Travis County Commissioners Court
May 17, 2005
Item 15
We indicated on our agenda we would call up item no. 15 at 1:45. We are a little -- a little bit later. We had a short meeting with the residents over the lunch hour. We came very close to reaching the agreement, during the first minute of the meeting. During the last minute we were not so close. Now, we do have quite a few parts to this item. Ms. Mcginty fee, maybe we ought to call in e. E is a proposal regarding programs for waste stream reduction, green building market development, local community economic development and other innovative waste related activities with neil seldman and rick anthony. Melinda, with me is melanie macafee who is going to present her proposal to the county for our participation in a consultation by a man that she's brought to us as a -- describeds an expert in solid waste throughout the country.
>> I have some copies, I don't know if you all have one or not. I know the judge has one.
>> we did distribute those to the court.
>> you got all that?
>> we also got a short memo from -- from ms. Mollier, right?
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> well, the date as it says is -- I’m proposing may 31st and June 1st. I’m hoping to have the court at the barr mansion to begin the day with -- with neil giving an hour presentation and then q and a and then rick anthony doing the same, then maybe breaking for lunch, you know how I like to have a meal with meetings. And then after lunch, then would become the nitty great tee where we talk about some of the case studies on the sheet that you have in front of you. And it would be exact examples of things the county could or could not do. So --
>> again, what was the -- I thought you said the 31st, that's a Tuesday. We are here.
>> well, that -- he would come in the 31st, but the --
>> the work day is th 1st.
>> right.
>> thank you.
>> I will go ahead and add the Commissioners court has already budgeted $1,200 that could be used towards this $1,500 fee, so in order to do this, we would just request your transfer of another $300 to the solid waste reserve.
>> now, when I chatted with ms. Mollier a little bit after we got your memo, the intention is for him to consult with Commissioners court members who are interested, but what other residents in Travis County would we expect to participate?
>> I would like to invite some of the members from the solid waste task force, long range, that i've been a part of. Any interested people. And that group -- in that group who would like to come. This is a direction that they are considering, talking about, thinking about. So it's an opportunity for them to -- to meet someone who has actually been a part of some of these plans. I wanted to open it up to them. I have not done that yet, but would like to do so.
>> okay. That's the city of Austin?
>> yes, advisory committee?
>> on a long-range solid waste task force it's people from the city of Austin, it's also, you know, interested citizens, such as myself. I mean, I would like to be there. And there's some recycling people there, if they would like to come, I would like to let them come.
>> what about the cap cog advisory committee?
>> that would be fine if they would want to come, too. My -- I have, you know, all of these studies are what -- with the county in mind, so he's directed it with the thought of Travis County in particular. So that will be the focus.
>> let people pay for their lunch so you don't have to pick that up? Just tell us what -- we are going to do lunch there but, you know, before you know it, 50 or 60 people there, you know, there's no reason for you guys picking that thing up.
>> I will be so glad to have you all there. It will not be a problem.
>> let's not just assume that -- that -- we will let people know if you are going to advertise and invite them, that, you know, would you mind paying for your lunch.
>> okay.
>> judge, if this indeed goes through, I’m hopeful that it will, can we make sure it gets posted so we would have perhaps I would hope a quorum of the Commissioners court, I wanted to throw that out as well. If you are intending on inviting some kind of other commission like the swag or someone else, if they have quorum numbers, you would need to make sure those get properly posted that people will be there potentially in a quorum, but they are not going to be discussing business. I just don't want us to run afoul of the open meetings act of which I have a county attorney to my left. So need to make sure that we do that.
>> ms. Mcginty fee has assured me that the Commissioners court and appropriate county staff would receive special invitations to come.
>> that's right.
>> we promise. [laughter]
>> would this study comprise basically the bottom line on efforts -- and I see the economic development aspect of this -- and I want to make sure whatever derive from whatever is going on here, that -- that the impact, if it is an economic development movement is not a situation that we realized off of baum road, when bfi was there, basically brought a lot of rodent, rats, recycling stuff that was going on, I want to make sure that's not what we are doing here as far as some of the economic development aspects of it. And do we know that? At this point?
>> I think we can be confident that -- that mr. Seldman wouldn't be leading us in the same direction as what we have experienced already. I think what he can offer us is insight into how successful other programs have run into other parts of the country, which aspects of those might be applicable to Travis County.
>> okay. Now I just want to make sure that -- that we -- we meaning east of i-35, does not experience, an unwelcome type of situation that would generate or lend itself to those things. If he has a track record of doing these things in other parts of the country, then if that economic development was derived or located in a -- communities that maybe didn't have a choice or didn't have too much say in where the location of these communities, they called negative impact in these communities, well, I need to know that, too. Because definitely I don't want to see a repeat performance that took place here when -- when the folks off bohm road in that area, with that b.f.i. Situation, it took the city quite a while to clean that thing outlet, even though terms recycling, all of these other kind of things, it was a tragedy for that neighborhood. I would like to make sure whatever we are doing, if you are going to talk about location, we need to know what that is. I just don't want to venture too far into things that's going to bring a negative impact to that community. I want to make everybody be mindful of that.
>> I think you know me well enough by this time to know that every fiber of my being to make this tragic experience a positive thing not a negative one.
>> you might have good intentions, but sometimes the end result isn't predicated on the good intentions that we all have up here I think but it ends up being a not in my back yard scenario. So that's what I’m trying to get to. I think the folks over there have expressed themselves very, very diligently throughout the course of this. Not in my back yard. So I just want to make sure whatever we come up, it would be something acceptable to someone and they don't have to say not in my back yard, that's what I’m alluding to, thank you.
>> what else is expected of Travis County except for the $1,500 contributions.
>> just to be there.
>> you think that you will be able to carry it out or will you need a first assistant, namely to your left there? [laughter]
>> I would sure like to have her help and assistance.
>> we will be here.
>> we will be able to help out a little bit, wouldn't we, ms. Mollier.
>> we will be gland fwlad to help. Move that Travis County allocate $1,500, the source of which is the previously budgeted 1200 bucks, we take 300 from allocated reserve to -- to make the 1500 and that that be available for I guess we can get a -- a purchase order from purchasing.
>> it's under 25.
>> get this done fairly quickly when it's necessary. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion?
>> yeah, judge, I would like to see exactly those things that I highlighted before and spoke on is -- is success in the other parts of the country, especially on the economic development to see where -- what those are and the locations and not in my back yard types of scenarios. I would like to see that if we are going to invest taxpayers money, I think that we should know the full, whole picture, I would like to also have that as part of what I would like to look at as far as spending the money. Any more discussion on the motion? All in favor?
>> with those contingencies, I would like to see that as far as being part of it.
>> that's not part of the motion but I did hear the request. I heard the request, but it's not part of the motion. If that information can be made available, I don't think anybody opposes it.
>> I want to make sure that everybody understands where I’m coming from. If it can't be made available. I just don't want that not in my back yard scenario coming back at us, all right.
>> I don't understand this.
>> I don't either.
>> what is -- what is the not in my back yard deal? What is that?
>> I don't either.
>> well, it's just the fact that when -- we are looking for the economic development situation here, I know the study, all of this other kinds of stuff we are going to spend money. Of course I think that some of this economic development may be, I’m not really sure, but that's why I wanted to get clarity, if it is part of what he's bringing back to us is as far as what he's doing across the nation is especially with the economic development stimulus of this thing, what type of economic development stimulus you are referring to and where is it being located what's the track record. Information that's on that, I would just like to have it, that's all that I’m suggesting.
>> well, he obviously has that or he wouldn't be coming in here and doing this for us. That's a given. But are you asking does this person come in and say you need to go and find another place and where your other place is, this is the economic development that you have around it, Commissioner, is that what you are afraid of, it -- it just be go somewhere else but with a component of -- of economic development.
>> type of economic development, things like that, that need to be I think spelled out and drawn out and laid out very clearly for me anyway. You know, you may not want to see that. I do. Okay.
>> I’m not real sure what I want to see, but if it's there i'll look at it.
>> yeah. If it's there. I mean I’m just asking that it be there.
>> understand your assignment, ms. Mcginty fee. Any more discussion? -- ms. Macafee? Any more discussion? That passes by unanimous vote. The next easy one is --
>> other related issues. Just kidding.
>> c. C. A siting ordinance covering types I and iv landfills in Travis County. Last time we discussed what we thought would be the appropriateness of a buffer zone. After a long discussion I think that joe, john, tom and i, melinda kind of gave up on that, who were cognizant of the fact that if you consider the prevailing wind, probably you would need a much larger buffer zone on one side than you would on the other. At about that time that john kuhl came up with his special exceptions. That are contained in the latest version of the draft siting ordinance, so can we discuss those tom, that 62.0071. This should be part of what I set out last week. As far as I know, tom, no changes have been made to this, right?
>> no changes.
>> just for the record before we did the siting ordinance and applied it to all solid waste facilities in Travis County except for type 1 and type 4. So the question is what do we do about those two and the intention of this draft, the intention is for us to use this draft to cover those.
>> I heard you say the word tom it confused me there. John kuhl, environmental officer, t.n.r. What we discussed, a little background, context on this particular issue. As we moved from the minor facility and major facility existing ordinance that we have on the books right now, you know, industry at least on the -- on the landfill site has pointed out to us that as a general rule, they seek larger tracts of land than for example major facilities such as sludge, land application or composting facilities. So where that in mind the issue was pointed out to us the existing language that does pertain to the minor facilities has an array of setbacks are generally either 1500 feet or to a mile, a mile being from a neighborhood, established neighborhood. 1500 feet being sensitive receptors such as residences, water wells, schools, daycare facilities, that type of thing, health care facilities. So the concept was if you are looking for a larger piece of land, it inherently gets harder to find that, put those parcels together when you are challenged by these great setbacks. And then the idea came about in a previous discussion that perhaps if -- if we were able to require an internal buffer, either in lieu of or in addition to a reduced setback, that that might even be a better solution for these folks that are trying to find, you know, 500 plus acre tracts versus 150 acres at the most for the -- for the sludge land application sites. So we went through the discussion and as judge Biscoe indicated we ran into somewhat of a -- just a really logical log jam because if you look at any of these types of sites that -- they are complicated processes, the siting and the operational issues that are associated with these facilities and obviously the nuances of prevailing winds and tracts of land and floodplains and things that -- that pertain to them. So what we decided was that it might be better to just concentrate on those subject areas that are most important in relationship to nuisance, odor, litter, you know, wind blown litter that is, traffic, those types of things that make or can make solid waste facilities not the best neighbors. And insert those into a section that essentially says to the applicant, if you have a logical problem due to the size of your tract of your land, if you cannot meet every single one of these setbacks, perhaps an exception can be made if we are able to negotiate on these specific terms and come to an internal agreement that is satisfactory. What we are saying is those setbacks that we have always discussed are still in place. The setbacks that are in -- in the ordinance that pertains to minor and major facilities that is on the books today in Travis County. However, if they can't quite meet, for example, the setback to -- to a mile from the neighborhood, then perhaps we enter into a negotiation based upon the terms of section 62.0071. And what we will do is focus on -- on the issues that really do matter from an operational and, you know, potential nuisance perspective. What we have kind of boiled that down to, I’m -- I’m not going to go through exactly every section of the proposed 62.0071 unless you would like me to, tom. The main issues are -- what you see in section 5 a, b, c, d, e, it relates to -- essentially that we would come to a meeting of the minds upon what the sequence of and the layout of gas extraction wells for odor control would be for example. What the size of internal buffer zones might be that we -- that we could mutually agree on that made sense to the site. For example, you might have -- I’m just throwing these numbers out, but you might have a standard -- right now the state is contemplating for example a minimum of 250 feet. That's what we have been told and I don't know if that's going to hold, but in -- in the context of the rules, that's what the -- what they are contemplating right now --
>> john, back up, back up.
>> yes, sir.
>> as far as rules are concerned, the state is contemplating setbacks as far as 250 feet as far as rules.
>> right.
>> that the tceq?
>> yes, sir.
>> for that?
>> yes, sir.
>> of course, when do you know when tceq is going to finalize, being [indiscernible] to finalize the existing rules in place, especially with the example of 250 feet?
>> I don't know the answer to that. I know they are in the process of receiving stakeholder input on those rule changes. Tom, do you have any information on that?
>> I don't.
>> because the reason why --
>> I can get that for you.
>> right of the I would like to -- the reason I posed that particular question, I think all of us received an e-mail suggesting that a more tomorrow be set in place until such things, such rules that tceq have come back and adopted the rules, that they could maybe something would be putting the cart before the horse. I don't really know. But it was e-mails to that effect. That was just a one proposal as far as why it should be a moratorium but if the rules have not been established, they feel that -- I don't know what comes first, tom, if the court was to adopt their -- an adoption as far as the -- this particular ordinance is concerned and later the tceq adopt rules, then what would take precedence?
>> whichever is strictest.
>> whichever isest?
>> the landfill -- whatever the strictest.
>> it would have to meet both requirement, both the county requirements and tceq's.
>> I just wanted to know that there is a request, all of us have the same e-mail that a moratorium should be maybe imposed until a lot of this stuff is cleared up.
>> ms. Schnieder?
>> go ahead.
>> the rules are probably going to be going on for another six, seven, eight months. In addition, there's legislation pending that right now only applies to montgomery county that would require a thousand feet between landfills and residences, places of worship, daycare centers, public parks and schools. So that will also be in the mix, I think, as the rules get changed. If one county has it, should that be extended to others? I don't know.
>> was that one of the only stipulations that they were looking for as far as the reason for the moratorium possibility cost of the possible change.
>> well, there's lots of the whole section of the rules dealing with landfills is -- has opened up right now, buffers, but many, many other issues are being revised. I’m not arguing for the moratorium, especially --
>> I know as far as e-mails, stuff like that, we all basically got the same e-mails. Of course I want to make sure that that was -- you know, discussed to some degree, since john brought that up. Especially with these buffer things, looked like there could be a moving target as far as buffers, that's part of the concern that I have is that -- it just makes -- tom, I guess I need to ask you legally. Is there a -- is there a possibility that -- how can you basically volunteer compliance if I’m understanding this correctly as far as buffers are concerned? If that is the case, then who -- who would want to give up the right to not utilize the total property as opposed to volunteering to buffer to come -- to meet the first receptor, whether it's a house or either a neighborhood. If it's voluntary compliance, it means they don't really have to comply with this. That's the whole problem that I’m having with this, voluntary compliance. If that's a state of fact as the county attorney just stated it's a major problem for me.
>> it's not voluntary compliance, the question is whether or not they voluntarily agree to enter into the negotiation and be bound by that. That's the -- I guess the way that I would put it.
>> I’m not sure that I understand your question.
>> whether the county adopts or tceq adopts buffer requirements, any buffer is going to be voluntary on behalf of the landfill. Is that what your question is? What's the status pending either county adoption of a regulation or tceq adoption of a regulation?
>> basically the buffer, what I’m trying to flush out is that the buffer being within the -- within the landfill jurisdiction itself, and also being used to measure, the distance between that buffer area and the first receptor, if it's a resident, of course, we are talking about 1500 feet, but if we are talking about a neighborhood, we are talking about a mile. What I’m trying to say is that -- that that buffer area, if a resident is within -- within a thousand feet from the landfill, does that mean that they can only use up to 500 feet within their particular range of ownership for that property, they can only go up to that point to satisfy the complete setback for that residents which is 1500 feet. They don't have to volunteer to do that. Otherwise it's a do not volunteer. That means they can go right up to the border line of their property, do what they want to do, then you still have a thousand feet from the first receptor, that's what I’m saying. So my question is to you is that something that they have to voluntarily comply to do? Something almost like within their property, though. > what's your sums, once an ordinance is adopted or today? Assumption. Today it's all voluntary, we don't have any buffer requirements for landfills, the buffer requirement at tceq is 50 feet from the property line. That's the status today.
>> right.
>> anything greater than 50 feet today is voluntary. If we adopt an ordinance, if you -- if this draft ordinance were to be adopted, then the same setbacks that we currently have for sludge and compost facilities would also apply to landfills. John's point was it takes a whole lot less land to site a sludge or compost facility than it does to site a type 1 or type 4 landfill. And so if you apply the same setbacks, you really have a much more restrictive ordinance with respect to landfills than as opposed to sludge and compost facilities. So the thinking was design some flexibility into it. Because we can't absolutely prohibit type I or type iv landfills from Travis County, design some flexibility into it, so there's really sort of a site specific design negotiated between the landfill and the county. I don't know if you regard that as voluntary or not, that's the way the ordinance is structured. You are looking at really a site specific negotiated design process.
>> okay. Continue.
>> one step clearer, I think it's only entered, that negotiation is only entered into if they have trouble meeting one of those existing setbacks.
>> exactly.
>> > we did apply the existing requirements on the map and try to identify tracts large enough for a type I or type iv landfill and concluded that the number of potential sites was very, very small.
>> they are there. They are spread out and, you know, I don't have the number right in front of me, you know, memorized. But they are there. It's just -- it's like you say, it's tough. We make it challenging.
>> okay. Now there is a variance provision in the current ordinance.
>> correct.
>> okay. And do we leave that variance provision in this one?
>> yes.
>> in addition we add what I thought were protective features. That -- that in -- in some circumstances would be appropriate. Can you just -- can you briefly describe what those features are.
>> right. They are basically are five main areas that we addressed. As I said before, five -- section 5 a, b, c, d, e, gas system is a, you know, how that's designed, how that comes to play. Internal buffers, where those are and whether or not we believe that they are protective of -- of aesthetic shielding, storm water management and preventing or minimizing the scape of wind blown trash, we have section c that deals with particularly odorous wastes that might come into a type I landfill, how those are managed. That would have to be negotiated to our satisfaction, examples being sludge or what have you, some of those things are today, you know, put into the 290 landfills. So that's section c, section d has to do with the way that they cover the trash. And the fact that they did it daily. In other words six inches of soil is a minimum versus some alternate cover such as a tarp, which is -- which has proven to be unsatisfactory in some cases. The last section has to do with -- with just other context sensitive design that might take into account what traffic patterns are in minimizing the negative impacts to traffic, so forth. Again special receptors that might be downwind and maximizing buffers. Establishing traffic routes and exit points that are specifically designed to minimize negative impacts to traffic. Those types of things. So that's -- those are the five main areas that we inserted.
>> so we really left a -- the distance requirements in place.
>> correct.
>> left open the possibility of -- of a perspective landfill site owner to persuade us that these protected features are in place and get our approval of that particular site?
>> right.
>> and I guess procedurally, that -- that the point needs to be made that -- you know, that -- that is not a variance necessarily. That is a -- that is a -- you know, a staff negotiated thing that would be brought forward.
>> they had -- the intent behind the five factors john set out was to provide more certainty, as to exactly what the county's priorities were for a landfill. I mean, obviously you could leave just the existing variance there and use that as the vehicle to site this. But I anticipate you would hear from landfill operators that -- that that leaves is too wide open. They don't know what site to go look for, they don't know how to design their facility, they don't know what the county is looking for. These five factors point them in a particularly direction and say this is what can earn you relief from these very strict setbacks. From the county.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...okay. Any questions from the court about this, and then we'll take any comments from the audience regarding the siting ordinance. Questions, comments?
>> judge, excuse me, before he gets the comments and so forth, i've got one handout that I would like to pass out real quick. I committed to you that I would put together just a contextual 500-acre tract and show you how that reduces the functional area within the landfill space. Let me just hand that out real quick so you guys can consider that.
>> it doesn't get below 45% impervious cover, does it?
>> thanks for keeping your commitment to me, john.
>> john, you stated this morning that the proposal -- proposed house bill, 2833 and -- it will not have any effect on the solid waste siting ordinance. I heard you mention taking. Earlier. So whenever I hear that word "taking," raise a read flag saying wait a minute. Would we be subjected to any scrutiny under proposed house bill 2833 even though it may be looked at as a taking? Or would that be an exception?
>> well, you will be subjected to scrutiny, I’m sure. It's just my feeling that -- if the amendments we talked about this morning are made to the bill, then I’m comfortable that this ordinance would with stand a legal challenge based on the taking statute as revised. Now, I can't guarantee that, but it all comes down to the language. With the language changes we talked about this morning, I’m comfortable that you could defend an ordinance like this as not being a building size, lot size or impervious cover regulation.
>> and before the comments, I guess, from the audience commences, I would just like to alert everyone to the fact that I think we put something in the backup for each and every one of you and I think I shared the same newspaper article [inaudible] newspaper about the not backyard scenario in precinct 1. They said they've had enough and I think i've continued to state that. They don't want the thing in this particular precinct. That, in my opinion, is overlaying a whole lot of things that we discuss in here. So I just want to make sure I get that as part of the record that I’m going to going to fight to make sure none of this stuff is located in precinct 1.
>> what does this show us, john?
>> judge, what that is, it represents just a conceptual 500-acre square piece of property. We know in reality you heard they refined that in a perfect square, but just to show you what happens when you insert just, you know, uniform internal buffers what you start to take out of the picture. If you look, the yellow line, the outside band represents 500 feet boundary. Then that sort of peach or orange color represents a 250-foot setback. That reduces the 500 down to a little over 400 acres. 405 acres, which represents about 80% of the tract left total. In other words, you lose 19.5%. And then just moving down, if you get to the green layer, that represents a 500-foot buffer, and what is left is 312 acres or 62%. And, again, that crosshatched blue represents the thousand-foot buffer, in addition to the green and the peach, all that comes to 1,000 feet and cuts you down to 165 acres or 32% of what the original 500-acre tract was. This is one of the reasons why it seemed apparent to me that, you know, in reality a uniform buffer just might not be the way to go. And so it might be more -- if we are going to talk about buffers, that's a great topic and I’m not closing the door on that, I just think you need to consider the context of the landscape, the prevailing winds, those are receptors that are there, they are sensitive, and we do want to protect the ones that maybe aren't as sensitive at that time. Now, the other big deal about internal buffers versus setbacks is you have the landfill at least or whoever owns that land has control over the buffer area. And with a setback, given the state of land use law in Texas, anybody can come build a house or subdivision or what have you inside what was either a mile or 1500-foot setback. That's been one. Issues for both, both municipalities and counties and industry is that, you know, you don't necessarily have control over that outside space between a setback and the boundary of the property or the boundary of the cell, the waste cell. So those are the two big issues as I see them, buffer versus setback.
>> john, I got a phone call last night from one of the assistant city managers inquiring into exactly how the proposed ordinance would affect the e.s.i. And city of Austin landfills. City of Austin site 1 is not used as a type 4 and i.e.s.i. Is type 4. And I guess maybe the intention to use the land that separates the two to landfill at some point. So any thoughts on how this would affect that?
>> yes. If -- I mean what you are saying is they are contemplating an expansion, and, you know, i.s.i. Has always been open and clear to us that they've identified areas that they think they might want to expand into in the future. And the way the thing is drafted it would apply to ex expansions. So we would have to look at that and how it fits with setbacks.
>> john, in terms of this, which is a good way to kind of visualize it, make it look like nebraska, this is -- this would be the best-case scenario in terms of how much land somebody could loose, because if you have a property line that follows a stream or something that's not square, you could wind up creating situations where you have to kind of push away because you have something rounded. So this would be the best possible situation is everything look like nebraska, but if things had followed rivers, looks a little more like oklahoma, we would have problems.
>> right. And again, I mean this is sort of what led us to the conclusion -- I didn't think that meeting was that long, judge, but we did get to the conclusion that it was maybe not a good fit to have it just a uniform standard buffer.
>> if you are having fun on these meetings, they are not long. [laughter] now, anybody want to give comments today?
>> I have one more question for john.
>> yes, sir.
>> john --
>> Commissioner Davis has a question.
>> yes, sir.
>> john, going back to the question about iesi, of course, they showed on television the birds that were there. I think they showed buzzards, in fact, on television, and how that may continue to interfere with the flight traffic out there. But also in lieu of all of those things, you know, richard mauro park is not far from this area. We would still have some of that -- you know, the flood plain in that area when we looked at iesi and we were concerned about the water and the flow of the water coming off that site getting probably into onion creek and other tributaries. Are they also, the citing taking that into consideration before they go and look at a 65-year contract with all of these other pending things? Is that something that they are also looking at? Have you had a chance to look at that particular contract to look at those things?
>> Commissioner, I have not reviewed the contract, but I have had conversation with solid waste staff and i've been following, you know, the slack in the long-range committee's e-mail commentary on those issues. I think it proves, you know, by virtue of the fact that the judge got a call from the assistant city manager, it proves they are aware of this ordinance potentially being adopted and cognizant of that. And I know in my conversations with the staff that they've definitely been, you know, put through the wringer and had to evaluate a number of issues including having -- my understanding is they had the f.a.a., you know, bird hazard specialists come down and inspect them. They've had, you know, a number of special sort of internal investigations going on to figure out whether or not this is a good decision or not.
>> okay, well, that kind of followed the dictates of the e-mail that we've also received as far as some of the recommendations.
>> and I’m sure some of the residents and perhaps mr. Snyder can tell you about what's been going on there.
>> thank you.
>> if you have questions tore comments regarding the proposed Travis County siting ordinance to cover type 1 and type 4 landfills, please come forth at this time. If you would give us your name and we would be happy to get your comments. What I would propose we do in just a moment is to have this on the agenda next week as is unless there are comments that stimulate changes, but we give others an opportunity to mull over this language one week and then next week we take a vote on posting this or an amended siting ordinance for the required 30 days to give tom an opportunity to do the taking study and let that 30-day period run. But if there are comments today we need to consider, we would be happy to hear them. Ms. English.
>> good afternoon, my name is trek english, for the record. And that may be the only thing we agree on today is perhaps that you should consider this ordinance next week. I feel that the ordinance should have been posted a long time ago for everybody to be eligible under that ordinance. I don't think -- listening to the arguments that were made just 10 minutes ago, I feel you should protect your citizens on the same level. We are not second-rate citizens and you cannot put an ordinance forward that will protect 90 or 80% of your county and not us. I honestly don't understand how you can even put forward such a proposal. If you are not going to include all of us. Or at least all the landfills. Forget us out of the equation, all of the landfills. Everybody should be treated the same. So john went up and out of his way to explain 6207.1 which is a new -- a new addition to the ordinance that was drafted and more or less arrived at over a year ago or two years ago. Mr. Nuckols can probably verify the date since we have, what, this is the 12th version.
>> sometime around when -- [inaudible].
>> that's right. I agree with you on that one because I felt it. Anyway, so I don't mind talking to john about some of the -- just some clarification of the language that is being added to it and it's just questions. And so that I can make sure that I understand it. I also would like to tell you that there was no such protection in any of the performance-based contracts that were being proposed. B.m.p.s as they are called to me is just a buzz word. It means nothing unless you are going to put specific language that is used in that ordinance, there's no way that contract could even stand up. So if you don't want to look like you are prejudicial or discriminatory, I would advise you on my own behalf or request from you that this ordinance would be made applicable to all landfills that are existing in Travis County. And that's all I have to say.
>> I’m not sure I understand that, though. This would apply to all type 1 and 4s. And once this is adopted, then there would be a siting ordinance for all solid waste facilities, right?
>> either expansions or new locations, correct.
>> what are we leaving out?
>> are you saying in terms of what's currently on the ground? Because otherwise I’m not understanding you either.
>> not the existing permits. The existing permits are off the board right now. I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel. I’m just saying that that ordinance if posted should be applicable to all landfills. In other words, I don't want this administrative [inaudible] to be part of this equation where suddenly they can just avoid it. They have now known for four years this is on the books. They've worked on this with us. They were never exclude at any point in this process so they knew exactly what language was adopted and what language is being considered.
>> my question is then it does apply to all the landfills, expansions or new sites. Are you saying that the existing landfills ought not be eligible for the special exceptions criteria? I’m not understanding what it is that you are thinking is not covered.
>> maybe mr. Nuckols can tell you because I know he knows what I’m talking about.
>> I’m sorry, I’m not getting it.
>> well, it's definitely true that if a current -- if there's a permit already been issued, then any area where waste is authorized to be disposed of under that permit, it would be exempt from any ordinance. Because it's already been authorized by tceq.
>> if somebody is -- an aerial?
>> you start getting into statutes interpreted. It's safe to say if a permit has been issued, if you look at that permit, there are waste disposal cells this that permit. Will any of the those areas would be exempt from an ordinance you adopted. That's already been permitted.
>> we've got something new, the wilder tract would be some kind of a greenfield something. That has not been permitted yet and therefore it absolutely would come under the new siting ordinance. Correct?
>> get -- you then get into questions of areas for which an application is filed. A permit has not yet been issued, but the application has been filed. And you, you know, wups upon a time you would have gotten into the question of administrative completeness, but senate bill 848, you wouldn't get into that question, but there's definitely still some legal issues.
>> okay.
>> and we may need to go into executive session at some point to talk about all those issues.
>> anything else, ms. English?
>> no, I believe that -- now do you understand what I’m talking about? That's coming from your own attorney would be better.
>> that's very helpful. Thank you.
>> anybody else, please come forward.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. My name is mark mcaffee, and i've mentioned I believe at our last meeting even about the number of hazardous chemicals in municipal solid waste landfills as opposed to hazardous landfills, and I have some information here. This is an old study, and since this study there's been another 16,000 or so chemicals that have been newly made chemicals and so I’m sure that this is much worse. But what they found, these were two a&m researches and they examined data on leachate landfills. It showed there were 113 different toxic chemicals in municipal landfill leachate and only 72 toxic chemicals in landfill leachate. It shows you what we think of as a non-hazardous landfill is possibly even more hazardous. The number in -- let's see, the number of chemicals that cause cancer in municipal leachate was the same, 32 chemicals at that time in each municipal and industrial landfills. And then chemicals that cause birth defects, there were 10 chemicals in industrial landfills that caused genetic damage and there were 22, more than -- let's see, yeah, one more found in municipal landfill leachate. So the idea that municipal landfills are not very dangerous is wrong. And I just wanted to add that to -- to -- for you to think about and also that in terms of studies that have been done in europe on hazardous waste landfills, the area that they call the hot zone is the area within three kilometers. That's 1.85 miles from the outer boundary of the hazardous waste unit. That's what they call the hot zone. And so when you are thinking about those setbacks, you know, the protection, the health of the residents, that needs to be considered. Thank you.
>> thank you. Anybody else?
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, thank you. I’m bob gregory with Texas disposal systems. Texas disposal systems has a landfill in southeast Travis County as all of you know and we permitted in 1990 and we've worked very hard to run an exemplary facility. Through the years we've added land to that and we have now approximately 800 acres in addition to the 341 acres that we have permitted that's contiguous. We have a total of 1350 acres out there as we've bought land to control our buffer zone. But of the 1133 acres that's contiguous, we have had a long-term plan to consider expansion in years to come. Back in July 1, 2002, we submitted a document to each of you at your request which laid out the possibilities of expansion for the t.d.s. Landfills. You asked all the landfills to do that, as I recall. At that time we were discussing the performance-based contract is something like that is what we called it, but we as landfill operators would negotiate with the county and come to an agreement so that we could become designated in one of your earlier discussions of this siting ordinance. We thought we had pretty much come to conclusion on that. Apparently not, but we thought we were almost there. And we were working under the assumption that if the day came, if and when the day came that you would consider a siting ordinance, that at that point in time we would go back and look at that to actually seek to designate the t.d.s. Site. You may be awire that we have a facility on our site that has thousands of people a year through it and 160 or 80 events downwind of the landfill. I think we truly have demonstrated that we can operate at peace with -- without being detrimental to the surrounding property owners. The attitude of t.d.s. Has been to basically continue operation, continue the purchase of land and work in good faith as the county worked with the northeast landfills and with others. And obviously dealt with other siting issues. We worked with you when you did the siting ordinance on transfer stations and sludge farms, things like that. Now that you are on the -- seem to be on the verge of doing a siting ordinance on the landfills, we have -- we will tell you and I think you've known this the whole time, we have not been at work to design a plan so that we could be ready to submit on a day's notice a plan to the tceq that could circumvent this ordinance. You asked us and others not to circumvent the ordinance. You asked us not to file an amendment or a modification or an amendment is what it would take to expand it, and we haven't done so. We haven't prepared a plan to file. Two weeks ago when b.f.i. And waste management were here they were telling you something on the order they were prepared to file. One of them even said tomorrow if necessary. It's my understanding that i.s.a. And the city of Austin have been working with the tceq on at least discussions of expansion of those two landfills. I have nod idea if they are ready to file something within the next 30 days. I would certainly ask you not to file and to do an ordinance that would -- that has been delayed long enough to give the other landfill operators the opportunity to get their permit application in place to file to circumvent the ordinance when t.d.s., the one who has worked in good faith and bought land to control its buffer zone for future expansion, identifying that expansion back in July of 2002 and having heard no objections, not one objection from any Commissioner or any elected official otherwise or any neighbor surrounding the t.d.s. Site. I would ask you not to take a -- to do a siting ordinance that would just then apply to t.d.s. It would apply to all of them but the others could circumvent it for their next expansion because we have not taken the effort to file. I've stated all along that it's my belief, I’m not a lawyer, tom, you all obviously know that, I’m not a lawyer, but it's my belief in reading the ordinance and reading the law that in order to say where you can't put a facility, you've got to designate where you can put a facility. And i've said all along that I think that it would be inappropriate and could be overturned by a court, it would be arbitrary. It would be -- it wouldn't be appropriate to say you can put one within so many feet of receptors that may exist on one day that don't -- that may otherwise -- that could be changed the next day. In other words, you may find this orange-colored site or whatever that john passed out a moment ago and you may find the site and find that it does meet the criteria. However, the next day someone install a well or build a brush arbor for a church or move in a residence or something like that right next to it and because of the setback, the site would no longer apply. I strongly urge to you either designate the t.d.s. Site and its adjoining property that's contiguous to it as an appropriate site for solid waste proposal which I feel we have earned the right to have that designated, or at least delay it for three to six months so at least we can come and submit something to catch up with the other guys who have had advanced notice. They have taken the opportunity and I don't fault them for that, and they've told you all along what they were doing. But I would urge you not to do an ordinance that in effect would only apply to t.d.s. I hope i've -- I i hope i've explained myself clearly. So please either -- either designate the t.d.s. Site which gives you designated definite location, that then aloss you to go to court where said where one was allowed. And then still do your receptors if you want to. You still have the opportunity, as I understand it, under the draft ordinance proposed to still take exception with t.d.s. And fight a t.d.s. Expansion if what we turned in was inconsistent with what we had identified to you. Or our procedures changed or it became a real problem. Anyway, i'd be glad to offer myself for any questions if what i've said raises any questions in your mind.
>> I have a couple, and bob, you've been here from jump street, I mean from the off set along with the residents and everybody here. And one of the things that we -- well, I know that we stressed and was kind of I guess overwhelmed with was the advent of not filing an expansion permit if, of course, the court -- Commissioners court decided not to adopt a solid waste siting ordinance for landfills. That was one thing that we looked at, of course, that was not to prohibit them from pursuing, but, of course, it appears that that's what the direction they are going to go in. And I guess my question is I guess to tom, and tom, maybe you can help me out on this, if the ordinance is posted and adopted in 30 days, and after the adoption of the ordinance takes place and the setbacks are in place and defined clearly in the ordinance as they are, and let's say the week after it's adopted someone decides to -- move or something that is -- would then the -- within the bounds of the receptor on the landfill within the setback, what takes precedent? In other words, they don't acquire -- the landfill operators aren't required to make adjustments to -- I mean that's the question. They aren't required to make adjustment to accommodate that receptor, neighborhood, resident, something like that, whatever it is, you mentioned a water well.
>> you mean an application filed with tceq after an ordinance is adopted?
>> yes. Application, I guess, and -- yeah. That has been identified, the land is there, they are looking at -- and they are looking at what's there right now. On the application process. It takes -- about how long does it take to -- 500-acre or 1,000-acre landfill site, how long would it take to get from the beginning to the end of that process as far as operation is concerned?
>> two and a half to five years.
>> two and a half to five years. Okay. Well, my question, tom, is what -- after the application is filed and they've identified the site and let's say someone comes in later that aren't within the dictates of the bounds or within the bounds, what takes precedent? Are we going to have to make an adjustment to that, do they, or do they not? I’m asking.
>> Commissioner, I think the best answer is that it is a matter of statute youer to interpretation and I know when landfill siting ordinances first came up we had executive session discussions and my preference would be we do that again so I can refresh everybody's memory on what the issues are on that.
>> I would try to entertain that point that he had just brought up. And --
>> as I understand it, if you have a site and an ordinance was in place and someone came and dug a well or built a residence or whatever one of the receptors were, installed a receptor in close proximity to your landfill or closer than the previous receptor that is correct you would have to either in effect buy their right or their acceptance of it, according to this contract, or you would have to get a variance. You couldn't just ignore it. Because that's the whole idea of the ordinance, to keep -- to keep landfills so many feet from those receptors. And if a receptor was properly placed, literally for a $3,000 cost of drilling a well or a brush arbor or mobile home or something like that that could be installed very, very quickly, it could completely disable a site. And Commissioner Sonleitner was right, that's the best case scenario, the square site. If you have a long rectangle site and one is placed in the middle, it could cut it in two so you would have two little sites. It could completely ruin it. So you need to be aware of that for all of those reasons. And that -- that's an argument dealing with the -- why to do or not to do the ordinance and how to do it, whether you use receptors or you use buffer zones, which obviously buffer zones, john is right, you do have some control, long-term control. Otherwise people will build right up next to you. That's one reason we spent millions of dollars buying this land next to us to control our buffer zone and to expand on. So I would really hate to have gone to all that work and all that money and all that planning and lose the opportunity to expand into that facility when, again, we don't have anybody that waves a finger of complaint about it since the day we [inaudible] it.
>> have we concluded that the special exceptions would not apply to your situation?
>> the special exceptions would apply to every situation as far as us coming and asking, but still we have to ask and still we have to go through the process and we may or may not be able to do it. It depends on the will of the Commissioners and judge today and at that time that we chose to expand. We were not rushing to expand. We have significant capacity. But 40 years life based on what we took last year. Other landfills close and that can be reduced significantly, you know how the deal works. But we have significant capacity. But we've invested not only how we operate but also in buying the land and gaining control of it to control that and we would just ask to be designated or give us time to file an application to circumvent just like your other facilities will do.
>> I think there is the middle ground here and that is let us reread the special exceptions. I mean because t.d.s. Has a -- how many years now? 13-year record in Travis County.
>> since '90. 15 years.
>> 15 years. There you go. We now what the record is in terms of how much landfill gas you have or haven't produced. We know about the kinds of things you do in terms of internal buffers because have you that marvelous facility there that is your internal smell detector about what's going on. We do have a 15-year record about whether you haven't had window blown trash that has created issues. We've got a record on every single one of these things. Probably the only question i've got is don't you all do the six inches of daily cover?
>> say that again.
>> do you do the six inches or more of soil for daily cover?
>> yes, we do.
>> I don't see that there's anything on here that would give you any sense ever receipt sense with this especially with this Commissioners court that we would not say you would apply for a special exception and you ought not think of that -- that's going to be anything other than the facts will speak for themselves and there you go. I mean because the problem is that if we delay this for three to six months, that also means everything else is delayed for others who are there in terms of three to six more months that somebody could not voluntarily comply with not doing anything and to rush to the tceq to try and push things forward.
>> I understand.
>> I’m just trying to get to a place because we had this discussion, three, five years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth about wouldn't that be ironic the only people this would apply to would be t.d.s. I’m just looking at it going I don't see anything here on the special exceptions that would be something that would not be something you guys could quickly and easily comply with and we move on with their lives, but it wouldn't have negative consequences in terms of allowing more people to have time to rush to the tceq to move things along and to circumvent what everybody is trying to do.
>> I appreciate that. If it was the will of this court and the feeling of this court that t.d.s. Qualified for a special exception, then I would request that you make that special exception, designate the site and allow it to -- allow that designation to remove the question of whether we have an ordinance without a designation of where a site can be located.
>> well, I think in terms of your current site, in terms of your -- i'll rephrase, the permitted site that you've got right now, that easily is one where nobody is talking about you needing to get that shut down and move someplace else. The only question is on the expansion, and to me it would seem logical that the permitted thing is something that could be called a designated site, but we would need to just properly go through the process about whether the expansion fit into the category of special exception and we move on. I don't see this as being something that is such a high bar that we're going to have a lot of issues here unless my attorney tells me something that I’m just not getting just from having been on your property as many times as I have as a consumer in terms of visiting out there and being able to see for myself what is going on out there.
>> we didn't recommend back in 2001 the county -- that you folks designate us without any conditions. That's the reason we were negotiating an agreement. Truly I don't want the facility to be bad. I don't want to get hit by a truck one day and the facility go bad if somebody else operates it. I want the county to have a good facility. So we're already committed to operate it well beyond what the rules require and our permit requires. And I have no problem putting that in the contract. So that if something happens, you will have something to enforce against someone who may not be willing to operate it as me and jamie are.
>> I want to make sure somebody at a future date says you bypassed the process related to your expansion on to your new buffered land, and like I said, I don't see that as being something that is a too high of a bar for you all to go through quickly and then move ahead at whatever point you and jimmy are ready to go to the tceq and expand on to your new site. But I don't want to bypass it on the expansion any more than I want anybody else to have to -- you know, for us to be accused of by passing anything and just giving them a free pass to the end of the race here. There's a process and I’m trying to respect the process on all sides for everybody equally.
>> I can appreciate that, and I just ask that when you guys do meet in executive session and tom deals with out the law and what's required to have a real ordinance, that you do look closely at what the law is and how we have to designate and you evaluate whether this receptor concept really specifies a site enough that a site exists while we may have 17 sites, just say, today. A month from now that might dwindle to 7. Another time it might go to zero. Another time it may come back to 4. I don't know that the court will withhold or will uphold an ordinance that they to where this designated site moves at different places and closes the door and opens. And one day there will be no designation of the site in most likelihood because there will be a residence, a well, one of these receptors will be somewhere, given so close you may get down to where the nebraska is 100 acres or 50 acres or something like that. As the community grows. So I don't think your ordinance will stand like that so I’m just proposing a way to fix -- to deal with that, at the same time deal with our issue, and if you are concerned about us moving sideways, we can move for a designation or we can move for -- or variance or something like that quickly with a contract or agreement. I respect your process totally. I just don't want to be locked out because of a political situation when we've really done the work planning and the community needs the space and we're committed to doing it and we ask for it and can't get it.
>> I understand that and appreciate that. Thank you.
>> anybody else to give comments today? If so, please come forward. There are four chairs. I need four people to come forward.
>> I’m marie ingram. I've seen you from time to time. I've been a long-term resident in the neighborhood of the two landfills of which you are speaking today. I've been here for 24 years when we -- this court has talked about creek issues. In the last four years, we have intensively talked about landfill issues and the inappropriate, insensitive behavior of these operators. So that is not a new issue. I can remember three years ago when I was here and I spoke to you about having an in hall hraeugs experience when they were making changes at a big cell that they were opening at b.f.i. On occasion I was told that I must be mistaken, that it was the odors, the sprinkler system that was going. But when I was interviewed by my physician, that was not the case. I had inhalation experience of a gas or some substance that has affected my health. Health issues from these landfills are very predominant in our neighborhood. Whenever other house and sometimes three houses in a row have had members of the family die from cancers of different kinds. T's very hard to prove that it is the landfill. But it is the only really strong problem that we can look around it and see. Last Saturday evening my husband and I went to home depot and were coming back the sprepbger will cutoff way and we began to have odor experiences. When you know the landfill odor, it's not one you are going to forget. And it was before you get to pioneer crossing, and by the entrance to the new rock wall at pioneer crossing it stopped. As we got closer to the barr mansion, it picked up there and was all the way to the opening of the capital, that new subdivision. So that would have been five or ten minutes, maybe a little longer through that area. Last Saturday about 8:30 p.m. This year, 2005, two of our neighbors have been diagnosed with cancer. One is quite convinced that the -- she was telling another neighbor who is here today that it was about a year ago that she felt that she was sure that many of our neighbors were getting sick because of the landfill. So those -- one happened in March and one happened in January. Arterial a is -- we're not talking about that today. We're talking about the ordinance that would give these landfill operators the opportunity to continue and expand on the locations where they are when they have not proven themselves to be good neighbors or good operators. So I’m here asking you to not do anything, please, to enhance or give them any advantage. They have not earned it. They do not deserve it. And I think that we are concerned that we keep coming here as neighbors, that you would listen. I understand the problem of the county and waste, but if t.d.s. Is here, you don't have the kind of problem that we are made to feel that there is. So I’m hoping that you will consider seriously the things that would allow these people to continue to operate and make arrangements for an artery that is a road that is designed to carry their trucks right into the back of their landfills. And that's all I have to say today.
>> thank you, ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
>> good afternoon. Judge, Commissioners, for the record, john vev, I’m here representing iesi and mr. Gray is here as well. He is one of the company's district managers. Just a couple points very briefly because I understand you are not going to be taking final action today and there will be subsequent consideration and postings. The last time this issue was considered, this particular ordinance back in approximately may of 2003, iesi filed some comments and we would simply like to reurge those comments in great measure we had suggested at that time and reurge today is effectively what we referred to as a qualified exemption for the two existing type 4 landfill facilities located down on fm 812. Those would be the iesi facility and the immediate adjacent city of Austin operation. As has been referenced, there is actually going to be considered this week before the Austin city council a contract for a joint venture project between iesi and the city of Austin for the integration of those two landfills, and along with that an expansion of those two facilities, primarily filling in the area located between those two facilities. Our earlier proposal in may of 2003 is effectively consistent with what we would suggest here today, which is that the Commissioners recognize the significant differences between a type 1 facility and a type 4 landfill facility. And if you'll r-frpbs the document we filed in may, we actually included an attachment which describes some of the differences in the types of operations, the types of waste materials, the way the facilities are operated, et cetera. So we would urge you to recognize those distinctions and also to effectively grant a qualified exemption. The exemption would require that the -- those two facilities certainly be limited to a type 4 waste stream, which would be construction, demolition debris, primarily brush, rubbish, type 4 waste streams as defined by the tceq. That the facilities be operated and secure all necessary permits from the tceq. And as part of the joint venture project between iesi and the city of Austin, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a permit amendment filed with the tceq, an application that would go through the tceq's public participation and public hearing process. That facility has not been designed such that we would be in a position to file an application within 30 days. That is not our intention. In fact, the contract would the city specifically provides that the application would be filed within a period of one year following adoption of the contract which we hope will be Thursday of this week. So we're not poised to file an application, but it certainly is a project that is very well envisioned between the city and iesi. With regard to the issue of birds that Commissioner Davis raised, the issue certainly is one which has gotten some attention. It's been aeurb that's been investigated by the tceq. The f.a.a., federal aviation administration has also been out at the facility as well as the city of Austin's aviation department. All three of those entities have investigated the issue. We have here with us today copies of some reports that we will distribute to you in which it's been determined that the birds that are present at the landfill operations are not posing a threat to aviation. In fact, the data will show that there is a greater potential for bird strikes to north end of the airport as opposed to the south end of the airport where these two landfill facilities are located. But we'll be happy to share that information with you, and if you desire any further information or would like questions answered, we'll be happy to follow up with you.
>> let me ask a question of you, please, sir. The old city landfill site was, I guess, permitted as a type 1 at one time. Now, what is the status of that old permit as far as being a type 1? I understand that you are saying a type 4 here, which I guess will overlay the type 1 facility that the city has out there, but something is attracting those birds and maybe someone can say, well, blah, blah, blah, blah, but according to the aviation people out there and comments I’m hearing, it is posing a problem. And according to -- [inaudible]. I heard one on television last night. So I guess something is attracting those birds in that area and had formerly ban type 1 landfill, and I really don't know. And I know you are suggesting that your operation is a type 4, construction debris and stuff like that. However, there has to be something attracting those birds to have them where it is, according to sources, some sources, that it is causing a problem to the air traffic out there. So I really don't know what the answer is to all of it, but f.a.a. Looked into it and -- but apparently there's a problem.
>> i'll be happy to share this information and if you want to review that and we'll follow up with you. F.a.a. Has investigated this issue through their fort worth and washington offices. The city of Austin's aviation department has investigated the issue and the tceq has investigated the issue. And while certainly there are birds there because there would be birds there naturally in and along onion creek, they have determined those landfills are not a bird atrack ant because they are restricted to a type 4. The report will detail the on site evaluations and the review performed as well as evaluation of the data as to incidents of either bird strikes or near misses at the airport, both north and southeast of the airport. As i've indicated, the reports will show you there is a not a bird arizona hard associated with the operation of those landfills. You did ask about the city landfill, it was originally permitted as a type 1 landfill.
>> what's the status now?
>> it is still technically permitted as a type 1, but it's been restricted to receipt only of type 4 waste stream and part of this joint venture between the city of Austin and iesi that type 1 to type 4 conversion would be done as part of the tceq permitting process. So the -- i'll call it the informal conversion by the city will become an official conversion upon the process that the city and iesi will go through under this contract.
>> so the type 1 permit will go away?
>> the type 1 designate will be eliminated and both facilities would be strictly limited to type 4 waste stream under the joint venture. And mr. Gray has some of those reports here. He's also very familiar with the landfill's operation should you have additional questions. We'll be happy to visit with anyone more specifically about either our operations or the proposed joint venture between the city and iesi or the bird issues. Any issues you like.
>> any questions for mr. Gray? Will you hand those to us, please? Yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> we'll give Commissioner Gomez five copies, she will send them on down. Thank you.
>> for the record, my name is robin trier.
>> if you wish to give testimony about this item, now is the time to come forward. Otherwise this is the last speaker on this part of the item. We have two other parts we need to get to. Is this the last speaker on this part of the item? [inaudible].
>> I don't know what the item is.
>> it's the siting ordinance. Siting ordinance. The siting ordinance. Any other takers? This is our last --
>> for the record, robin snyder, executive director for Texas for the environment. And I would urge you not to grant any limited or unlimited exceptions for the iesi and city landfills that are up to -- later this week and possibly after that, before the city council. There are grave problems at the city landfill. In this respect I think the county is ahead of the city in terms of closing an old landfill. The city probably should have closed this landfill a number of years ago. It's about 50 years old. It's got leachate flowing into onion creek. It had the quarter million cubic yards fall into unyuck creek and cross the park in 1991. It has high levels of methane gas in the methane gas Monday s. It's got carcinogens in the ground monitoring wells. It's got a whole host of the problems. And now with this proposed joint venter with i.s.i., they plan to greatly expand and combine these problems. The i.s.i. Problem, I’m familiar with their lack of enforcement. As the state auditor general came out critically of their enforcement procedures, we've dealt with that in the northeast Travis County landfills and many other facilities but the tceq is not known as an ace enforcer. People I know as pilots, including lee, the councilmember-elect basically says the same thing about what the f.a.a. That what you saw on television or in pictures, and I don't have the pictures with me of buzzard around the waste at the i.s.i. Landfill are grave cause for concerns which is why the pwerbg strom pilots and Texas aviation pilots are oppose ing this contract and also seeking that the waiver that allows these landfills to operate within five miles of an airport, that that waiver be revoked for both landfills. So if that waiver is revoked, if that happens, these landfills will be closed. So I urge you not to jump the gun. Not to grant a waiver. This waste -- construction and demolition waste is highly recyclable. The city council, the new city hall, Austin city hall, more than 80% of the construction debris for the building of that facility was diverted from landfills. There's no reason why we need to have such a huge expansion of the capacity for that. And I know that there are entrepreneurs that are planning to increase the facilities for construction and demolition waste recycling. So I urge you not to grant any special exemptions for those two landfills and i'd be happy to provide you with more information if you would like.
>> you do understand we're not considering any kind of special exceptions, we're just talking about what will be the general parameters if and when any special exceptions were presented, if indeed this thing is adopted and it moves forward. We're not talking about any exceptions for anybody.
>> well, as I understood mr. Vey, I was sitting in the audience, he was urging you to do that.
>> that's not up for discussion.
>> so I wanted to argue against his recommendation or suggestion that you do so.
>> okay. No, that's not the action item.
>> right, it's not in the ordinance now and I don't want that to be amended into it in the future.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...so it is related with you the task force has not taken a position, but the solid waste advisory commission that oversees our city's solid waste services has taken a unanimous position against the execution of this contract.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> move that we have this item back on next week for -- for tentative approval for posting as a Travis County ordinance and authorize staff to begin the appropriate work on a takings report. Immediately.
>> all right.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> yes, judge, I would like to also have the information, if possible, from this -- from the long-range solid waste task force committee, along with the pending rules before tceq looking at the -- the rules that will be applicable to what we are discussing here as far as a solid waste ordinance for landfills. I think that it's pretty important that we have at least something to look at as far as I’m concerned. I would like to have that as far as part of -- part of the process as we go forward. I would like to see those things. So that -- I would just like to -- to let them know, let the public know that.
>> sounds good to me.
>> I think that I would like to see that.
>> okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We do have representatives here from -- from waste management. When I talked with -- with john joseph, who was saided out the state.
>> country.
>> I told him that we would discuss this when he got back. Is there a need to discuss that today or next week.
>> I suggest next week since we will see you all next week anyway. Now. A. A. An overall strategy regarding types I and iv landfills in northeast Travis County; last week we discussed an overall strategy that the county judge had prepared. It was clear to me after a 10-minute discussion that only the county judge liked this overall strategy. For the to be outdone the county judge prepared an alternative strategy. We circulated that to the court on Thursday. Does everybody have that? If not I have other copies available.
>> it's on the top sheet.
>> this is may 10, it says alternative strategy. Today is may 10. You all got that? Anybody in the audience need a copy?
>> i've got it. There's also an alternative strategy number 2 that members of the court have not seep. This was put together over the last couple of days, over lunch, formatted this way. For the clerk. John, amount active strategy 2, thank you very much. Alternative strategy 2. Thank you very much. First I gave you a copy of an e-mail that I sent to dan smith and joyce thornson over lunch, it really was a reply to ms. Thorenson's e-mail to my office. The only purpose of this is when I think about how we ought to proceed, this notion comes to mind: one or more residents have asked me during the last week about a public meeting at a location near the neighborhood. And this e-mail simply says that I am agreeable to having such a meeting. Then the question is what we would discuss at the meeting. That is the importance of the alternative strategy and alternative strategy number 2. The difference is in the alternative strategy, what I try to do is set out some concepts that I think are very important from the Commissioners court perspective. John, I will need one copy of that alternative 2 back. What I did on the memo was basically set out that the Commissioners court primary position is that the landfills in northeast Travis County should relocate. I also made clear that I would assist upon request, I make some other points. In the -- in the may 17th, 2005 memo, there are changes that are there. The difference is in one there's a date certain. This is June 1, 2015 or 2015 and the bullet under that says b.f.i. Will do type 4 until December 31st, 2017. But type 1, 2015 would be a drop dead date. 2, 3, and most of four were in the memo distributed two weeks ago. Under 4 I say part of the consideration for the court s assistance would be the landfill operators agreement to relocate type I waste immediately after the green fill site is permitted. There are other factors that come into play if that is done. That is language that I -- new language that I thought about over the lunch hour. 5, 6, 7, were in the memo two weeks ago. It's not new. 8, I say the Commissioners court will oppose permit expansion applications by waste management. I said that last week. It's not new either. But it was not in the may 10 document. 9, I said Commissioners court will include a performance based agreement with b.f.i., which should be signed by b.f.i. Officials and the owner of the northeast Travis County landfill site and Travis County. And number 9, told by legal that in order for that to be enforceable, those parties need to be signatories and we can get legal advice from -- from tom nuchols next week if possible. What's clear to me is that no matter what we do ultimately, very, very few people will be happy. And I am in the gray area as to what really is the best and right course of action, because it seems to me that every time I have a conversation with two or more people, I leave the meeting with different thoughts. My recommendation would be me and whoever from the court wants to go to meet with residents in northeast Travis County, and lay out what I consider to be facts, considerations, different perspectives, in writing and verbally supplemented, orally supplemented as necessary. With everybody who comes having an opportunity to provide whatever input he or she wishes to do. These are not the only two options. We could do nothing, which I think has been rejected. Or we could take the position that we will oppose landfill expansions period, of which I have had a hard time identifying three votes on the Commissioners court for. I have told the residents as much. So those are four options. But I don't know -- doing nothing, three years ago made a whole lot of sense. Nobody seemed to like that right now. I just think of those four, we basically go out and meet with residents and after that meeting reconvene on a Tuesday and decide one strategy or the other. Over the last two or three days I had become convinced alternative 2 was good, it was a date certain, enforceable, et cetera. The down side that I see from that is that if you agree to a drop dead date, then if you need an expansion up to that date, it can be argued before the powers that be that that is tacit approval by the Commissioners court of that date. But if in fact the drop dead date is firm and enforceable, then no matter what you did before that date, you have got to leave on that date as of -- as to type 1. Lately the residents have taken a position that type I and type iv are the same. My understanding historically was that that was not the case. I did request from mr. Kuhl that we find whatever documentation was available from regulators and others any information that distinguishes type I from type iv. If we go the date certain, and I will be done in just a minute here. If we go the date certain then it seems to me that we need an agreement to do so. The date certain would not be enforceable against an entity that does not agree to do so. So that is waste management, waste management may agree to do it, they may not. If they do not, then that is the purpose of number 9 -- number 8 in alternative 2. If waste management enters into an agreement similar to what b.f.i. Indicated it's willing to do, then we would -- we would basically take the same position. The other thing in these documents I do to the have the Commissioners court on record as opposing any expansion. I have us reserving the right to do so based on performance or lack of demonstrated progress --
>> [indiscernible] opposed the expansion, how many times that I have said that.
>> Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> I thought you said Commissioner. Okay.
>> I lost my train of thought.
>> sorry.
>> so i've got those four. I have those four options. On the one hand doing nothing, on the other hand categorical opposition to expansions, period. In the middle there is -- there is an alternative in the memo dated may 10 and right next to it is alternative two, the memo dated may 17th.
>> okay.
>> perhaps there are other strategies that we ought to consider using. If the court members have one, now is the time to lay them out. We will take those to the public meeting, also.
>> judge, let me just say this, what I have heard, I mean, like I said we have been wrestling around with thing until 2005, lord, I wish that -- I’m sorry, 2001. It's 2005 now. But anyway to make a long story short. I think attentively we have been staying on this as much as possible. However what I consistently have heard, unless I am just interpreting or listening wrong, I have consistently heard from this community that they are not in favor and -- of any expansion regardless of what type of facility, whether it's type I or type her at the current -- or type iv at the current 290 landfill site. What I have also heard is that the community would like for them to move as quickly as possible. I guess the current existence permit that they are currently operating up -- operating up on -- under currently will expire. Whenever that expires, then I think what the community consistently said that they would like to see them relocate. Now, I haven't heard any variance into that as far as performance agreements, i've heard the communities say no to -- to all of those things and I haven't yet heard anyone from the neighborhood, from the community, support basically a lot of these things that are -- that are here before us today, whether it's wmi and also b.f.i. So it just -- unless the community has changed their position, I think, you know, I need to know that otherwise I’m going to hold pat and continue to support the position of the neighborhood. That's for no expansion currently at that site and also for them to relocate when their existing permit expires. So -- so unless there's any difference, I don't see the merit in this. That's what I have heard the community. If the community would like to have changed their mind, I think they ought to let me know or let the court know because I don't think it has.
>> five or six during lunch [papers shuffling - audio interference] any other comments from the rest of the court.
>> yeah, judge. This may not get a second but I’m moving on with this thing. I would recommend and make a motion that we land on the may 17th proposal that I know that you have worked on, that basically states b.f.i. Waste management must close their northeast Travis County location, as type I landfills by June 1st, 2015. B.f.i. Will accept type iv waste until December 31st, 2017, after closing to types I and iv wastes, both landfills should close to all other waste as soon as practicable. Travis County will make relocation of both b.f.i. And waste management landfills as priority and I suppose that's through condemnation. Travis County is still willing to assist both b.f.i. And waste management with acquisition of green fill sites for new landfill locations as necessary. And part of the consideration of Travis County's assistance will be the landfill operators agreement to relocate type I waste immediately after the green fill site is permitted. Travis County will emphasize and enforce compliance with applicable landfill operating standards. Six the Commissioners court will immediately consider adopting a siting ordinance for types I and iv landfills in Travis County, I suppose that can be as soon as next week. The Commissioners court reserves the right to timely oppose any permit, expansion, application, based on performance at current landfill operations or demonstrated progress towards location acquisition of green fill sites and the Commissioners court will oppose any permit expansion application by waste management beyond its current capacity. Obviously Commissioners court will approve a performance based agreement with b.f.i. Which would be signed by b.f.i. Officials and the owner of the northeast Travis County landfill site. If we don't move forward with this thing, we will be here for five years as far as I’m concerned. I mean I’m looking for -- I would rather have a time certain date that I know what I’m dealing with, and move forward on, but that is my motion.
>> second.
>> and Commissioners, I’m going to join you all and here's why. In terms of how different is the part due of the proposal that judge Biscoe has gave us a few minutes ago as to what's in the hands of everybody at least since may 10th, what we have is a refinement to the good related to number 1 in terms of a date certain which is certainly better than the 2018 and some other numbers that have been roaming around out there. Number 8 is certainly a positive statement of this court related to wm, represented to its permit expansion plans. And number 9 is something that has been talked about off and on, off and on, off and on, and ought not to be a surprise to anyone because that draft has been out there. In fact it is the vehicle, it is the controlling legal document that will get us to number 1, which is what everybody wants us, please goñi away and how soon can we make this happen? So I -- I don't see where having another public meeting gets us anywhere because the information is not that much different than what has already been out there and if anything we have got a better refinement today in terms of its a date certain. I’m ready to move on. We move on with the stuff next week related to the siting ordinance and then going through the appropriate takings assessment.
>> [multiple voices]
>> acceptable like 6, 1, probably, but there are other things integrated in there that I haven't heard from the community that make me feel comfortable enough to support it. Not saying that you know what you all is doing is wrong, you want to go forward with it. But I haven't heard from the community and that's what I’m looking to hear from. Of course I see this here now, may 10th, I wasn't here may 10th. Just now getting this here now. Now, if you want to move on down the road, that's fine. But what I’m trying to still say is what I have continued to hear from the community. Performance agreement, hey that was out the window, number 9. One is probably something that they can probably have agreed on and of course 6 I just heard them comment on 6. So but that's so many facets, teeth to this thing that may be damaging to them and their way of thinking. If the community need to, you know, if i, you know, any difference in what's right here, do everybody have a copy of this right here today, I don't know. I just now got it. So have that been exposed to the neighborhood per se. I don't know if it has been or not. Of course to act on something without the neighborhood's scrutiny is just not my way of doing business. I can't support it based on not having enough information from the neighborhood, they may accept a few of these things here, but then there's some things they may not accept. So I would like to hear more from the neighborhood as far as what they are willing to do and accept or not accept and right now I haven't heard that from them.
>> I’m convinced that they won't accept any of where we are beyond now and happiness is long ago a goal that I gave up on this thing.
>> okay, well -- [multiple voices] I’m going to stick by the neighborhoods come hell or high water.
>> sir, I really do respect that.
>> I respect y'all's opinion, too, you got your opinion, you know --
>> Commissioner, this puts a lot of pressure on us as well to get out and to -- to force the issue.
>> I understand.
>> with the green fill and I mean I understand where you are coming from on your deal, I don't think we are going to move on this [multiple voices] come in, I think we will have meeting on top of meeting because we are in -- at an impasse. People don't want this to happen, people don't want this to happen. Quite frankly y'all I don't think that we're moving in a direction that anybody can agree on. Unless we are willing to make a call on this thing and move forward with it, we will continue to [multiple voices]
>> I still say this, I’m going to say it again. If these landfills were located anywhere else, I don't think anybody's position would be this. But they are located in my precinct and I’m having to deal with this and I have consistently have dealt with this for a number of years, all of us have. Of course if this is conceded making a concession or allowing, giving in to the landfill operators, it appears that's the direction we are doing, at the expense of the neighborhoods and like I say time out. Time is out for -- I think the county, also precinct 1 to be held hostage by the landfill operators.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, daughterty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, I’m voting against this because of the fact that the neighborhood has not I think -- have not changed their position on a lot of these things, so I can't support this the way it's structured. There's things that they probably will accept, but then there are things that they probably do not accept. Just to lay this all out and go forward the whole nine yards is something that's just not acceptable to me.
>> ms. English?
>> yes, sir. My name is trek english, for the record. Am I understanding that you are taking a resolution on a piece of paper that was given to us for 10 minutes for review today at 1:30 and you are not going to take any public input? That's it?
>> any additional comments today?
>> trek, did you -- are you telling me that you all don't know what's on this sheet? Are you telling me that we haven't in the two and a half years that I have been on this court, that -- that if I gave you this thing six months ago, trek, I mean what I’m convinced of is that I can't get you all where you want us to get. I mean I just can't, I mean, I feel that in my heart. If I feel differently I could have given you this thing two years ago and it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, I know that. You know that. Because I know what you all want. I would love to be able to have a magic wand and make the lils go away -- the landfills go away. I can't, but I think with certainty, with a date, everybody knows exactly where we are headed, exactly what we are going to do with the landfill, they certainly know what they have got to do. But I don't feel like, you know, this is presenting something to you all where you haven't had a chance to weigh in. Because I don't think there's anything on here, I mean, other than the fact that you -- y'all don't want a time certain, but I -- no, I don't feel guilty about -- about well have you guys just been given this thing immediately? No. Because I think we have talked about every one of these things on here so long, that it's so obvious to me that we are just for the going to get beyond a spot unless we -- unless this court makes a call and says this is how you move this thing forward.
>> well, Commissioner Daugherty, I agree with you we need to bring this thing forward. My problem is in case you don't realize this, we were willing to put up with this mess for another 10 years. We never asked you to shut them down today or tomorrow. We were reasonable about all of these problems, all of these problems that you are facing I don't think that we were asking for much. We even compromised on the year that we were originally asking for. Frankly this is giving a huge advantage to -- to one company, b.f.i. Why are we giving b.f.i. Until 2017?
>> that's the type iv. That's the type iv.
>> so what?
>> 2015 is the type I landfill. You just said that you were willing to do 10 years. It's 2005. This is 2015, that's what 2015, it says that, trek.
>> I know, sir.
>> you just said that you were willing to go for 10 more years, we just got where you were willing to go to.
>> first of all, there's 2017, two more years, whether you like type iv or you don't, it's still waste. Then there's a big loophole, number 2, that leaves it all as practicable, which I think the public needs to be told what that means. You are leaving a big loophole in number 2, an additional item in -- in number 1, which was not part of the original strategy, that second strategy that we were given. And -- this possibility that you will not oppose an expansion from b.f.i.
>> you have got a loophole to deal with me on, I’m willing to work with you on a loophole, go to these folks and say I don't want any loop holes, you know, what? What I’m trying -- you all know where I’m trying to get you. I am willing to tell the industry that, just like I’m willing to tell you all where I’m trying to get this. Short of just saying I wish you all would get in the bowling alley business, get out of the landfill business. I can't do that with them. That's not the ability that I have. But I do think that I have the ability to sit down and I think that there's some concessions, I think that they understand that they have gotten us to a spot where we are willing to or at least three or four of us now are willing to pull the trigger say we are going to move this thing forward. Now if there are loop holes, I mean, i'll work with you, i'll go in and say I don't want this shenanigan pulled. I’m not -- anybody that knows me, I’m not real big on shenanigans, I’m not real big on well we didn't lay that out but all of a sudden now you are telling me this is the deal, then, you know, it's very difficult to work with me if you try to do that with me. I don't think the industry understands or I don't think they think that they are going to be able to deal with at least with me like that. If there's a loophole or something that you are going to have major heart ache over, I think I’m certainly willing to sit down and I think --
>> well, you are not giving me 10 years, Commissioner Daugherty this is giving me a lot more just too long leaves the door wide open for them to stay there as soon as practicable which could be mean years if this is transformed into another -- another type of facility.
>> tom, how would you read 2, what would you do to take any ambiguity out or -- I assume that means you start the formal closure process. I’m not quite sure what that means.
>> this is robin for the record. I applaud you folks for sticking with this, trying to find a -- a way out of the impasse. You are sick of this issue. We are sick of this ir. We want to -- of this issue. We want to make sure it gets resolved in a way that is fair and doesn't create new loop holes. I think that you have heard trek and I think that you will hear from joyce there has been a lot of give from the neighbor's perspective. Even though waste management said they were going to close in 2013 to get their fine reduced the neighbors have agreed to 2015. I don't think it's unreasonable that -- that that should be it period. Here's another loophole that I see. B.f.i. Will accept type iv waste until 2017. How long is waste management going to accept type 4 waste? That's not specified here.
>> they are not here today.
>> they are not here today. That's a part 2 -- the part 2 of part 2 discussion.
>> but the second --
>> the thing about waste management is if we don't reach an agreement with them similar to this, then we will just -- whatever authority they have under their current permit they can exercise. They file for an expansion, this has us on record as saying we will oppose expansion, period. See what I’m saying? So as to type I and iv and whatever types they have authority to do, by tceq rules, the current permit, they are authorized to do that. If we delete 2 here, I just pulled 2 because it was in the other drafts, if we delete 2 nothing is lost. 1 and 4 are the main wastes, right? The only one that I can think of is just a transfer facility because they don't do the other types of minor stuff, not much of it. If we delete 2 from this overall strategy nothing is lost in my view. It was just a catch all more than anything else.
>> the question is are you going to stop waste management activities at that landfill or allow them to continue to operate indefinitely as a transfer station at that place? And are you willing to take a stand on that today or not?
>> I don't know that we have the authority, tom, to do anything to stop waste management from -- anything -- anything permitted until that permit expires. If they were to go over and try to get the current permit expanded in any way, this has us on record as being in opposition.
>> but a permit expansion is not necessarily the same thing as a registration or a transfer station. That's my understanding is that all they would need is a registration. So believe me I have dealt with the landfills a lot. They are always finding the loop holes. If you don't deal with them.
>> transfer station, it doesn't matter whether it's b.f.i. Or wm, a lot of whether that's even going to be needed or not is going to be where is the new green field site. All of them have said if it's within 25 miles of the current site, you don't need a transfer station because the stuff can go straight over there. So --
>> if they say they do need a transfer station, are you going to allow it in this community which has bowrp the brunt of the burden of dealing with the landfills for decades. They want to be assured there's --
>> I’m going to deal with that when it comes to us. If the green field site says we don't need it, we don't need it. If there's going to be a transfer station, no offense the more logical place for it to occur is on what's already permitted as a landfill as opposed to saying we are going to find someplace knew that we have to turn into a transfer station, in the same vicinity, so we can have a transfer station which then can get out to the new green field site. That is going to be an issue that we are going to deal with. I’m hopeful that the green field sites will make that a moot point.
>> I think taking outnumber 2 at least is a step in the right direction to say group it's not as soon as practicable. I think that's a huge loophole. I think that the community in the neighborhood, you have a handful of people here today. But this is substantially new in my opinion and it deserves some public input from the people who are going to be most affected. There has not been a big public hearing in the northeast Travis County landfill area for a long time. I was at the last meeting of the siting committee that was in early 2003. As far as I know, there has not been another public hearing in the neighborhood in the evening for folks to discuss these issues. Especially since this first came group was made public and it was a big surprise to me last on may 10th. I mean speaking personally, I’m dealing with the legislature, city issues now, I haven't given it my full attention. But I think that the perception is that it's been going on and on and on. I think if you live in the neighborhood, if you aren't able to come down here on Tuesdays during the day, you haven't been included in a face-to-face explanation of what's going on. I would urge you as you were mentioning judge Biscoe to pursue the public meeting so you can actually hear where people are at on this idea. I think the neighbors are giving a lot in this compromise.
>> I think the trans ter issue ought to be revisited once we know where a green field site is located. Then it's absolutely relevant, we can tighten it up if we find out that the green field location means the transfer stations are unnecessary and can go I away. That's one more thing that we can lock down to certainty, but we can't do that without noing where are we going to land on a green field site or sites.
>> this is intended to be an overall strategy for the Commissioners court. To the extent that we reach agreement, then it would be provided for more specifically and we have been working with b.f.i. On a performance based agreement. We have not been working with waste management on one. I’m assuming if we approve one with b.f.i., waste management will come forth and at least make the offer of at least some terms and conditions. As an overall strategy I think this is important because we -- I have no way of knowing where a majority of us would stand on specific points. What I know today, I never hope for unanimity, but I hope the court will give some indication by vote for a majority. I have no problem with going out to the johnmy morris location and having a public meeting and receiving input. I mean as I indicated from the beginning, though, I don't expect everybody to be happy with this. I’m certainly not. At the same time, though, just having a formalized position is a whole lot better than we have been during the last three years. We have made a lot of progress. A month ago we had 2018 in here. For approximate before that we had no date. You know, my original overall view was basically not to put a date, period, but just to have us in a position of plating major emphasis on locating a green field site, indicating the county's willingness to assist with acquisition and if we do that, we in the landfill business whether we like it or not, that way we have at least some leverage, though. But I did not address performance based contract, did not address whether we will oppose expansions or not. But I did say based on performance, lack of demonstrated progress toward acquisition of a green field site, Travis County reserved the right to oppose any expansion application. Which I think is good language.
>> it's a huge improvement from last year.
>> which we have in here. We have all made progress but in my view, if this frees us up, if we put these standards in place, then I think we have no excuse for not placing greater emphasis on locating and acquiring green field sites. Then you got to permit them. Then you have got to figure out exactly what the county is asked to do, whether we would do it and what we get in return. But we have not spent a lot of time I think in that direction because we have kind of been going back and fort over other issues.
>> judge, I’m sorry because i've been here three hours and I know my -- I’m going to get a ticket because that's all that we have around here is three hour boxes to put money in. So i've been here three hours to talk on this particular matter and you took a vote without any public input. If you -- if that's what you intended to do, you should have told the people to stay home, not drag us again one more time so that you could take a vote in front of our face, that's number one that I really don't like. Number two, December 31st, 2017, in my book is 2018, it is not 2017. Okay. So we haven't changed that date very much and the fact that they are still talking about the same type of expansion that they talked about four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, last year and six months ago, two weeks ago, we are still talking about the same amount of expansion that was proposed originally. They have already gotten 10 feet from you, this thing -- saying they have gone from 10 to 15 to 12 whatever. You have already granted them an expansion, remember that, 10 years ago you granted -- two years ago you granted them a 10-foot expansion. It's not like you ever granted them. For you Commissioner Sonleitner, I am taking exception to you saying no offense set. You are offending me saying the best place to put a transfer station is here. Under what criteria did you make me work on this solid waste ordinance that was passed, that was passed, if you intended it to just go to where landfills are located? If that was your intention, you should have made it clear to all of the court and all of the residents that waste should stay where waste is and new residents are going to get stuck with it forever. You are going to get stuck with twin operation, you are going to get stuck with transfer station, with the 21,000 barrels, you are going to get stuck with the traffic, with the garbage from everywhere coming to there. You need to be more clear in your discrimination against our neighborhoods and this has been going on for way too long.
>> trek, I have mentioned from this dais over and over and over to excess about any time we were talking about that the possibility still existed about transfer stations and what I meant to say perhaps in a less eloquent way is this: that if a green field site occurs where transfer stations are still going to be necessary, in Travis County, I have a -- a pretty decent suspicion that the tceq in terms of moving to that kind of a permitted use would probably have a favoritism toward turning an existing landfill into a transfer site as opposed to inflicting in the same general vicinity on a green field site creating a new transfer site. That is all I meant. And I have always started --
>> first of all --
>> hang on a second.
>> I have always stated in terms of reminding the neighborhood, as we go through these discussions, that the idea of a transfer site was always still out there and we need to keep reminding everybody that transfer may or may not be it. This is not intended to be any other statement other than the obvious. If the green field site needs a transfer station, I unfortunately think the tceq is going to be saying that's probably a more compatible thing going on on an existing landfill site than starting someplace brand new. I’m hopeful [multiple voices] I’m hopeful --
>> the point is the transfer station does not go where the green field site is or where the solid waste site used to be, it goes where the people are that use that landfill that are too far from the landfill. We -- our waste, where you want to put the transfer station, our waste is not going to go to those landfills, it has already been contracted to go to the tds landfill and so is most of the Austin waste. Residential waste. Since you are talking about this constant boom, that's happening, wherever it is except where we live, which you are not even recognizing at any time, if you are going to go on about the boom, you put the transfer station where the boom is happening. Where the people are that are usi u these facilities, wherever they move to. So that's how it works. You don't put a transfer station, stick a neighborhood with it just because they've had landfills which includes your landfill, which has problems for the last 30 years or more.
>> and I’m hopeful that this is going to be a moot discussion, that the green field sites that we can find will mean that the transfer stations are not going to be necessary and I will be the first one to say we don't need and we will not have transfer stations at the old sites.
>> are you finished ms. English.
>> no, I’m not finished, sir. I would like for the record to see owe I’m not finished because I wasn't planning on -- I thought we were going to discuss this further. I would like for the record to say that my understanding of what -- I’m thinking perhaps only b.f.i. Has been doing that, I will have to verify that with steve, but what I’m seeing here that's emerging from all of these talks is that b.f.i. Will have a 75-foot -- wants a 75-foot expansion above and beyond the 10-foot that they have already been granted. They want to switch to type iv. Above and beyond the type I operation. They want the county to oppose any expansion that is going to be proposed for the tceq. They want the county to help them find a tract of land where they can relocate and in case they find the tract of land, which is number 5, they want to use your powers of -- of eminent domain to be able to obtain that site. They want to be excluded from the variance from the floodplain ordinance, they want to be excluded from the solid waste ordinance, I want to circumvent the solid waste tceq rules, they want a location within 30 miles or they get the ran if her station, if I’m going by Commissioner Sonleitner reasoning, transfer station, they want to be able to raise their rate because now they are going to have to do it right in a new location with the new rules. I can probably come up with another 10 things that they want.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...there's no use in us getting into the type 4 because y'all always know -- I got involved in this thing because I got out there and smelled it. You got my attention by the smelling of it. And i've always said type 4, I know that there are ideas all over the board about type 4.
>> why don't you take it up in your agreement? We can discuss it again in the performance-based contract, but you should make it a part of this resolution. You should take that out number 2 and 2017 and when you are convinced that what you want, you can always put that in your contract. But I think the 2015 needs to stand.
>> well, i'd like to see y'all's loophole thing. I would like to look at them and say here are loopholes. Gets get loophole language definitive so we all know so that we can go to the neighbors and say here's what they consider a loophole and for me, if I think it's a loophole, i'll say that I think it's legitimate. Now, let's determine right now what this is and how we're going to deal wit. It.
>> if we delete number 2, that would leave waste other than 1 and 4 unaddressed.
>> well, then put 2015. I don't want anything to be as practicable.
>> move we delete number 2.
>> or address it in a performance-based contract. Address a transfer station.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly in favor of voting against Commissioner Davis. Who is gone?
>> just not enough time. The neighborhood hasn't had enough time to look at this thing. It's not fair to them.
>> if I could get you all to promise you will be here in 2015, then maybe something could be done right. But what are the odds? Who is going to listen to us? Even the staff is probably not going to be here in 2015 so god knows what we're actually facing. I know what john is thinking. For reason I can read his mind. [laughter]
>> judge, I still wish you would postpone your decision for a week so that we can make sure. I would like number 2 to say no transfer station. I don't think it is fair for you to give us the garbage forever. I know you took it out, but if the judge says that it's not being addressed, if we leave it open, then if you are willing to address tonight the performance-based contract, that's fine.
>> greenfield site.
>> let's put a big asterisk by transfer station. You are saying it needs to be addressed at some point.
>> I want to make sure that Commissioner Sonleitner understands that if she wants to give me garbage for the rest of our -- eternity, she needs to come on the record and say it. I know she explained to me -- I’m really getting tired of the continuing harping on this issue. You're getting garbage for as long as the tceq has currently permitted b.f.i. And w.m.i. To put stuff on that particular land. And I think we are trying appropriately to get those numbers to be lower, not higher. We've put a line in the sand saying w.m., no further than what you've already been permitted. And with b.f.i., a date certain, which is something far better than anything we've ever had before. That's it. That's it. And that is not eternity. It just isn't.
>> we'll set that meeting up. I'll be there. Ms. Nider.
>> I’m finished.
>> ms. Bearing ton.
>> since you've already voted, it's pretty much useless to say anything other than thank you for taking out number 2. That's one reason I was up here. I think if anybody gets a transfer station, you have an ordinance to cover that. I think you should make them go by your ordinance. I don't think anybody should get any free pass just because they have a landfill. You have a transfer station or -- and I hope you apply it.
>> judge, I am not saying they should get a pre free pass. I’m just look at the realities of the tceq evaluating that again. I am so hopeful it goes away because the greenfield sites will be within a distance that will make the transfer sites absolutely unnecessary and we can knock them out.
>> I understand.
>> and you have my commitment to that.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I just think that if you are familiar with the tceq permitting practice s., they almost never reject anything.
>> that's what I was trying to say out loud.
>> so in terms of a transfer station location, you know, if the cog signs off that it's appropriate in terms of landfill of the land use, the tceq is almost a rubber stamp at this point. So that's not a big hurdle.
>> and I’m acknowledging that that unfortunately is probably what we are going to be dealing with.
>> but I also want you to realize that they are not permitted as a transfer station. That they can --
>> agreed.
>> we're agreed, fine. Because they are not. While they are permitted, they have a permit from tceq for type 1 and to some extent to type 4. The transfer station is a whole new ball game that you guys are introducing into the scenario, and that was never part of their permit.
>> we're going to have to deal with it when we have to deal with it.
>> no, honestly, I would like for all of us to have some kind of idea within the next couple months that that's it. I don't want to come back here and talk about this, and I’m sure you don't want to either. So I would love to get it off the table because there are other things that are going to face this county that we need with that are as important.
>> and we're going to need your help and support when weu identify greenfield sites where we can all join hands and say yes, that is a better place to put it. We are going to need you when we go through the greenfield site selection.
>> yeah, I’m going to go upstairs and give your staff the copy of the three pages I was talking about two weeks ago so that you can look at the sites that we're proposing and whether or not they are still available or not. I haven't done my real estate homework because, well, we're doing legal homework.
>> are you sure those are b.f.i. And w.m.?
>> help already have them. They were there.
>> just making sure they've also got those lists.
>> anybody else on a? The over all strategy regarding types 1 and 4 landfills? I really think we ought to have b next week. I think we ought to do b next week. We can try to regroup on that one, okay? We'll have it back on.
>> judge, as part of our strategy that we have adopted, we are basically are saying yes, that's the green light to appropriately lock down b.
>> right. If we apply the strategy. I’m agreeable to trying to work with residents to go to the johnny morris facility for a meeting during the next couple of weeks after hours to explain what the strategy is about and also what actions we take next week. If unless residents think that's not necessary. Sound like a good idea? I'll meet with you all on a convenient date. Okay? We do have b, c and d for next week. I mean that's a -- it will be in the morning, though, maybe those won't take as much time, but I do think we ought to -- with the other items off, we can give those a little more consideration next week. Thank y'all for coming down. We appreciate it. Thank you, tom.
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, May 18, 2005 7:54 AM