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 - Afternoon Discussion
Good afternoon, we have just returned from a lunch recess. And we were in the midst of discussing items 6, 7 and 8 before lunch and we had a couple of speakers who had not had an opportunity to address the court. And mr. Macafee was one of them, I believe. And mrs. Macafee, also. And anybody else who has not given comments today and would like to do so, please come forward. We have three chairs left. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. My name is melanie macafee. We are at a crossroads. We have been working with the county for a long time. We all have worked hard on the ordinance much then we all worked on contracts. Then we all worked hard on odor study and then we all worked on -- on the environmental summit. Yet somehow they all ended in stalemate. Now, you want to work on another memorandum. I say stop. I feel confident that there cannot be a solution worked out that will be good for the environment, good for the citizens of Travis County and good for w.m.i. And b.f.i. Unfortunately, all of these issues, I believe, could have worked out if the dialogue had come from another direction. Namely, what is sustainable? What is the ideal for siting landfills? What will protect the environment? Where should populations occur in Travis County? Where should trash be collected for our county? How responsible should our capco neighboring counties be for the trash they generate? So, now, we have no citing ordinance for landfills, the northeast community still has the same problems. There is no discussion on establishing a solid waste management plan for Travis County that could be a step forward for reducing landfill need and in the meantime w.m.i. And b.f.i. Are Marching forward with their plans for expansion. How much money has w.m.i. Spent during these years of talk on developing their expansion plans? The option to purchase the wilder tract is upon us. Or the tract has already been purchased. So all this time has been lost? And up to $4 million has possibly been invested in promoting expansion. I think when we talk about how they have not filed a permit down at tceq, what is not being said is that they are spending millions of dollars to expand on. And I think to omit that fact from -- from the records is -- is a huge omission. So all this time that's been lost and up to $4 million has possibly been invest in this promoting expansion in an area that is completely inappropriate for a regional landfill, with an operator who has a decade-long history of violations and neighborhood damage, who promotes landfilling, not recycling, reducing or reusing and who has more tax sick waste than what was discovered in love canal, the time is now stop talk and begin the healing process. Pass the resolution to stop the expansion of the northeast landfills. We need to send a signal to the landfills not to spend $2 million on a possible expansion. There is no reason for them to continue with this option because once they have invested $4 million, do you think it might be harder to come to the bargaining table? I say that it will be. Begin the process to pass the ordinance, locate a new site that encourages waste reduction and begin to develop a waste management plan that is a positive solution for Travis County and the citizens that serve and not a tool for corporate greed.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I don't know if the court can address where -- where this situation is at with the purchase of the land. I don't know if the court is in a position to comment on that. Or -- or will they?
>> I don't know that I know to be honest. Has w.m.i. Bought the wilder tract, yet?
>> [indiscernible]
>> [indiscernible] normally provides that response. The last time I chatted with him, he thought they were duty-bound to do it soon, but I didn't know whether that was a matter of days or weeks --
>> I think that it's a matter of days or weeks, which to me make it imperative that the court speak soon because you would be sending a signal not to -- to invest another two million plus dollars.
>> well, we don't have the authority to order them not to buy the wilder tract.
>> well, the resolution is not an order, but it is setting the tone for whether or not you want expansion of the northeast landfills. So by -- by not passing the resolution it sends more signal to go ahead with your auction and purchase the wilder tract -- with your option and purchase the wilder tract. Is that the signal that you want to send.
>> they should know without us saying it, they purchase land at their own risk. They have to overcome the same obstacle no matter what we do with the resolution. That is to persuade tceq that an expansion permit ought to be granted. Now, let's assume that we have some clout there. I think that as a governmental entity we have some responsibility to respond to a specific application to expand. The understand thing is that I think that we have a responsibility to try to come up with hard evidence in opposition. I don't know that our simply signing on to the resolution that you all adopted is the hard evidence that tceq is looking for. Based on our conversation with the director of enforcement, who came over and chatted with us when we were looking for the executive director, their standards are a whole lot higher than I have been hearing. So I don't doubt any fact [indiscernible] in the resolution, but I don't have any evidence to support any of them. Even history, you don't hear me disagreeing with the history because I really don't know. I would think that a governmental entity operating in good faith would have some responsibility to come up with harder evidence than just a resolution that we were handed. I would think that whoever is listening at the state regulatory agency would want to know what facts we had in addition to the one that's they have been acquiring over the years. So I really -- I say the resolution is symbolic because there's no way for us to back it up. The other thing that I think that as a governmental entity we probably are more duty-bound to respond to a specific application to expand than residents. I have never suggested what a resident should or should not do. I think that's y'all's thing. But as to what I should do, though, I think actually acting on behalf of Sam Biscoe and the county judge, the action is taken on behalf of Travis County. So if I were serious of a resolution of this magnitude, then I would have staff out there who are trying to dig up a whole lot more hard evidence than what I have said. And maybe that was just -- that would just supplement the allegations that you all have there.
>> judge, you are assuming they are going to go ahead and file. All that I’m saying is that a lot of money is fixing to be shelled out and at this point if you really are intent on looking at what a better solution can be, I’m just saying it's more likely to happen if there's not $4 million invested in a side.
>> if they buy the wilder tract, they are assuming that tceq will grant their application to expand. Won't they? I’m assuming that if they agree not to file an application to expand for six month, they will violate that promise. If they violate that promise, I think in addition to alleging whatever takts they can prove, we also show alleged, they violated the agreement with us and you can't trust them.
>> they went ahead and purchased the land is what you are saying --
>> if they filed an application during the six-month period. I think it would be inappropriate for to us tell them not to buy the wilder tract. They do it at their own risk. I stopped talking about the wilder tract when we had the last discussion because it was clear to me it was a lightning rod that was getting a whole lot more attention than it was worth. You don't see the wilder tract mentioned in my one-pager. That's bengs signal.
>> the resolution does not say do not purchase the wilder tract, it was no expansion.
>> I think it's quite clear from what happened in this court, if wm chooses to move ahead on the wilder tract they are beyond doing that at their own risk, there were clear signals, they clearly understand I think, not only do I not want them on there, but I absolutely was adamant about the county being on the hook during a search process for another site for one penny of the risk that they are taking continuing on with the potential development of that site. I don't want to be there because that was a risk of something between two and I don't know how many millions of dollars and those were dollars that I didn't think this county would obligated to pay for holding them off while we urge them to go look for a site. They clearly -- I think they clearly understand how I feel about the wilder tract.
>> have you made it clear your position on type 4 landfills in the wilder tract, what is your position there.
>> the wilder tract, I don't care if it's one or four, nothing on the wilder tract.
>> I have not been aware of that. I thank you for that.
>> mr. Macafee, how are you doing?
>> very good, you yourself, judge?
>> well, i've had better days, mr. Macafee. But i've had worse one, also, so I’m all right.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. Well, I know that I’m not the first person even today to say that we have been fighting this for two and a half years, some figure going about, between two and three. These landfills have been Marching forward. When we first launched into this, it was at their pleading that we didn't go through with -- with an ordinance until they had a chance to -- to have some input into that ordinance. So -- so we were right on the brink of passing an ordinance that would have really helped a lot of folks in Travis County to -- to have some assurances about, you know, their property and what they could do with it, that sort of a thing. So -- so it is a bit frustrating after two and a half years of -- of -- that we basically still have no protections. We don't have anything that we can really call at this point a protection. We have a much more educated county government and we have a much more educated populus, I guess, for those who are out there listening. And -- this resolution, you know, though it may be somewhat symbolic and somewhat political, to us it seems like that the county would be making a statement of what we have -- what you have learned over the last two and a half years. And it would also send these folks a very clear message. It seems like there could be nothing -- we keep wondering how -- how when they say that they are interested in moving, you know, several people have gotten up here and said that we just don't believe it. That's because of after years and decades of fighting them, where they said that they are going to move in the past, they have never made any -- any forays out there to look for land. So -- so and -- and it isn't even until just in the last four months or so even in the court said anything that would lead us to believe and it started out with very -- very mild and I think maybe some of you all got on them about their language they were using, they started getting a little more serious about, at least in their words, about looking. But we still doubt their seriousness about this. It seems to me that there -- if we -- maybe if we changed something -- I mean, I would love to see us change very little parts of the resolution, for instance just, you know --, you know -- not, you know, having an expansion for two years, let's say no more expansions out there. There is a huge body of evidence that you all have heard from the 4 million, estimated 4 million gallons of toxic waste to the poor location of these landfills, the -- the lack of liners in areas, just -- just poorly run. There are just so many reasons to oppose any expansion here that -- that you know I would love to see us change that part of the resolution, just make it final that there is no more after this and i'll tell ya, they will start looking for land real fast if you do that. They will know that their time is -- out there is numbered and that they need to find -- if they want to do business in central Texas, they need to find a new spot. So -- so I would like to see -- I am here to say that I would really love to see you all support the resolution, we could certainly make some minor modifications in it like that. I’m sure. And -- and time Marches on. These company these -- these companies are moving forward with their plans, the fight is going to be at the state level very soon. The more we are strung out fighting it at this level, at the county level, the less we are able to fight at the level that we need to be moving to. So it is hurting us, we have neglected our business, we have neglected our families, we need to move on. And we need your help. We came in initially asking for it and -- and -- there are also, at this point, looking at Pflugerville, putting in a reservoir and pumping water, fresh water for drinking purposes and at this point unless they changed it, that pipeline is going a quarter mile from the nine acre toxic waste site. I know in my own facility I could not cross fresh water lines with septic lines. It's because septic could get sucked into the fresh water line ifs you had a leak. So the city of Austin and the city of Pflugerville, the residents need to know that this pipeline positioning does not seem very smart to me. I am not an engineer. So I will -- I will kick that to someone else's department of expertise. But -- but we need to have the governmental bodies in central Texas, Austin and Travis County, protect us, protect the Pflugerville citizens for water -- for water from -- from being contaminated as it goes through these pipes. And through this -- this -- this area that is quite possibly loaded with chemicals. At any rate, thank you very much.
>> thank you,.
>> thank you.
>> I think that he brought up some good points. I think all you all have brought up some good points, I don't want to delay going to the other persons, but I would like to ask when I get an opportunity for time, I would like to ask again if these companies are allowed to expand, even if they go and file an application to expand, for extension or permit the application for tceq, tomorrow, would that -- for w.m.t. And also b.f.i., With the suggested expansion that they have in the plan encroaching our floodplain, is that something that Travis County at that time can [indiscernible] because of our floodplain ordinance, would these expansions be basically encroaching into our floodplain?
>> I understand -- my understanding of their expansion plans, simply based on the material I foresee -- that I have seen from the landfills, it's not the application that they have actually brought. My understanding of the w.m.i. Expansion on to the wilder tract is that it would not violate our floodplain ordinance. In other words, they are not going within 500 feet of the floodplain.
>> okay.
>> the material i've seen from b.f.i., They are going within 500 feet of the floodplain. So it does raise an issue -- based on the material that I have seen today.
>> I think that it's very important that -- that these things are flushed out because even in the proposal, and again we have been wrestling with it for a while and the history -- I think it's very important as far as the history that happened on this Commissioners court. This Commissioners court with the exception I guess of Daugherty, who wasn't here when Commissioner baxter was here, we dealt with this same issue. Of course you were right. We almost got to the point where we did get a -- an ordinance in place that had landfill language in it whereby we could have addressed a lot of these as far as an ordinance is concerned. It was stripped out. Of course that ordinance didn't have a chance as long as it was there. So -- so it is a -- a merit to the things that you were saying, there is some problems with a lot of these things that are coming up. That's why you have in your resolution to oppose the expansion/variances because these are some of the things that -- that folks are going to be asking for are variances. If they decide to expand. So -- so I think that it's very important that those points you brought up, very relevant and adequate. So thank you.
>> good afternoon forks the record, trek -- good afternoon, for the record trek english again. Judge you are saying you wanted hard evidence, you don't feel there's hard evidence. I think there is plenty of hard evidence to support our resolution. But if we were to remove the whereas and you were just to consider the last paragraph where you basically, there's no symbol, there's no -- to me there is no political agenda at all behind the resolution. To me the expansion is like a sort of [indiscernible], getting closer and closer to our next, we were trying to put some distance between the sword and our necks, that's why we were asking that the expansions basically are removed from the equation of talking about anything so that we don't constantly clash. So now in order to -- since i've heard Commissioner Davis saying he's definitely against landfill expansion, Commissioner Daugherty is against expansion, you have stated that you were against the expansions, and Commissioner Sonleitner is at least against one of the expansions or one of the landfill expansions, and I don't know exactly where you stand --
>> I’m listening to all sides and I will make the right decision for the right reason.
>> okay. Well, based on that, is there any room-- let me tell you where I’m coming from in just a second. Six month, we are back here, they are having maybe from extracts of land 7 again that little tool that we've had, we will do the next step, but before that we want you to grant us an expansion. That's what I’m trying to prevent. I’m trying to prevent this loop-de-loop, dealing with expansion before anything goes forward with more than six months. How about if we compromise and we ask them and the county and us, everybody, basically it's on their shoulders, whether paul and john, sounds like two appear apostles, I’m sorry, I was in rome too long, I guess, whether paul and john are willing to -- no, no, to postpone filing an expansion for a year rather than six months. In the --
>> that possibility was called to my attention at about 1:20 when I entered the court. At 1:40 I asked them that. They communicated with my office apparently. My understanding is that waste management will agree to one year. B.f.i. Believes that it cannot do that. B.f.i.'ss position is they would rather sit down with the court's in six months and come to an understanding where they are. My understanding for b.f.i. Is that they would like to see the strategy as outlined in my memo. Waste management would agree to change the 180 days to 365. If I am misstating something, let me know. I assume the reason for that is that under the current permit, waste management has much longer than b.f.i. Does.
>> judge?
>> the other thing about -- b.f.i. --
>> [indiscernible]
>> are we going to come up and speak, judge?
>> I’m going to call on you in a little bit, anyway, you might as well come on up, because I’m definitely --
>> I was trying to summarize the two responses that I received from you, john and paul, when I interested the court's session I guess at about 1:40. It was in response to can we instead of a six-month moratorium on filing an application to expand, change that to one year. While I said it was my understanding waste management would agree to one year, b.f.i. Would rather come back to the court in six months for a status report and determination at that point as to b.f.i.'s follow-up action and the court's position.
>> john joseph, representing waste management. I’m going to sit next to ms. English since she said I was an apostle. Thank you. [laughter] judge, I think whatever we do should be consistent. We don't have what I was communicating to you is we don't have a problem with a longer time period on the [indiscernible], whatever we can get the same that is equal, I think we ought to do that. We ought to push it out as far as we can. I said a year. I don't think they can do that, short of that but longer than six months, we are willing to go along with that, too. But lengthen the process, give us more time to look. For sites.
>> paul?
>> john's observation of having two different deadlines could be a problem, at least in observation. We can extend our suggested six months, I think it's seven months to November. [indiscernible] of November.
>> we can go along with that, judge.
>> we were trying to avoid the [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> we are not avoiding anything. That's just a pipe dream. It's coming back. The question is whether it's six months, seven months, one year or three years or --
>> [indiscernible] two years.
>> I have a couple of questions for -- for both of the -- both of the -- b.f.i. And also waste management of Texas. I think this resolution, I know you all probably had a chance to look at it, would you object to the support of this Commissioners court if in Commissioner -- if this Commissioners court was to approve of such a resolution that we have before you now? Would you object to that? The way that it's structured and worded right this time? This is a resolution that came from the neighborhoods. Would you have an objection to that? If so, why?
>> are you questioning mow that?
>> I’m -- are you questioning me?
>> I’m questioning the operators of b.f.i. And w.m.i., Both of them.
>> I haven't seen the resolution, but I know that I have a problem with what I have heard to be the whereas provisions. I think that it's precipitous for a body as yourselves to make cart blanche a statement that you are going to oppose expansions period. I have to --
>> well --
>> I would have to see, scrutinize the resolution more carefully before I could opine about the essential whereas, but I think that it's a bad idea except for a case-by-case basis to say that you object out of hand any --
>> I think it's a bad idea when you ask -- consistently ask this Commissioners court to delay, dlairks delay an adoption of a solid waste siting ordinance that would have actually had language included into it that would have been able to determine distances and stuff like that -- unfortunately, Commissioner, I think that siting ordinance would seriously hamstring if not make impossible our ability to locate a landfill anywhere in Travis County. I have to take the position that I take because it's factual to me. It's perfectly consistent with my positions on the siting ordinance that I would additionally take the position that I think that it is precipitous of you to approve out of hand any expansions to landfills. I understand that you disagree with that. I respect that. You asked me that question, I answered it.
>> okay.
>> I’m glad that you answered that. I appreciate it, very, very much. By the same token, a couple of -- there didn't necessarily have to be an agreement in the direction that we were going at that time was disclosed that -- that b.f.i. And also w.m.i. Would be willing to move forward and go ahead and look for a site --
>> was that a question?
>> no. I’m talking about -- conversation, as far as looking for a site, that would be top priority for you to look for another -- other than the 290 east landfill?
>> are you talking about a conversation that you and I had.
>> exactly.
>> the statement that I made to you was it's perfectly consistent and exactly the same as I’m saying right now. That is that we are willing to forebear on filing a permanent application for six months. During that period of time make it a priority to seek and identify new green field, landfill site, 100% with my statements to you on Friday.
>> well, the six months end of that didn't come into play. In other words, it wasn't a time line per se. It was just basically spoke about you making top priority to aggressively look for site and I commended you on that. I’m still commending you on it to do just that. I guarantee, these particular landfills are located anywhere else in Travis County eastern east Austin, the eastern part of Travis County, the results of where we are going on this Commissioners court may be totally different. That's a may. But anyway, I’m really here to try to come up with some kind of resolve. I think that we have all worked diligently with you. As far as I’m concerned I would love to post the solid waste siting ordinance that would actually deal with landfill operators on the agenda as quickly as possible. However we have here that -- in the judge's proposal another delay as far as filing solid waste sight ordinance that would have been able to govern the buffer area and everything else which will give the protection that this community is really looking for and really needs. Now, I have no problems of defending the residents of Travis County, the residents of precinct 1. I think that we are all looking for a goal here and that is to make sure -- I told you this on the phone, to make sure that your business is able to be a successful business, but based and contingent on the things that would be beneficial to all. Beneficial to you and yet beneficial to the community. And right now you have a choke hold on the community in precinct 1 in east Austin. And lord knows I wouldn't want that any anybody's setting. I don't care where it is in Travis County. The point is that we need to do better than what we are doing. Here. And you and the community and us will have to try to get to that end. But here a resolution has been presented in good faith by the neighborhoods who have worked diligently hard for two years, ever since we got the floodplain ordinance passed in July of 2001 and actually the -- it came up in Commissioner Gomez's precinct when dead animals were being composted in a creek in the creek between del valle and creedmore and that was the premise and basis of looking at a floodplain ordinance and it was in precinct 4 that we did that. And here the precinct, in isn't 1, things are being violated, the possibility of a whole lot of things going on, things that are happening here, it just doesn't add up. But of course I’m going to speak what I have to say on this and hopefully we can work together. That's what we have been trying to do. But this period of time that has gone by in my mind has not been beneficial to no one except we continue to go back and forth with you, the community back up here, a month from now, two months from now on the same issue, we haven't gotten, we haven't made any progress. The point is: are you going to expand, are you not going to expand? That's the question. If you are going to expand, I think that you need to tell this Commissioners court and tell this community that, yes, we are going to seek expansion. Can I have an answer to that question? Where are you all currently right now?
>> if your question, your first question I think was were we in favor of this resolution. I this think the obvious answer to that is no we are not in favor of this resolution, we have been trying to work out an agreement with the county and with the neighbors for two to three years. This resolution says you will absolutely oppose our expansion. That's not what we have been trying to achieve so we are not in favor of this resolution. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
>> no.
>> do we intend to expand? We intend to file our application to expand because the time lines associated with seeking an expansion of a new site or an existing site are such that if we put all of our eggs in the basket of the new site and it was adamantly opposed or fatally flawed and we didn't get it, then we would have nothing. So we are going to protect ourselves by seeking -- by filing an expansion at this location and see where we are as we progress down parallel paths.
>> well, that -- that answers basically my question. Like I say again, I’m going to try to work with you, both of you. I think that I expressed that to john and [indiscernible] when I spoke with them on a couple of Friday, I have been working with you to make sure that you find another location than the current location that you are presently operating. But of course I’m going to oppose any expansion at this particular location on the 290 east landfill site because I think that we are -- we are going backwards, we are retrogressing instead of going to another setting. I’m willing to do, as I stated earlier with you, to -- to sift as much as possible, whatever it takes to doing that, I’m here for you. We are not to where we need to do but like I say that to you also, as soon as we can get that ordinance back on the Commissioners court agenda as far as the solid waste sight ordinance, hopefully for adoption, which you includes the landfill language that was stripped out, I would like to bring that back. Of course it takes three votes to run this Commissioners court. Of course right now I’m on the short end of that vote. But I do want to make sure that the record reflect, when the motion comes up on item no. 7, I’m going to make that motion to support the neighborhood's resolution to oppose expansion variances at those two particular landfills as far as now therefore be it resolved clause. But I’m going to come back later with that motion, but I want to make sure that the record really state what it is. I think you all are getting us to that point. I think you all are -- I thank you all for your comments, I’m willing to work with you to help you move on out of there.
>> ms. English, did you get your --
>> did you get your question answered ?
>> no, we have a contract with the owners of the wilder tract to purchase that piece of property. I don't think the court nor anyone else really wants to try to interfere with those contractual relationships. They will go as they go in that contract. We have not sought nor do we seek any variances to the city's or the county's floodplain ordinance. And the -- the preliminary work that's been done has demonstrated that whatever expansion occurred on the wilder tract would fall squarely within the parameters in the mandates of the county's floodplain ordinance. But the expansion is not, at least at this date, a fait accompli. We offered at the beginning of the negotiations for a mechanism for that not occurring. That wasn't or didn't set well with some members of the court so we pulled it off of the table. So at this juncture, we have agreed and will agree with the court though the to file any applications with the tceq for any permit expansions or any new permit applications on the wilder tract. For the period of time that is established in an equitable fashion upon both of us within this resolution and will make it a priority and diligently work to find the green field sites in and around Travis County and when it comes back up again, judge, at that point in time we will continue working with you.
>> if our position is the same after the six month moratorium.
>> yes, sir.
>> by looking in good faith, you mean basically giving it a whole lot of effort.
>> absolutely.
>> let me point out something that is different now hopefully is different now. That is when we have looked and we have been diligently trying to look so as to not put all of our eggs in this basket which is contested, you run into situations, a minority land owner, owner but a smaller but essential piece of land is not interested in selling. If the county can bring to bear its power of imminent domain that can change our prospects of success. That's what's different. That's why I have confidence or at least reasonable expectations that we can be successful in the next six months.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> john, why don't you go first, if you will, I need to know definitively how many years, what you all have now, do you not know that?
>> that's --
>> do you know what your --
>> I think I told everybody on the court when I spoke to them individually, that mr. Jacobs was not going to be here today and wouldn't be here until the 20th. I understand that we had to get it up. I’m not -- I don't have that information. I believe the last statement was -- whatever the time period was in the -- in the m.o.u.
>> okay. That's fine if you don't know. [multiple voices]
>> I cannot --
>> you will call me. I’m trying to get a few definitives.
>> I understand. But we have answered that at least three times at this table since you've been here!
>> well, if you've answered it three times, answer it for me one more time right now.
>> I don't remember. I think it's 12 years, I don't remember.
>> that's the answer. I’m not trying to beat you up over not knowing, I’m just asking you. If you say I don't know then you also say it's been said three times, I’m asking -- maybe I was at the bathroom one of those three times. I’m trying to find out. If steve will call me and tell me --
>> we will call you with the number as soon as we gets back --
>> that's all that I’m asking for.
>> paul, how many years does b.f.i. Have presently with what they have permit-wise right now.
>> approximately six years, probably a little less.
>> okay. There's a couple of things that I need to get out since i've been quiet and since my name is on number 7. Let me start out by saying that I think that I have been very consistent with this to the property owners, and to -- to the industry. My problem has always been odor. I got into this thing with over odor. Now I am pleased with the good that the industry has done with their odor. Is it great? No. I know that it's not, you know, totally great. Because I go out there fairly consistently and just drive down with both windows rolled down, I stop on blue goose and there are times that it is beyond what I would consider to be acceptable. So I know that those times are there. But I also know that by just the sheer numbers that those numbers have gotten a whole lot better. Not just a little bit, but a whole lot. I think that the industry you have gotten their attention. I mean they have done as good of a job maybe as they can do given moving. I mean except for moving. In 7, what I said three weeks ago, that I was supportive of, was not being supportive of expansion of type 1 landfills. I said type 1 landfills. And the resolution that I read before I put my name on it that Commissioner Davis gave me, it specifically said type 1 landfills. I still feel that way. I know some of you don't want any kind of landfill out there. I think, I mean there is a distinction for me between type 4 and type 1 landfills. And that might be the middle ground that I find with the industry. Being out there and being able to still have some business on that site. Now, then I guess somebody is going to ask me, are you for the expansion of a type 4 landfill? I will tell you that I won't have as big of a heart burn with that at all as I do type 1 landfills. So I want -- I mean if I’m going to support 7, I came here fully supportive with my name being on 7 today with Commissioner Davis, until, you know, I recognized that this language today on our agenda doesn't have type 1 landfills. I’m not supportive of this. I want people to understand. I don't think it makes any difference to me whether it's six months or two years. I think if we have the ability, which we obviously do, we have attorneys telling us, we have our attorneys telling us, we do have condemnation capabilities, that I honestly think that we can go out and be a great assist in the industry to identify and find a place where we can do these landfills. Out of these areas. I mean is there an attorney in the office, in the room that's telling me that that is incorrect, that we would not have the capability of going out and using our condemnation authorities so so -- I mean if push comes to shove we can do that.
>> there are statutory grants of authority to the county to -- [indiscernible]
>> then, I mean as far as I’m concerned I think that is weapon that we have in our arsenal that could only be helpful to industry. I’m willing to -- I mean I’m willing to do that. I know that we will have some flack from somebody when we do that because we will be close to someone that we are not close to right now. I’m not going to change my opinion about that. I’m also supportive of if that means going and being supportive of the industry to say okay we have got to move these landfills, which means that we have additional costs, I’m willing to say to the community, to Travis County as a community, you know what, yes, you did have an increase in your garbage because there was an increase in what we needed to do in this community to move these things away from everybody in this community knows that you don't have to live in northeast Austin to know that this is not an acceptable neighbor to have. But also, I’m willing to say, that it is something that we have got to have because I don't think that we are going to be good enough at getting people to recycle, reuse, reduce, compost, all of the necessary things. But I’m also willing to be as supportive as I can and use whatever powers that I have as an elected official from the Commissioners court to try and institute the best practices that we can do. Under those circumstances. I mean I -- I want you to understand, if I find out that tceq is absolutely not going to allow b.f.i. In this case, because of the short term that you all have, I will tell you that I will do everything within my power to go and to persuade them that we have got to let you all have the time that you all need -- because I do think that you're telling me the truth. I think that both industries are -- the same industry, but both companies are saying, you know, what, we get it. We want to get out there, we want to find it because we don't want this any more than you all do. And I’m telling you that I think that it is incumbent on us that the most powerful thing that I think that we have, which is unfortunately not as powerful as we really -- what we really need, we are not the tceq. And I would hope that the tceq would just take our recommendation that you know what, all that we are trying to do is be responsible, elected officials for a part of our citizenry that we don't think ought to be subjected to it any more and Commissioner Davis, I will tell you that you can see how I have felt about this. I would be just as -- if I’m the precinct 3 Commissioner, and i've had people in my precinct saying what in the heck are you doing in the middle of that thing? I’m telling you I’m in the middle of it because they are citizens of Travis County. Doesn't make any difference if they are in precinct 3. You know what I would be willing to stand up and say if you could find one of these things to put in precinct 3, maybe what we ought to do if you got garbage in precinct 3, you put your garbage in precinct 3. If you have garbage in precinct 1, put your garbage in precinct 1. We are probably not going to have that, but I would stand up and say that is only the right thing to do. What we are all trying to do is the right thing. I’m not trying to drive industry out of business. I want you to be in business, quite honestly I want as many people as we have in the industry because one thing about industry, it's competition is what it's all about. 7 you stop competition, all of a sudden you have prices that go places that none of us wants to deal with. So -- I will when it comes time, I’m sure Commissioner Davis is going to move for 7, if I can't get the caveat if there that we have got to omit type 4 landfills, I’m not going to be supportive of the way that it is written today. That was not what I intended to do, again that was not what was in the resolution that I signed off on. And I also don't know why there's a difference, judge, perhaps you can -- you can clarify this for me. Is -- is why I can't do 7 and not be for 8.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> i've listened to all of the explanations the other members of the court have gotten in executive session, with our attorneys, and other such meetings. And i've chosen not to get political about this at all. It's too important an issue to do that. And I know that people that I associate with on this court i've told and explained many times that I learned as a democrat that as soon as the election is over I leave my label at the door and concentrate on the issues that affect everybody in this county. Equally, I really do not try to get into the political instances that -- stances that kind of disrespect people in what they do in this community to provide services. But I do want you to know that i've heard all of the explanations that everybody else has heard. And based on that knowledge that I think I have gained by listening to other people who have more information to provide me other than just what I get here in court from the public is that -- and I’m basing my decisions on that information, and I remember what has been presented to me. The other thing that I have said to people is that the other label that I leave at the door is Commissioner precinct 4. And I really try to make an effort to listen to the interests that everybody in this county has, including people from precinct 4. But I hope that everybody understands that when I get elected, I sit here to listen to everybody, not just my friends, not just my precinct 4 constituents. And especially with issues like this that affect everybody. What I wish we could do, as Commissioner Daugherty, is that we maybe did not permit any kind of development over the edward's aquifer. However that means, that some of this development then comes east of i-35. I wish more good development came east of i-35. Unfortunately, the geology of the county is such that east of i-35 is where the clay dirts are, and those are the ones that are more easier, I guess, in which to have dumps. And the dirts expand and then they shrink, and it's easier to bury trash. It is not possible to do that in the western part of the county. Now, we can get political about that all that we want to. It doesn't remove the fact that the geology of the county has a lot to do with what is located there and what is not. And so while I would probably say that I wouldn't want to live next to a landfill and I also don't what my constituentsñ@$' precinct 4 to live in a landfill, so where do we go? Where are we going to go? So it's not a matter of politics, of saying those buzz words that make us do what people think we ought to do, it's a lot more complicated than that. And I need to consider all of those issues before I decide what needs to be done. So if I’m not jumping to conclusions to -- in the way some people would like, you know, I guess I don't know if I have to apologize for that. I’m trying to do the best job possible in the most professional manner and in the most respectful way, for everybody in Travis County, regardless of what precinct we live in. So I want to act on the basis of facts, on the basis of legal stances that are in the benefit of the greatest number of people in Travis County. And so I don't know that i've ever acted any differently. So I hope that no assumptions are made about where I stand or whether I’m being pressured by anybody or whether I’m being threatened by anybody. Those kinds of things don't come into my decision.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner?
>> just to make sure everyone knows where I am on this related to 6, 7 and 8. I have every intent at the point that a motion is made to support the judge's strategy, because I’m looking forward to voting for something that I think propels us closer to where we all want to be, and that is someplace else other than the northeast neighborhoods in terms of the current siting of these two landfills. I think the judge's strategy gets us there, whether it's a six-month or seven month, whatever, I want to be for something. Unfortunately, for me, Commissioner Daugherty, it is at odds that -- seven is at odds with me because it basically says that I have already closed my mind and I am no longer listening to the debate related to the current situation. It doesn't mean at some point, it could be six months, it could be seven months, that that resolution could indeed be brought back up and I might land someplace else. And I also share the same concerns of Commissioner Daugherty related to there is a difference between type 1 and type 4. And type 1 is worse in my book. And in relation to number 6, it did not get a second, but I appreciate the fact that we do still have in our reserve account $98,000 to help propel forward at the appropriate time this discussion. It wasn't today, but there is that in reserve, and I would rather use the energies and the time and the money of those who have a stake in this and to see if we can get us moved forward as opposed to that our money should be first called. So I also see not doing a second on number 67. It's not saying I don't respect the fact that the Commissioner got $100,000 into our budget, but it's just not for today to move this. How I wish things were black and white and whoever generates the most e-mails and the most letters, most phone calls diseedz everything -- decides everything because my life would be so much easier on this, on gattis school road, on toll roads. You name it. But life is not like that. And we have to weigh and make very difficult decisions, and sometimes it's not what somebody else wants to hear. Now, I think we can still take many of the excellent ideas that ms. Mcafee and others have had related to the waste stream because if we don't stop it on the front end, like with jails, we can't build enough jails to put criminals in prison. Well, we can't build enough landfills if we don't do something about that waste stream. And I wish the folks were still here from the solid landfill committee because i've got a good suggestion. The city needs to cut in half the size of garbage container that we have and put that price down to like two bucks, and triple the cost for everything else. Because right now there is not much of a differential between the three sizes of bar garbage pales and if basically encourages you to fill er up in terms of the largest possible size. It takes me three weeks to fill up the smallest size because I am doing everything I can at this point in terms of repsychables. And I know there are a lot of other folks doing the same thing, but it's not going to be enough until we all take those extraordinary measures. And while we do that, let us not forget that will extend the permitted landfills at the northeast site. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there are folks who already have vested rights and commitments related to what's already there. Forget expansion. Already there. So I intend when we get the motion to support 8. 7 is not today. And 6 also not today. Thank you.
>> speaking of moving forward, the judge did make a motion to approve item number 8 with the 180 day moratorium on applications to expand and the court's agreement not to file a siting ordinance, plus the 110% effort to locate new sites. That was seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Commissioner Davis, if you have a substitute motion you would like to make?
>> no, sir. What I want to do is just -- I think we've already got a second. It's basically discussed and I don't want to make a substitute motion. I think I’m going to make an independent motion on item 8. This is a resolution that was brought forth to me by the neighborhood.
>> all in favor?
>> are we going to take up the offer that six months could go to seven months --
>> ic we ought to -- I think we ought to address it at six months. It's a serious progress report and we'll have a discussion then and see what's been done. My hope is that we not just chat in six months' time, but that we work on a new site. All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> against, yes. And let me explain my vote. I’m voting against this because of the resolution that I have here before us. I think this is going against what the neighborhood is actually recommending and wanting us to do. As you know, i've been a strong supporter of the residents of precinct 1. I am the Commissioner of precinct 1. And I think that this particular resolution they brought in good faith and wanted us to have it on record the issue at hand, and that is to oppose all expansion and also variances for these particular landfill operations on 290 east sites. So this is the reason why I’m opposing it because it's not in agreement with the therefore resolved clause in this particular resolution. Thank you.
>> is there another motion on six or seven?
>> seven, i'd like to move that we accept the resolution from the neighborhood associations on expansions of the two particular landfill operators, wmi and bfi, at the 290 east site in the form of a resolution. I will move approval of this particular resolution.
>> is there a second?
>> can I do a substitute? Or offer?
>> well, without a second, no substitute would be appropriate.
>> you can ask the maker of the motion if there's a friendly that you might be able to second.
>> would you be willing to accept a friendly?
>> yes, I would, contingent on what the neighborhood would say on that particular thing.
>> friendly would be with the calf yet that the type 4 landfills would not be considered as part of it.
>> okay. Ific hear from -- if I could hear from the neighborhoods on that, but ij they're talking about all expansions.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that's what I want -- that was the original.
>> so what are you saying, trek?
>> well, basically what Commissioner Daugherty was saying was that we narrow it down that the county will oppose any expansion of type 1 landfills for two years. In the county.
>> so what we have in the resolution as it stands now is the thing that you guys are going to fully support. Is that what I’m hearing?
>> we need to be more specific about the -- the opposition of the type of landfills. I think that's what Commissioner Daugherty is asking, which is fine.
>> which is fine?
>> yeah. He basically wants to be more specific about his opposing landfill expansion of any type 1 landfills.
>> okay. And type 1 you want to include in that? That's what the neighborhood -- is this all the neighborhood associations, are you in agreement with what trek is suggesting? I need to hear from you.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> trust me, I don't need it.
>> are y'all in agreement. Yes. With that I will accept the friendly that Commissioner Daugherty has brought up.
>> my understanding is that the friendly restricted the motion to cover only type 1 landfills?
>> that's my understanding. Is that true?
>> so the motion is to approve the resolution that opposes expansion of the type 1 landfill.
>> and has that motion been seconded by Commissioner Daugherty?
>> yes.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Daugherty and Davis voting in favor. Voting against, show Commissioners Sonleitner and Gomez and yours truly, the county judge. Thank y'all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM