the county court take a -- take a position that it is desirable and the court will use every means necessary to close the facilities down, to see that the facilities are closed down. In a timely manner. But -- but first step would be simply to be on record as exposing -- opposing expansion. Let me tell you why I think that's important. There are other county officials who need guidance from the court in how they are supposed to react to certain situations that are out there at the landfill sites. We know that there are encroachments on the waste management landfill in the creek bed that separates the waste management landfill from the county, the old county landfill chrks has been closed. We suspect that there is migration of pollute wants across the old creek bed. And -- in these encroachments. Well, there are -- there are possibly other encroachments that are not approved. That are not proper. What can the county attorney did for example without any guidance from the court about what the county's policy is with respect to these landfill his. I think that I see item 6 as a statement of policy that is the will of this court, this county's policy that these landfills should not be expanded and that the county will resist expansion by all means necessary. I think the court has been wrestling with this foe a number of years. More at the city side of things -- in 1999 there was a contract awarded to -- two-thirds to waste management, one-third to tds, the disposal of the city's waste. It was waste management, evidently b.f.i. But the two finalists were waste management and tds. That the -- [indiscernible] at least to the city's satisfaction and the city disqualified waste from being party -- bidder on that contract. A last minute substitution was made with b.f.i. For waste management by the city staff. B.f.i. Had been ineligible because at that time in 1998, 1999 time frame, it was thought that b.f.i. Only had 7 years capacity left in this landfill, which was not enough for the city. In order for b.f.i. To become eligible, to -- to -- b.f.i. Cut a deal with waste where the commercially hauled trash headed to b.f.i. Was taken over, the obligation was taken over by waste management. This is a -- you know, this didn't stop the problem. It perpetuated the problem. It put waste into -- as a result of the city's action, in order to get the city's contract. B.f.i. Shifted a bunch of their trash stream into a landfill to the city, had decided was -- was inadequate, to owe to see handle the -- to handle the city's waste. At that time, I said, the thought was that b.f.i. Had about 7 years capacity left on its landfill. That was five years ago. What happened was two years ago, b.f.i. Was allowed to add another 10 feet of height on to their landfill. All I?m saying is that I appreciate the issue that's you're wrestling with, judge, of how to try to advance, give them fewer options when they can go to the tceq and file an application in a matter of days. However, there's been a long series of delays that they have seemed to take advantage of all the time. And I think that the merit of item 7 is that it -- it clarifies the county's policy. It says that the county finds it desirable that the facilities not expand any more than they are already permitted to do. That they not be allowed to have variances to encroach on the floodplain and in my view it's necessary and pastime that we had -- that we have taken such a step as a county. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> ms. English?
>> I?m sorry?
>> I -- take a seat. Ms. English.
>> good morning, my name is trek english.
>> come forward.
>> I would like to take the comments that mr. Stanley made a little bit further, on this capacity issue, no one, no one at any level from tceq all the way down to the city has asked these landfills for some accountability and I wasn't really going to talk about this but frankly I feel that we are being given a lot of figures on and on, on and off that change. As you heard in 1999 b.f.i. Had five to seven years of capacity. In 2004, b.f.i. Has five to seven years of capacity. In the meantime, b.f.i. Received two-thirds of the city's waste for two years. At some point that number needs to go up or down or do something. The 10-foot increase was only supposed to be for -- to increase their capacity for one year. It was said by mr. Gosling on the record. We can go back to the tapes and listen to them. They said one year. That figure is constantly staying at five to seven years. On the other hand we have waste management. Waste management is like the great continental divide. 30 years in 1999, 21 years, 12 years, to listen to them they have no room, they are buying extra land to expand. I mean, at some point someone hopefully your -- your court needs to ask for accountability from these landfills just how much capacity are we dealing with these two northeast landfills? Do they have 10 years, don't they have 10 careers? 10 years? Do they have five years, 30 years what do they have. They actually swore that they had 30 years to the to so that they could get the contract. Yet when they said they only had 12 years, nobody asked them to specify where the capacity left, especially in the case of waste management because they didn't get any contract. I would like that to be clarified. Judge Biscoe I read your memo, reread, reread, also reread your original memo that you sent previously about your strategy. I have a question about number 5 and I would like you to spend a little time prior to taking -- explaining what number 5 is, but I think at this point what we are asking is not symbolic. We are just asking if we can put -- we have been dealing with the county and the landfills since 2001. At every phase and every project that -- that the court, especially you judge Biscoe has put forward, which we are very thankful and very grateful that you have been putting forward these projects, but for a few weeks we work with your project, your ideas, the way you see them. But then ... Almost ...
>> my idea is worth zero unless two members of the court agree. Every idea that I have come back with, where the majority of the court was not supportive or really to be honest where at least four members were not supportive, I backed off and pursued something else. In my view all of this history is important in the big picture. But not as to the issue before us today. Because I know that whether there he is one year left of capacity or 30 years, you all don't want them to file an application to expand. It boils down to which one is more important today. A resolution by Travis County that we oppose any expansion or an agreement with the landfill operators to declare a moratorium for six months, and a 100% effort to find new sites. I?m thinking the second one is better because it's action oriented. That's why the first one I called political, more symbolic. The expansion call is not ours, it's t s.e.c.'s. If during the six month period an application to expand were filed with tceq, my guess is we would have another reason to oppose it. They violated an agreement with Travis County Commissioners court. So we don't lose anything I think by waiting six months. What we gape is hopefully giving 110% effort to trying to locate other sites and moving on the regional study which number 5 is all about. Number 5 is just my way of saying let's try to move with the regional study because we have all said that we would like to know what waste comes from various other counties and rather than sending a whole lot of waste here, my guess is we are in a much better position to try to put pressure on them to receive a landfill site than the ones who are sending very, very little. That's all [indiscernible] trying to say basically.
>> may I address your comments, judge?
>> okay.
>> I think that we've had this discussion before but on a different subject. This is what you proposed before. And the reason we are putting this resolution forward it's not political at all, judge. We found out that putting out e-mails to the neighborhood, we always told the county has got this great idea, we put forward your project, whether it was the ordinance, the odor study, the contracts, whatever it was, we have put the idea forward that the county came up with this new concept and this new idea of how we can solve the northeast problem. What I would call refer to as the northeast problem to make it short. But yet it was -- usually it was in two or three weeks we are back to talking about explanation, we are against whatever you are proposing because they are like a broken refrain, they constantly bring in the -- the expansion on the table. They don't want to budge on anything, as we talk about the county approving their expansion. So we have to send e-mails outlet saying well, guess what, the whole project fell apart because the landfills are back to their -- their old stand where they want an expansion. That is why we thought if we actually removed the idea of the expansion from the -- from the -- from the problem we are trying to solve, we actually could actually get to a point where we could discuss the future of the landfill capacity in the region without constantly having these clashes about the expansion. The -- the county may not want to be on the record to oppose expansion, we are saying at least until the regional study takes a good hold. You are saying six months, we are saying two years. We think from what we have been working with you for the last two years it's going take more than six months. That's why we put that date. We thought it would give ample time to do a good study so where we could actually locate [indiscernible] that they can actually go and permit. Six months -- a tract of land that they can tale go and permit. -- actually go and permit. Six months may be too fast. We don't seem to be moving that fast. That's all it was judge. It's not trying to get the county to get committed to spending money opposing it. We thought we would delay for the county, give you a longer period to -- to not have to -- to take a stand on this issue. Basically if you take a stand tough oppose them on the tceq level. [indiscernible] basically the resolution.
>> the adoption of a resolution does not take expansion off the table.
>> it doesn't.
>> for the landfill operators. It make take it out of our view for a short time. What takes the need for expansion is location of a new site and a speedy permitting. That's why what I was thinking of here as practically speaking, the landfill operators will file for an expansion, the time they ask for it really depends on when they think they can get another site permitted.
>> well, two years is it. I think they can get it in two years from looking at what they have done in the past with other tracts of land.
>> this proposal takes expansion off the table for the next six months. I?m a firm believer in the [indiscernible] principle. That says time expands to the time given, if we say we have six months to get these thing figured out, then that's all we've got. But if you give somebody two years, it will take two years. I?m looking for a sooner resolution to this, not a later. The thing that keeps the pressure on is we have got six months. We are not talking about expansion, we are not approving expansion, it just takes that issue away so that we can diligently move forward on trying to find another site. Which is not in your neighborhood.
>> but are you saying that you expect them to -- to permit it within six -- they may find something, but how do we know that a permit can go through within six months? It's going to take more than six months for them just to file.
>> one has got six years left, the other one at least 12.
>> right.
>> the only way for those periods to get shorter would be for tceq to terminate current permits. See what I?m saying? So those times are in place. And the only thing that changes those, two things I guess earth the landfills agree to leave earlier or tceq comes in and terminates current permits. Six years of approximately -- approximately for b.f.i., About 12 years for waste management. So if they were to require a new site, go ahead and get that permitted during those time frames, then I think that we have something to work with in terms of arguing, you may not even need an expansion. Especially to type 1 stuff.
>> so are you allocating the six months just to find a tract of land, not to include any of the permitting process.
>> I?m saying in six months we will come back and basically get a status report, discuss where we are. Six months, let's just take expansion possibilities off the table. Let's give 110% effort to your finding new sites, and us being available to assist upon request and us turning to the regional study and trying to figure out what to get done there. During this time, too, if ms. Mcginty fee and others want -- ms. Macafee and others want to move on the recycling and whatever the gentleman from california, that allows time for that, too. You all said that was important in the last court meeting.
>> I -- I will allow other people to talk. I've stated my -- I think two years would be more significant for them to have a chance to see if that tract of land can be permitted.
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible]
>> neighborhood. Trek has said just about everything that I wanted to say. I don't think 180 days is long enough. But if you think that it's long enough, I just want to say now for the record that if they don't find a place, we will be back here with this same resolution, maybe the date will change. We've been asking them to find another place for a long time. It's hard to believe that they are really going to fund two places in six months. I very much doubt that. But we still support this resolution. We worked hard on it. It's what we want you to do. And we still expect you to oppose expansion even if they don't find another place in six months. For me personally, I think an expansion of the type 4 facility would be just -- just would be terrible. I -- I mean, I?m -- I?m almost can guarantee you we will oppose that. Thank you.
>> yes, sir. I wanted to make [indiscernible] thank you first for the opportunity to talk to you. I?m willford williams, a harris branch resident. I have been coming here off and on for over three years, concerning this. It -- it's a little disheartening to see how slow and painful the process is to get something that we as residents feel should be done, taken care of. In the -- in the last year and a half, that -- that i've been -- coming in here -- I have seen the landfills disrupt one of the natural springs where it no longer flows naturally. It literally flows into one of the open faces of the pits and they pump it back out to get it flowing again. They claim they went up 10 feet. I was -- since I?m over in harris branch, I can see the landfill from anywhere in that area. I have seen the trash trucks sitting on top much the landfill with the piles of dirt well above the top of the trucks, they have more than filled that height up. Those trucks have got to be taller than 10 feet tall. Either they were below the mark where they wanted to go up when they got their 10-foot extension or the trucks are shorter than I thought. The perception from my point of view, being around it, they have probably gone up at least 20 feet in height. I -- I really question, I would like to see some kind of evidence, that they have even made an attempt -- they made an attempt -- that they have looked, been looking, I have yet to see in the three years that i've been involved with this court and the different committee that's I have tried to help with, that they have ever once even rejected a piece of land, even if they found a piece of land to look at. I would like to see some kind of a record made public showing me where they went and looked either in Travis County or one of the surrounding counties at a parcel of land and considered it even to expand you know to move this, the landfill somewhere else. This citizens of -- the citizens of east Travis County in the Travis County area, have -- have never once stopped saying we want to shut down the landfill and move it. We all know that we have to have a place for our trash to go. But I just don't believe that it takes three years to find another piece of land somewhere else. I did some checking the other day. To date I have over 500 e-mails per taping to the activities on the landfill -- pertaining to the activities on the landfill that have been passed back and forth to me in different people over three years. That's a lot of traffic. In 1995 which I moved to -- when I moved to Austin, moved into harris branch, the realtors told me that they had been told that within three years the landfills were going to close. Okay, that was in 1995. I have been consistently hearing for the last three or so years, since i've actually been involved in this, that there's 3 to 7 years of capacity. I would like Travis County to hold the landfills accountable. I want to know how long do you really have? I've heard that they have 12 years, i've heard they have no years. If they have three to seven years of capacity, why do they need to expand? If they went to the city and county saying that i've got seven years of capacity here, why do I need to let them go out and purchase other land and get bigger? I mean if you have been out in this area, you have seen there are hundreds upon hundreds of houses being built and subdivisions going in around this general area. There was a time when this landfill was appropriate for this area. I don't believe it is appropriate for the area now. Especially in the growth that the county is pushing and has been pushing to get into the northeast area of Travis County. And Austin itself. Again I do appreciate everything that you all have done. This is a real painful subject. I know that you, judge, have -- have probably spent many restless or sleepless nights dealing with this. There's not a clean answer. But at some point we have got to stop this thing. It's over a square mile in size now, still growing. All that I can ask is that you do everything that you possibly can to bring this thing to a closure as quick as you can for the residents of Travis County and the surrounding counties as well. Thank you.
>> thank you, sir.
>>
>> my name is joyce best, I love in northeast Travis County. I do want to express our thanks for the effort that the court has put forth in this attempt to solve this -- this very critical issue for us. And especially, you, judge, as you have continued to -- to come forth with new ideas to consider. We do appreciate that. I do believe that the regional approach is of paramount importance, that must be pursued at all costs. I was concerned with the presentation of the m.o.u.'s, at least one of the landfills was more interested in relocating closer to the existing landfill, not taking into account a regional approach. That is a big concern for us. I do want to continue to pursue the study that has been proposed and accepted by the capco region. I, too, believe that six months is not adequate time to seek a piece of land. I?m a little concerned that while the county may be interesting in putting fort 110% -- putting forth 110% to find new locations, that the landfills may not have that same enthusiasm. I am concerned about exactly how accountable they are going to be if -- at the end of six months. How we are going to -- to look at the steps that they have taken to relocate and that is a concern for me. I have here copies of all of the petitions that were signed in our neighborhoods two years ago. At that time, we were looking at -- expansions just as they are talking about now. So from our standpoint two years would be a more suitable time if you look at the amount of time that we have already invested in this. And the hope that our residents have that this problem will be solved and I just express the concern that six months may not be an appropriate length of time. Thank you.
>> hi, me name is robin schneider, I?m a director of Texas campaign for the environment. I want to urge you to pass the resolution putting the county on record opposing expansions. I don't necessarily see the two approaches as incompatible. But I think that it's time that the county took a clear stand of where it wants to go in terms of those landfills. You don't need another reason to oppose expansions. There are plenty of reasons already. And I think that the concern that you are hearing from so many quarters of this county is because the county has not taken a clear stand yet and because just three weeks ago, we had m.o.u.'s in front of us that took away the county's responsibility to oppose those landfills if new sites weren't find. So we will -- we tried a lot of continuous effort but never a clear signal from the county Commissioners court that you do oppose expansions. It seems -- we have three votes opposing expansions, and -- of the waste management site, three weeks ago. But the court as itself has never taken a clear up and down let's send a message to a -- to the landfills, we want you out of here as an official policy. I think that it's really important that the Commissioners that don't represent precinct 1 understand. We are very thankful for Commissioner Daugherty for your leadership -- is that if it's a problem, if there's an environmental problem in one district, it needs to be the concern of all of the we have talked to residents in every single Commissioners court pntd. We have talked -- precinct, to we have talked to nearby residents of the tds, they say absolutely the county should take a stand against problem landfills in the northeast. We have talked to residents in precinct 2. The residents have a very broad perspective on this. They know if there's problems they should be addressed and addressed firmly by our county government. I hope that you will take a stand in favor of the resolution, put yourselves on record. I haven't heard anyone say, it's cients of a question to -- kind of a question to me, has there been threats from the landfill ifs you take a stand -- landfills if you take a stand now they are not going to look for sites. If so that seems really illogical. I don't know what the reason for not taking this stand is. It seems to me that you can do both. Pass the resolution, put yourselves on record and proceed with the delay of a sight ordinance and efforts to do studies, regional studies. I don't see them as incompatible. But I also see, I have a question about -- about judge Biscoe, your strategy in that -- in that t.d.s. Expressed that they are interested in looking for other sites as well, why they aren't included more except as an advisory capacity in -- in five. It seems like they should also be willing to delay any expansion permit, which I don't think is going to be a problem for them and that in 4 and 5 they should be included equally with b.f.i. And waste management. My understanding is that they have offered the county to -- to -- to develop provisions if they were to be the only operator in the -- in this immediate region, which seems unlikely, if -- if these landfills really are going to find new sites, that they would make sure that there are provisions so that they would not -- would not unreasonably escalate rates for instance. So I don't understand why tds isn't more fully covered by your approach, but I encourage you to -- to put yourselves on record. Three weeks ago we had a very alarming proposal in terms of the county backing off, taking a stand. You don't -- you have all the rope -- you have all of the reasons that you need today to take a stand and I encourage you to do that. At the same time you can do everything in the -- in judge Biscoe's approach.
>> let me say to you, you made a comment about the threat. It has been a threat. The threat has been this, an example, here's an example here. The -- the -- the possibility of going forth with the ordinance, aadopting an ordinance that would include the landfills, landfills, we have already adopted an ordinance that include everybody else other than landfills for solid waste fults. If you want to do that, call it a threat, they will go ahead and file a permit. The neighborhoods have said if you are going to file a permit, go ahead and file a permit. They are filing a permit for expansion purposes. This is part of the problem. It is I think very appropriate for us to -- to support the resolution and -- in item no. 7 because of the -- of the language that's -- that's involved and embedded here that oppose expansion of variances. This is the whole the crux of the whole matter. Variances, variances, because we have floodplain situations in both of those landfills. Our floodplain ordinance of course is something that we worked on for a while. It was approved and adopted in 2001. So yes they would love to expand. If they do they would violate and encroach in our floodplain. So it is an issue. So let's, you know, I understand what you are saying. I appreciate that. But I guess the threat if you want to look at it symbolic, yes, if you do this then we will do that. Otherwise we will sit back, blah blah blah blah, don't do this do this don't file for the expansion, file for a permit to expand. That has been placed on the table there. That's what we really have before us is that right there.
>> but Commissioner Davis, with regard, they haven't -- as far as i've heard, said that if you pass a resolution putting yourselves on record opposing expansions then they are going to rush to the tceq -- no, no, no, I was talking about the ordinance.
>> the ordinance is really not on the table except as a delay of six months.
>> right. I?m referring districtly to an -- strictly to an ordinance per se.
>> we have an important question. That is whether we should plan to take this item back up at 1:30, or take action now. We have two members of the court who have lunch commitments elsewhere. Either is fine with me. I would be happy to hear those who have come down to give comments, but have not had an opportunity to do so. And we typically before for lunch from 12:00 to 1:30.
>> I think there's only probably two or three of us left. Left to talk.
>> [indiscernible]
>> do you think that we could -- we could conclude in 10 minutes?
>> I will be very short.
>> we have -- we have places to be. We -- we have commitments.
>> right.
>> that has been well known that we have commitments over the lunch hour.
>> you want us to hear you out and take action this afternoon? With the full court here?
>> that will be fine.
>> yeah.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> i've hung in there for three years listening to everybody and listening to both sides. And that's what us a court. We listen to all sides and we consider a lot of issues other than just simply making a symbolic stance or political or screaming back and forth. I don't want to do that. I want to go through this process in a thoughtful manner and come up with a good solution. And granted it's not going to make every single person happy, but I think I?m obligated to do this in a very thoughtful manner so that we can honor all obligations. And everybody's right. But i'd be glad to wait and then take action, but, you know, I understand my colleagues have other commitments. I have commitments too that I really would like to have honored when I make those commitments to be somewhere.
>> judge, I?m not ready to let this thing go. I have commitments to make. I think we need to go to lunch, but i've got enough things to say that I want everybody to hear it. And that's not right now.
>> do you want to recess until 1:30 and put it off including the discussion so that we're not shortchanging anybody.
>> if you don't mind also, judge, I would also like to address number 5. [overlapping speakers].
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM