Travis County Commissioners Court
July 19, 2005
Item 20
Item no. 20. Consider and take appropriate action on request from the city of Austin long range solid waste planning task force: a. Travis County participation in the task force; and -- that's the first request, second request is b. Travis County delaying further action on solid waste issues until completion of task force work. Any task force members here? This is the county, please come forth.
>> [inaudible - no mic] at the appropriate time, comes in the discussion, I want to make sure that I could ask one more question for the task force.
>> I think they are -- there are just one of two possibilities, she's one of them. And I don't know whether -- I don't think they have in mind one person. I think they would have in mind two.
>> I think -- even if it's --
>> approval in there.
>> cjc.
>> and --
>> [indiscernible]
>> whenever we get to that, I would like a portion of it. Thank you.
>> okay. Yes.
>> thank you all for taking your time this afternoon. I知 co-chair, j.d. Porter, co-chair of the long-range solid waste planning task force for the city of Austin. We have a request of two items that you see on your agenda. The reason is that we have a -- we have a very diverse group of people working from a lot of different perspectives on trying to develop a long-range plan for the city of Austin, primarily, but when the regional perspective. And the work that we are doing, I think, is something that's called for and has been for some time and is real important to the future of this county and the city and the area. We would request that the entities making decisions based on -- that impacts solid waste handling units, hesitate for a bit, we are asking for just the period of time that we are going to be working as a task force, we estimate this to be about six months. So that if we do present a plan to you, that you find acceptable and want to adopt, that you have the opportunity to implement that plan without having components of it being pre-empted by decisions that were made during the planning period. This would be on the city council's agenda and we have spoken with -- with solid waste advisory committee of capco and asked them to consider this and we are asking you all to consider this, also. [indiscernible] the decision makers would take a pause and let this task force do their work and bring it before you for approval.
>> when is -- when is it posted on the city council agenda?
>> councilmember dunkerly.
>> when.
>> when? It's going to be at their next meeting. The 21st it's not going to be a regular meeting for them. The one after that is the next scheduled.
>> that's b. Okay. Under a it's what? Travis County participation on the task force.
>> yes, sir, I think that's very important. We would request that -- that there be two representatives, one for backup, the other -- if the other cannot make it. We have input now from public sector, private sector, governmental entities involved, we have public involved, so it's very important that the county have a voice on this task force to make sure that we take into every perspective, have all of the input that would be needed to make an effective plan. We are looking at a long-term 50 year plan here for solid waste planning in this area. I think it would be an oversight not to have the county participatory.
>> was there a charge for the task force.
>> yes. When we were -- when we were initiated, the charge was to develop a long range, 50 year, solid waste management plan for the city of Austin with regional consideration and to include both short term and long-term goals and objectives and to include in the -- in the report to be brought before the city, county and capco consideration of both the vision and practical steps for implementation to include milestones and deliverables.
>> are you talking charge or fee?
>> no. The charge of the task force. What are they supposed to accomplish.
>> in terms of my backup that I have gotten, in terms of the anticipation is a six-month time frame to complete our work, is that a six-month time frame from when the council created you back in November a year ago, six months from your first meeting when didn't occur until April, six months from your June meeting when you asked for moratorium or six months from today?
>> it's been moving --
>> I know that sounds really tacky the way I put that, but unfortunately that is a realism that I知 working with that even people with very good hearted proposals and initiatives, this thing takes a whole lot longer than anyone ever anticipates. We were dealing, we are still dealing with interim water quality rules that there were people that honestly thought that we would have finished up that process late last year and here it is seven months later -- [indiscernible]
>> yes. I知 very familiar with that. I have been involved in a number of planning processes and know exactly what you are speaking of. Actually our original charge was to work within 90 days of our first meeting. We quickly all came to the conclusion that 90 days was not going to get it if we were looking at a long-range regional plan, essentially. What I think we have on the table is really looking at the end of the year and since the initial request for six months, has a -- has a vague starting point, I think realistically we can look at the end of the year, realizing that we have already reassessed our time frame. We have made good progress thus far, I think that that is a very doable time frame.
>> does that figure in certainly on the Austin city council, I don't think they have more than one meeting in the month of December. They have a different meeting scheduled than we do.
>> right.
>> we discovered that on 1445 negotiations is that we are here every week, 52 weeks out of the year, but they have different schedules, if you are trying to work on things because they don't have the same meeting schedule we do, they also have meetings from hell it's very difficult to get on their agenda, even when you are trying all good honest effort to work on things cooperatively.
>> i've had that experience, also. We have good support from the councilmembers and I think this will be something that will move through pretty quickly. Fingers crossed.
>> do you all have any ideas about participation, any ideas that you would like to share with the court.
>> I looked at the list of task force members, looks like [indiscernible] have a lot of friends and colleagues on there.
>> john kuhl, environmental officer, t.n.r. Yes, judge, i've been aware of the process. Actually, initially indicated that I would participate, was not able to at the particular time that they are doing it. I don't have -- conceptually obviously don't have any problem, obviously fascinated with the topic. Quite motivated to work on it as always. [indiscernible]
>> judge [indiscernible]
>> are you equally moved?
>> yes, sir. I would just like to add that given capco's role in long-range solid waste planning, it would also be a good idea to include shaun or someone from his group at the cog. To really round out this task force. If the county wants to participate and takes it to -- to a regional level, then it would be good to include all of the relevant players.
>> is the cog represented on there?
>> several members wear multiple hats. Sir. We have folks from the swac, or cap cog that are on the task force.
>> as a governmental entity, the same way that mr. Rhoades is on there for the city of Austin, we're talking about staff members, almost seems appropriate or -- or you know who do we turn that request over to, I mean, we can't go adding people on that aren't really on our committee, it's a great suggestion, though.
>> uh-huh.
>> in an official capacity.
>> yes, in the official capacity, that's the one that I think would be most helpful.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> judge, I wanted to make sure that I didn't -- I didn't see her name on there, trying to go through there. Melinda, the only name that I had reference to was john kuhl, which is fine. But of course john has a lot of other things, I know that he's diligently, ready to get out there. A lot of these ongoing things. I know that time is in essence, I think even [indiscernible] brought up if one can't be there, another person can be of service. So basically what I was trying to do is request that melinda maya's name be added to this list if it's not already there. I haven't seen it yet.
>> john believes his name is on the list, but he is not an official member, right?
>> I just initially was requested to be on there just directly to me as a staff person, not to the Commissioners court. And before they had set their meeting times, I thought that I would be able to do it, but -- but it looks like I will not be able to be there for the official meeting times unless they change those. However, there are subcommittees, there are many ways to be involved and we could have melinda, me, primarily, meet back up, there's a number of ways to --
>> plus you would like to put these meetings on your county time sheet.
>> oh, sure.
>> not under the hobbies on your resume.
>> that's right.
>> he didn't really want to spend time with three lawyers, did you?
>> do we have a an objection melinda, you being the prime, john being the backup?
>> that's fine with me, sir.
>> all right.
>> Commissioner, if that's a motion I would be happy to second it.
>> that is in the form of a motion.
>> hopefully, it would be a friendly that we encourage the folks with this committee to extend an offer of membership to cap cog and the possibility that the appropriate person might be something like -- is it shaun moran, not our decision, but we think that's a good, friendly suggestion.
>> I do, too.
>> the motion is to appoint both of them, with at least one of them [indiscernible]
>> any more discussion?
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. That's the hard one, here's the easy one. B will cause a little agony, working on issues that I said to you in my e-mail for years. Two or three of those I知 told we need to move on. Like arterial a, where it's management says -- is in limbo for quite a while we really have been committed to them, to make a decision one way or another on arterial a. They are progressing toward cells 9 and 10 with the landfill operation and have asked us either it would be -- should be set aside for an arterial or should not. They want to know whether to worry about it. If -- if we decide to proceed with the road, then there's? Other things that they -- then there's some other things that they need to do. In exchange for dedication of right-of-way, they need our [indiscernible] several commitments that need to be made as part of our decision about whether or not arterial a is a county road project. I do think that -- I do think that -- that before the expiration of six months, we ought to land on that. Because, joe, I think we need to go back to, no matter what we decide, we need some conversation with -- with campo, right? Do we think that it's being -- being in the 2030 plan is sufficient? The question this morning came up because of lack of funding in the advisory -- on the advisory committee recommendation for arterial a. And so how should we read that?
>> [indiscernible] other projects that were ready to go, looked like this one still had some issues. They were in a cutting mood so they had to eliminate some projects. If there were still unsettled issues, they were going to pass that over and put the 100 million elsewhere. It wasn't that arterial a may not have been a good project, but there were other competing roads that they thought ranked higher in priority. I don't think you have to take any action with regard to campo or even with the funding, I mean if it doesn't happen this cycle, it doesn't happen this cycle.
>> what about letting waste management know one way or the other?
>> well --
>> did not interpret our decision to leave it in the campo 2030 plan as an indication to waste management that -- that we want to plan to use cells nine and 10, they are a little more specific than that. Right?
>> we have -- we have independent actions here. They certainly have independent actions on the cell that they own and they operate. And we have independent actions on the [indiscernible] one doesn't necessarily force the other.
>> but it's reasonable for us to -- when we ask you to go and look at the -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] basically said this is number one right here, the others cost many, many times this one --
>> that's right, they in effect have perhaps a trump card on arterial a. But, you know, there's still time on whether or not they exercise that -- that option. And there's a lot of stuff yet to happen with regard to the landfill. I don't think that -- that arterial a necessarily needs to be a part of that debate. That things will settle up and -- and when the smoke clears, we will know what exact -- the landfill, we will know what happens with arterial a.
>> you think that we ought to get you to write them a letter telling them not to worry -- because I receive a phone call every week from john [indiscernible] on arterial a.
>> he's right there.
>> I think --
>> I wonder why john joseph doesn't call me? That's really strange to me that here it is in my precinct, john joseph doesn't even call me.
>> my question, though, is -- [indiscernible] as Commissioners court, though --
>> no, we're not.
>> I disagree because it is their land. And we have pretty much said, thinking about -- about this alignment for arterial a. They are saying now we are headed toward this alignment towards cells 9 and 10.
>> that's right.
>> and they said in the interest of getting this settled, we will give you a proposal to move out of your way. With these conditions. And we understand now that -- that that proposal is not acceptable to the Commissioners court and so -- so that's as far as it goes. They know that they can proceed to fill the cells if that's the route they want to take. As far as arterial a it just sits there until -- until those cells are filled up or -- that's it. You know?
>> but does the Commissioners court want to leave the situation there? If they want to fill cells nine and 10, that's all right with us.
>> I think --
>> that's my point.
>> once you are willing to make a commitment, I don't think they have any choice. I mean it's obvious that we can't make many commitments on any of this stuff. We haven't been able to do it in two and a half years. So ... But I just think that.
>> but I just think that we ought to formally decide one way or the other. I can live with whatever the situation is. I don't think we ought to acquiesce into one.
>> the problem is that they were incredibly -- there were incredibly strong feelings both ways about arterial a. When I -- went out into the hallway this morning to visit with john hutchinson and christina kubeck, there are people who respectfully disagree and think arterial a is an amazingly important problem and the idea that there is seven miles in between two major arterials is hitting their neighborhood in a bad way. But respectfully there is an equally -- opposite viewpoint of people who think that the price to pay for arterial a because of concessions that need to be made, may be related to the landfill, are -- are the things that kill the project and there are folks that just flat out think, well there's another arterial, I don't care to have that in my back yard, that's one of the things where I wish it could be both ways, at some point we have to pick one or the other. But that doesn't have to be towed. At some point waste management is going to get to a point of saying I can't wait on y'all any longer. And they may be the ones that push us either saying then it's going to be whatever it is or not. But that's not today.
>> well, what will move things is what if we said here's the two scenarios, one is we'll go with arterial a, what does that do to you? Then talk about all of the stuff that that entails or the other one is no, we don't want arterial a, now what does that do? So I mean --
>> yeah, but I知 not saying whether we should decide one way or the other. I知 saying it seems to me we ought to formally agendize that item and decide one way or the other. We have not done that.
>> no. But I think that I would be -- that would be good to see the information on both issues. On both sides.
>> and see. See what's best.
>> stick it on the agenda.
>> judge [multiple voices] if waste management needs a decision like folks be patient, pick one or the other, just tell me which it is, then I think that's when we need to put it on the agenda and basically make the call. But if they are not in a hurry, john, I知 not trying to put words into your mouth, but if they are not needing a decision in the next month, then we ought not put it on until they say y'all pick one, let's move forward whichever way it is.
>> they have a representative here. John?
>> I知 looking to him to say.
>> because I really have been hearing that.
>> here's when we need to put it on or not.
>> I have been hearing that. I have basically been saying john that time will come real soon, we will get it before the court.
>> this is just one of maybe issues pending before the Commissioners court in the solid waste area. So I agree.
>> which is really my point. What I was about to get to is should we commit to the task force the delay -- to delay action on all of the items that we have been working on for six months, I have been agonizing over it because I知 finding it hard to do. I do think that we ought to try to coordinate, collaborate, cooperate as much as we can. Commissioner Daugherty will say that based on the pace of work and the decision making in the past, that it will be way after six months anyway before we land on some of these. But I do think that both sides or all three sides in good faith have been trying to work through them. They have been -- they have been tough issues, though. But on arterial a, see, I mean, if waste management does not need a decision, waiting is fine with me. I just -- my thinking was that we owe a final decision one way or the other as soon as we can get to it.
>> judge, john joseph, I represent waste management of Texas. It would be very helpful to know what the county is going to do with respect to arterial a. We feel like it -- we are moving inexorably toward foreclosing that roadway, going through there. We don't want that to happen just as a matter of course. We have an opportunity now to do things to slow down and not go through. And -- and yes, it would be very nice to know what the county wanted to do with arterial a. Especially with respect to cells nine and 10. Commissioner Gomez, your questions were exactly right, it would be nice for us to have the opportunity to answer the questions. What happens if you want the arterial here and what happens if you don't? Ant the arterial here. I think in the context of an agenda item, we could adjust those issues. Maybe not even agenda item if you don't want to. We can address those issues. I think in the public's format it might be nice to get those issues aired out. We do need to know. We want to cooperate with the county as much as we can in that regard.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...and that's beside the issue of additional capacity.
>> and we're all trying to get to a path that these two landfills no longer will be there at some point, and I hope it's 2015. And if so, we are still going to be stuck with a serious mobility issue related to what's going on out there -- and arterial a is that answer and there are already things inappropriately happening of people -- now it's coming from the harris branch side -- cutting through that same neighborhood over by walnut place to try and get around some traffic and mobility issues. You can't have seven miles with no arterial in the middle. Does this sound like arterial a Williamson county, john, in terms of another issue that we're working on? We're still going to have a mobility issue when these landfills do go away. And I will use the affirmative that they are going away from that site at some point, hopefully 2015 or sooner.
>> well, I feel that john really -- and just to be blunt with you, it just appears that -- it appears that this court and this community is being held hostage by you fellows out there operating these landfills, and which I think is a terrible position to be in. You expect us to come up with decisions and yet we've asked you to come up with decisions on a whole lot of things during this whole process and yet you all have continued to renegative on those -- renege on those decisions that we've asked you to come up with. We've had many hearings here and you guys haven't shown up. The neighborhood has gone through many, many agonizing hours with you and y'all haven't been, in my opinion, up front so the point where we know exactly what's going on. But yet it comes to arterial a, something that could cost 50 some-odd million dollars if it doesn't go on your particular tract of land and it would be less than that if it comes through your tract of land, which also would bind this county to an obligation of, yes, they're applying for expansion, yes, we tent to tceq and it's a hardship because they're putting an arterial through our landfill. And I don't think that's a good position to be in in. Now, if y'all are going to expand, you're going to expand. We can't stop that. What we're doing, you go down and expand and da, da, da. But that same story about expanding and holding this community hostage with the threat of expanding that operation I think is just unacceptable in my opinion. And it puts everybody in conflict. You've got this whole court in conflict and it's been in disarray since i've been here, since i've been here when this issue came up. It appears that this is still going on with members of this Commissioners court. Now, we have come to pretty much agreement on a lot of things in this community, but this is one item where you and the other landfill operators over at 290 east will not play fairly with the community nor with this court. It's all in regard to what you want, and then when it comes to what we want, then of course it's a whole different story. And I think this community has asked, they don't want no expansion, they want you to do what you need to do and go on about your business and get out of there. I think that's been a very fair assessment in the time, but yet you continue to hold the threat of expansion that the expand your capacity and your use of those lilz and I don't think it's fair and I will say it. Whether or not you want to hear it or not, but I will say it because it's a fair thing to say and it's the right thing to say for this community, and i'll going to speak for them. Thank you.
>> but as a court, we have voted to oppose expansion by waste management beyond 2015. We took that vote, we could always reverse ourselves. But the arterial a question is really aside from that. And I just -- I mean -- yes, sir?
>> the issue of arterial a came up as a result of the final plat application about a year ago. And it came up in the context of that. It was immediately when we realized that that was the case that we started discussions with the county about the possibility of moving that arterial off of that alignment. It wasn't in the context of y'all need to either let us expand or we're going to continue to fill these cells. Those discussions is what prompted you to tell the staff to go and evaluate which of the alignments you could afford to do. We've always told you that we were willing to address the issue of these cells, and that's why we're telling y'all now, if you want us to continue to build and fill the cells, that's going to resolve the issue of arterial a. That's not a hostage issue. That's just a fact. We're asking y'all if y'all want us to do something different. We're not holding anyone hostage. We're trying to cooperate with you so that we can try and get both of the issues resolved and both of them resolved the way y'all would like them to be resolved. And so I resent it. We've tried to work with the court and will continue to work with the court.
>> maybe I shouldn't have brought that up as an example. What I was trying to say is we have been working on some of these issues that is outlined in my June 17th memo for years. And in my view we ought too try it keep work to go resolve it. And at the same time, though, it does seem to me that if long range planning is being done, then we've got two county staff members as part of that, they would keep us posted on developments and we would as best we could try not to clash.
>> I would appreciate that.
>> the other thing is we have been talking now about green fill sites for the last two years, and a little bit more than a year ago the county, Travis County took the historic position of offering assistance to acquire new tracts of land if they would help complete a sort of tract consolidation for new landfills. Do you see what I知 saying? And we have been asking the operators to not only locate potential tracts for landfill relocation, but also to do some of the due diligence necessary to figure out whether in fact those tracts were suitable for landfills. Do you see what I知 saying? Three or four of them I think are clearly within y'all's bailiwick, but I said overall strategy regarding landfills and sign, solid waste siting ordinance, so far we have kind of -- we would hold off on that -- we don't know how much longer, but we need you to hold off on for r. It it for six months. Arterial a, landfill operating standards, following, allowing green fill sites and then we talk about industrial eco systems, review, that's cap cog, solid waste transfer station, maybe that's cap cog, maybe not, but three or four are those are what I thought the long range taskforce would be looking at. The others are questionable and really what y'all would be looking at squarely is an area or areas that we have not been doing a whole lot. Mr. Sellman came down and we visited with him. We've been engage understand wishful thinking and hoping that others would do what we've been doing. But we have been saying we ought to do more to head in that direction.
>> well, sir -- go ahead.
>> a lot of -- adrian nikley, long range taskforce. A lot of those questions you brought up will be addressed within the taskforce, but we do need the time to address those, and that's why we came to Commissioners court to ask for the county's participation to help us identify a lot of the things that maybe we don't know about or what are serious issues, especially within the confines of strategic planning and infrastructure and what the county and what the surrounding areas need to look like. And we feel like we'll be able to achieve those issues within that six-month time frame, including the things that you just mentioned. But the county's input is very critical here.
>> and the players that are involved in a lot of these issues that y'all are dealing with are represented at the taskforce. I mean, we have the landfills, we have neighborhood neighborhood organizations, many of the same people that are coming before y'all are represented at that taskforce and we have a venue there where we can deal with these issues. We are looking at infrastructure. That's a key component. If we come back with a plan that involves infrastructure that may run counter to what gets instituted during that six-month period, whatever it might be, then the work of the taskforce is going to be much more difficult to implement. And the six months, it's really not that long. I mean, i've been involved in solid waste issues here in this city since '86, been on -- spent a decade on swac. I have seen a lot of things over time and I have a pretty good sense of how long it takes for things to happen and what happens if you don't have something happen in a certain time frame. And I have no reservations about that six-month period. The concern about the landfills wanting to expand or get their permits in and so forth, honestly I think that that's not a pressing issue, the six-month time frame. The landfill capacity issue, how much is there left, not singling them out for any particular reason, but one of the landfills every year i've been on swac for a decade, they've said they have seven or eight years left. How can that be? Except when they want a contract and then it's 12 years and then it's back to seven after that. The pressure may not be as great as it seems, and I think that the consequences of not acting to allow a space for reasonable long-term planning is something that will come back and bite us all. I understand too what you're saying, sir, about emergency situations or events that have outside pressure that may need to be addressed. I understand that would be something that you would have to do, but in any instance where you could, we would appreciate working in concert with other decision making organizations and entities in the area, just a breather for us to get our work done.
>> i've seen it laid out that somehow it's one or the other and it can't be both. And that's where I知 landing is yeah, it can be both and I think it's going to need to be both. We've got a vote here on the Commissioners court that says folks need to vacate by 2015 out at the northeast landfills. But we don't have that contractually locked down. We don't. And that's where we're trying to get to, something that is the most positive step forward of being able to tell the neighborhoods, locked down, not something that anybody can get out of. And yes, trek, we're even talking about trying to get rid of the transfer station related to bfi, get that locked down so 2015 means 2015. That is a step forward that is a positive step forward of certainties, and I don't want to sit around for six months waiting on that. I will also tell you the way this thing is worded someone can come in and say I have the perfect green fill site and we couldn't do anything about it because we have made a promise that we could not deep. So to me it's not one or the other, it's both. I think we have identified a lot of work that is on a different set of timetables, and respectfully our work needs to be respected. And I know six months doesn't seem like a whole lot of time, but six months times five is a long time. It's been more than three years, and so some of the stuff isn't just -- it's just another six months or it's just six months. It's six months times multiple years. So to me it's one of, we've made a commitment to participate in the taskforce, which is appropriate, and I think it's appropriate that the part b at least in terms of where I intend to go is respectful. We've got some things that have been long-standing here and I want to get locked down, a date contractually, not just simply a vote of the Commissioners court saying it. So it shall be I want it locked down. And I think we're on the verge of some things that are very promising for the neighborhood related to even the transfer station, trek, will go away.
>> speaking of trek. Ms. English?
>> judge Biscoe and Commissioners, good afternoon. This is trek english for the record. I would like to point out just a few things. On arterial a there were no public hearings on that road, so that you probably did not get the full impact of how many neighborhoods are not for the road. And I would suggest that you go back to June fourth meeting when there was -- when everybody was against entering into any kind of expansion for both of the landfills. I also would like to remind you that there's a severe flooding problem, an erosion problem on walnut creek and that a study has just been an award for a -- an award for a study has been done by the house of representatives and the bond committee will probably if they vote for allocating money for the study of the flooding problem on walnut creek, I do think that before a road is built we should have the corps of engineers study the creek and tell you whether or not this road would be a detriment or could be built if certain things were put in place. We shouldn't go ahead and project a road on an area that the corps of engineers are going to study. Arterially it runs the whole length of the tributary of walnut creek, a huge tributary of walnut creek. And if you're going to talk about water quality, there's absolutely nothing in the present waste management expansion, not the one that they're planning on filing, but the one that they are in now, there's no detention pond, no silt asian pond, there's absolutely nothing in the expansion that's going to help. The water quality on walnut creek the way it is right now. Also, I think there is a hostage situation here because waste management just entered into the expansion in 2003. There's no reason why in two years they go from west to east. 70 acres just like that. In two years we're suddenly held hostage because they're going to get into cell nine and 10. Why are they entering into cell nine and 10 within two years? At that rate you will not have enough space in the whole of Texas for landfills. If we're going through expansions in two or three years of time and we go from east to west or west to east at that speed, what is going to happen? Nothing that you can buy in the future is going to satisfy the amount of garbage that's being put in these landfills at that speed. So I think waste management should not be able to enter into those cells for at least another five, six years, if not 10 years. If they're going to go all the way to the west cells, in the next year or so and they've got 12 years of remaining capacity, whieg going to happen in the next 12 years? What's down the road? Somebody needs to look at what they're presenting realistically and say you have time, you don't need to get into those cells. People don't take the roads because it's just a lot of traffic right now that's being deterred because of the construction. There will be other construction. 290 is going to be widened. So when it's widened, intrail is going to dead end into 290. You can only go right. So how many cars are going to be going on springdale if all they have is the turn right option. This is not going to make a lot of sense. A lot of people are taking springdale now because a lot of people are paying for that road. It's a county road. There's no sign that says do not enter this road because it disturbs the neighborhood.
>> the reality is there's a whole lot of people who pay gasoline taxes and cannot use that road because they are trucks. And they also have the right to use county roads, but on that particular one and boy, was that entertaining to see this huge truck that paid no attention to it and had to back up out of there because they didn't think --
>> I知 not sure we are posted to discuss specifics.
>> the only point I made about arterial a was it seems to me that we ought to land on it one way or the other and I don't want to postpone that decision for six months. Whether we decide to vote it up or down, we're not going to take action, but I think we ought to formally do that. We ought to know what's happening at the taskforce, for us to stay out of your way, try to be as helpful as we can to coordinate, cooperate, collaborate, all the other rates. These have really been kind of time consuming. When we say two and a half to three years, it's -- and really it's gone by pretty fast. I知 getting older, so that's the one thing I can't overlook. Six months is a short time. Three years looks like a short time when you're looking back at it. And really three years ago when we told you we would be discussing these issues now, I would have thrown money against it, and I知 not a gambling person, by the way. So my only thing is we seem to be sort of moving on some of these issues and I think we ought to keep doing it. At the same time we ought to not keep moving in a way that clashes with the planning of the long range planning taskforce. And the other thing is if y'all have any recommendations in six months, I would consider that to be very speedy work in this area. Because it looks like no matter what the issue is, you really have a whole lot of people with a whole lot of different ideas that you have to hear a few times. And I think it's good, though. That's what a democratic society is all about.
>> judge, is there kind after friendly motion we can make here or are we just looking at giving direction? Because the motion I would put forward is that we respectfully can't delay action on items, but that we absolutely collaborate, coordinate and keep up to date with both groups' respective actions on this front because there just are some things out there that it's just the idea of saying, we have to put this stuff on hold for six months is unfortunately not ng something I can go with. There are too many things here that are time sensitive and some of them in a positive way to lock down certainty and an end point for the northeast landfills.
>> we will hold off on the items that we don't need to move on, but with the ones that we've been working on, we need to keep working on. We do that, but we try to do it in a way that's collaborative.
>> but if we could keep that door open with the folks from the county that would let us know when some decisions may be coming up so we can send feedback --
>> August 9th. Come back August 9th.
>> the other things is I would draft a formal response so we can respond to the formal request made from the chair and the committee members that I met. Secondly, so we will have a chance to look at the wording and convey exactly what our meaning is. And third, so we would know exactly what commitments we made. And maybe what we should do between now and next Tuesday is draft an appropriate letter and call this back up. We take five minutes to look at the letter and approve it. That may be better than us approving the drafting of a letter and sending of it. Maybe we ought to see the draft.
>> but the motion is in terms of the intent of the letter to be drafted. That's really trying to send a message of we are not favorably inclined to do that, but... [overlapping speakers].
>> it's not one or the other, but both, but how can we do both?
>> this is from a regional perspective? It's very, very important. Because one thing I did hear, and I still reflect in my mind the meeting that on johnny morris road where it was only standing room people out in the hall, all outdoors to hear what the community had to say about no expansion and arterial, there's just a whole bunch of things we discussed there. And I mean, it was a unanimous decision, not one dissenting vote from that meeting that was echoed loud and clear, and I think everybody at the county should have heard that and should have seen that demonstration of neighborhood associations combining to echo their opinion. And I知 going to carry that message as long as I possibly can to make sure that their sentiments and their concerns are respected and adhered to. And it doesn't bother me now one bit to do that and I知 going to continue to do that, and I知 very impressed with what you said, what you did, and how unified you are even though two or three come down here, but when it really came down to where the rubber meet the road, the numbers are impressive. And you all were in unison and you all spoke in one accord and all in support of the same thing. So I知 going to continue to fight as much as I can to ensure that those kind of things happen for you. Thank you.
>> mr. Mcafee.
>> mark mcafee. And maybe we can get an answer to this since john joseph is still here, but the last time that I read the permit that was -- that waste management is operating under, they were required to fill those selves from east to west. -- those cells from east to west. And unless they have gotten some amendment, I don't even know what you have to go through to get that part of your permit changed, but unless they get that changed, I cannot see how they could be entering those cells any time soon.
>> I知 going to post that item specifically on August 12th. And the court can either vote to do nothing, vote to say yes to arterial a or vote to put it down. My only reason for bringing it up was there are some issues that require action by the court. And I知 not saying what action. That kind of goes to the merit of it. There may be that there's a 3-2 vote, maybe a 5-0 vote. I知 just thinking that they're asking what's the county's position and we ought to formally post it and say three of the five people said no action, then the county's position is no action.
>> i'll try to find out the answer to the question I was just posing between now and then.
>> i'll give you john's phone number. [ laughter ]
>> i'll see if I can get the questions answerd for me. Ms. Mcafee and then we have one more person and then ms. Sonleitner.
>> a problem with six months, perhaps three months to give the taskforce time to settle in to all these issues that are new to it so that they would respond and yet not have to be panicked by what's happening in the next week or two. So that would enable the court to give the taskforce a little bit of time and not commit to such a long time period that you seem a little uncomfortable with.
>> we don't need to act on it for nothing. If we need to start workogit, I think we need to keep working. The six-month moratorium that we agreed to lasted 12 months. Right? Six-month moratorium expired in October. We really geared up and started working again in March or April. Not intentionally. It was just easy not to start back once we didn't do anything for six months. So we have that. And I don't know -- this is an area that historically the county has not been involved in anyway. And when I started listing those 10 issues and I was trying to list the 10 that the county was working on directly, not -- I wasn't trying to list all solid waste related issues, just the one the county was working on. This started out with just a party of one, orders, add orders is how it started out. And then we have gone kind of way beyond that and we have been sort of demanding different stuff, demanding green fill sites. We've got a constitutional ruling about eminent domain, condemnation authority. And so tom -- if tom stops working on this and starts working on other stuff, it may be difficult to get him back. And the other thing is from our perspective and our workloads, I mean, stopping and gearing back up again requires a whole lot more energy than pushing it to a conclusion whether it's voted up or down. I can live with arterial a being taken out of 2030. I can live with it being a newly constructed road. I知 having a hard time living with doing nothing is my only point. If we're going to do nothing, let's just vote to do on nothing and take it off the thing. And when it comes up, it comes up. I can live with that.
>> why can't it stay the 23rd?
>> all I知 saying is waste management's representatives have been saying what are you going to do? And I can say I put it on the court's agenda and four of the five or three of the five voted to do nothing. That's how we respond to formal requests. That's how this got on the agenda. I don't make the decision for the court. The majority makes the decision.
>> is the court open to other alignment for the road if we were to sit down and talk?
>> it's $57 million.
>> I知 hoping that whenever it leads us. So if it leads us to another alignment, I can accept that.
>> and that's over half of what we have available for bond projects. That's actually half as much as what we spent -- two-thirds on what we spent on the sh 130 right-of-way.
>> you keep saying that but at the same time you're saying it's a good road.
>> it is, but at $57 million it doesn't have that. That's the other alignment. That's not the alignment that would cut through the waste management property. The $57 million for that length of roadway is absurd. And so if -- by them selling themselves as the only other alignment is that, the thing that kills it is the price because it would just go away. [overlapping speakers].
>> that's the one spanning across the landfills.
>> no, I wasn't talking about that one.
>> she's talking about a whole other --
>> a whole different alignment.
>> we have been studying the maps and looking at all the roads, and looking at a whole other alignment that has nothing to do with the landfills that could even be cheaper and be more effective.
>> i'll send those to joe gieselman. Ms. Engles?
>> you're going to defer the action or the decision until August the ninth. And I will be away at that time attending the graduation of my oldest grandson from some new training that he's getting in fort benning georgia. So once again I知 here to thank you for what you have done, but to encourage you to do what you can do. Mr. Joseph spoke -- has spoken about being resentful of being put in this position, but we in the neighborhood who reap the results of them not following their contracts could also find some grounds to be resentful. I went to my physician yesterday and I never had any lung difficulty until I had the inhalation experience, and now I知 having a progressive thing happening. At this point there's nothing I can do about that. I can't blame mr. Joseph, but I can blame those people who chose not to operate in the best way that they could operate because they have made many of us vulnerable to this. When I come here, I come here exercising my right to express my view. And I will continue to do that, but I won't be here on August the ninth. If any of you want to let me know what issues you're going to be addressing, I can send you my view? I知 ready for the landfills to be gone. Everybody keeps talking about about the height would be in numbers of feet, but if you convert 85 feet, that's about like putting a seven or eight-story building on top of the landfills that they have there now. I can get a visual of a seven or eight story building on top. When you're going down 290 east and you look how far it is above all the other buildings along 290 and you envision a seven or eight story building on top of that, that's pretty visual for me. That's really all I have to say today. I知 ready for the six months is nothing to me in comparison to the four years that we've been working. And I know that it does take time. You're going to do -- you know more of your timetable than I do. If I can be a part of that, I will. But I oppose any expansion.
>> okay. Now. The recommendation is that we take a week to draft an appropriate letter and which we will vote on next week. And we can circulate that letter this week, the court members. At the latest I would say noon Friday. And the letter should basically said what we have generally said today. And if y'all want to see that letter in advance, it's fine with me. The court ought to have it as far as a backup by noon Friday, and that way we know exactly what language we're approving this time next Tuesday. By putting it on the agenda next Tuesday we really are just putting it on for action. That make sense? Anybody else here on this item before we conclude?
>> judge, do you want me to pull down my motion? Because I知 happy to do that. I知 not sure I got a second.
>> unless your motion is to -- for us to draft a letter containing the sentiments that were --
>> that is where I was going is I wanted to modify my previous motion is that we head in the direction that the judge just laid out in terms of the drafting of the letter to be approved next Tuesday talking about the cooperation, collaboration, don't act on things we don't need to and to volunteer services of the people in terms of this and that there be absolute open lines of communication so that folks are understanding when certain things are coming forward and wishing you best of luck.
>> second. Ms. Mcafee, you don't like that motion?
>> no. [ laughter ] two things. One, when would the county be available to begin participation? And two, where is the status on the moratorium? Are you saying it's dead and will never be done or are you saying it can be brought up again on August 12th? I知 a little confused as to where the moratorium sits.
>> what moratorium?
>> the six-month --
>> that's what it is.
>> that will be in the letter. If this letter contains the sentiments expressed today, we will be nixing the moratorium.
>> or some things will not be in the moratorium.
>> that's where I知 confused at.
>> that's why we need a letter to set it out specifically.
>> so you will discuss it among yourselves and --
>> the law disallows that. We will have a draft given to us by Friday, which I can e-mail -- which I will fax you or e-mail it, and what we can do is we probably have that letter come to us from county staff. And each court member individually can let that staff member know what changes he or she would recommend, do you see what I知 saying, and then by maybe Monday there's a revised draft that we would consider on Tuesday. That way we can formally and legally give a little input to the draft before Tuesday. Do you follow me? But we're not supposed to -- outside of a formal quorum like this, we're not supposed to exchange ideas about what should go in the letter. But if a staff member sends us the draft, then we can let the staff member know here's what we think individually.
>> so it will be a moratorium with conditions. Is that where it's headed?
>> no moratorium.
>> no moratorium. So that's dead.
>> well, it's just we're not able to do that, melanie, because we are on some different timetables that respectfully we've been working on long before this committee ever was created. And we have to be -- I知 hoping they can be equally respectful of what our process is as we can be respectful of their process.
>> even a short one?
>> there's no such thing as a short one. It's just -- we try not to act on things we don't need to act on, and I think that's being -- what they're asking, but there are some things that may not fit into that category and we need to still be respectful of what our duties and responsibilities are here, and we need to move forward on those, when those things are appropriate and it looks like August 9th is one of those dates when some of these things are going to come forward. But certainly it was the intent of the part a is john and melinda are yours immediately in terms of --
>> i'd like to separate the motion on part a.
>> a is already done. We've already done it.
>> when did we vote on -- we already vote odd a? Okay. We've taken care of it.
>> it seems like the biggest contention is what's coming up August 9th. It seems like it could be a possibility to bring it up if that was out of the way.
>> no. It may never come up. I really thought that was the easiest thing in the world for us to say what we thought we would do on arterial a. It may not be on the August 19th. I know it will not be 26th because we've got another big item and we've got a court member gone August 2nd. That's why we've got until August 9th. I think next week we ought to put something in writing. And the letter we have in mind may not be as bad as you think. Some of it I know you will agree with.
>> all right.
>> it's getting late in date.
>> but this motion is really to draft the letter and we'll share it basically.
>> all right. I'd like to I still would like the opportunity if you guys would like to see some things, if you would have a chance to discuss whatever comes up in that letter, because I don't know what the contents of that letter is going to be, but I do think that what we're looking at needs to really have the merit, and I think if the city is willing to look at the whole legion national approach and trying to deal with the solid waste issue, six months may be enough time, may not be enough, but I don't want it to be that the process stops because of whatever this Commissioner's court does. Does the city want to pursue this on and on and on? I think they still can with this particular taskforce. And I just don't want to make sure that we're not in the way of looking at our regional approach to take care of the solid waste issue. If a moratorium is not in the letter, but I don't really know what's the final contents of the letter, but if it's not in there, it still doesn't mean that the city can't -- and the taskforce still can't proceed, but I think that moratorium is very (indiscernible) as far as the folks in the solid waste end of this don't do anything rash while this is going on. So I think that's what the intent is to look at that particular phase of the moratorium. Don't do anything, let us go ahead and go through this assessment of what we're trying to look at and don't do anything until we're able to complete this particular work. And if that's what the moratorium is consistent in as far as what you're asking, I think it ought to be granted. But again, I would like to see the contents of the letter, so I知 not going to vote on it until I see exactly what the letter is going to have in it.
>> anybody else here on this item before we vote? Yes, ma'am.
>> I don't think we're trying to delay anything here. In six months you won't have to face all of this again.
>> I wish that were so.
>> we will have a solution to this whole idea of expansion and whatever can be taken care of by everybody in the region, the city, the county. It's not just we're going to put it aside, we're going to deal with it, I don't think that's at all what we intend to do.
>> I wanted a decision three years ago.
>> and lots of good intentions unfortunately are not fitting into these time frames. And it doesn't say peace be with you and please go forth and bring it back in less than six months. You need to do what you need to do. This Commissioners court needs to proceed on with the work it's started long before today. On these issues.
>> I just want to remind you that the landfills are on the committee with us. Thank you.
>> that's all my questions.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Davis, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against --
>> no, I知 abstaining.
>> and I called the wrong name.
>> you sure did.
>> Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against --
>> no, I abstain based on the --
>> abstaining, Commissioner Davis.
>> with fact that I do not have the information that the moratorium may not be included in this letter and I think the moratorium is very important to make sure that things stopped at that point and whether they will have an opportunity to do it and they will bring back the results of their work and the enactment of anything that the landfills are doing just kind of be on hold. And so those are the reason I知 abstaining. So thank you.
>> joe, melinda or john, who should it come from?
>> I知 happy to take a help on word smithing.
>> didn't sound real good today, but you just picked up two good county participant oz that taskforce.
>> sure did. Thank y'all.
>> we've enjoyed working with you.
>> thank you both.
>> thank you.
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, July 20, 2005 11:18 AM