Travis County Commissioners Court
November 9, 2004
Item 40
40 is to consider and take appropriate action on supplemental environmental
project agreements between Travis County and Texas commission on environmental
quality. 40-a, acceptance of 14,000 contribution from b.f.i. Waste systems
of north america, incorporated, and pro poed s.e.p. Scope of work and 40-b,
approval of waste management proposed s.e.p. Scope of work. These were approved
-- so we're receiving b.f.i.'s today in a and approving the scope of work
for both of these. Any issues on these?
>> john kuhl, t.n.r. None that I’m aware of. I know you've
had a lot of public comment today and I think that a meeting that we had back
in late August made at least some head way with communicating to community
members what our intentions were on these projects and I certainly don't to
speak for them, but I think bottom line is we're going to be using $25,000
from the waste management portion to do roadside legal dumping cleanups, we'll
be using essentially the remainder of that, which is about 111,000 or -- is
that right? 22,000 for the erosion project. And what we've all kind of come
down to understanding is that you can't be a major evaluation for creek and
major rechanneling project or anything like that with those kind of dollars.
I think it's pretty common sense that we will just maximize the use of that
money by [indiscernible] solid waste removal and essentially enhancing the
flow and the aesthetics of the creek there. And that's my recommendation is
that we just focus on the $25,000, the 111,000 enhancement in the creek and
we have been meeting, having initial conversation with a.i.w. About doing
the actual cutting and hand work down in the creek. That does two things.
It gives that program a good project and a good environmental project to work
on. Secondly, it keeps us on the shoes of our staff pr- require additional
permitting from the corps of engineers and just kind of keeps it simple and
we'll support a.i.w. With our road and bridge folks in terms of hauling and
that kind of thing. So that's where we're headed wit and we just wanted to
make sure you all understood that and supported it and that's it.
>> joe?
>> yes, sir.
>> is there any disagreement -- last I spoke with the neighborhoods,
and I guess they can speak for themselves, as far as the use of this particular
moneys from w.m.i. And also b.f.i., And I do not think there's been any difference
as far as what you suggested that morning and from what the neighborhood association
is kind of illustrating, that may have altered a change. I would like to see
if there is anything from the neighborhood association, if things are still
in the movement of what you suggested this morning.
>> does anybody have an issue with this item, please come
forward. Otherwise we're about to approve it. These two we've looked at for
months. Just on to approve these, right?
>> right. It's their project and we're just degreing to implement
it.
>> -- agreeing to implement it.
>> any issues?
>> I would like to move approval if there hasn't been any
change on this. And with the intent of when would we actually get started,
especially with the flow enhancement? I know it's not enough money to really
get in into walnut creek and do a whole lot of stuff, the erosion and things
that have happened, however, there is some things that can be done. And my
question is when could this actually take place?
>> officially by accept ing this money, there are no more
administrative barriers. So I would say with within the next 30 to 60 days
we ought to get going. We have to be done within a year. And that's -- you
know, the clock is ticking essentially. So as soon as possible.
>> now, they pointed out specific barriers within walnut
creek that need that type of attention, but will staff be able to work with
the neighborhood to make these particular corrections with this particular
[indiscernible]?
>> certainly. We have a history of working with them and
that won't change on this project.
>> okay. Well, I would like to move approval then if there
aren't any other questions from anybody.
>> second on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote. Number 40-a and b.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:15 PM