Travis County Commissioners Court
September 6, 2005
Item 6
Number 6 is to consider and take appropriate action on adoption of a Travis County solid waste siting ordinance. I put this item on the agenda moments after I received from waste management a letter indicating that waste management had placed -- had filed with the Texas commission on environmental quality an application to expand and the purpose of this item really is simply for the court to refocus on the siting ordinance and give staff direction about how we plan to proceed. And that's why in the backup what I did was simply attach a copy of the letter that waste management had delivered to the whole court as well as a copy of a letter that waste management apparently had sent to some of the residents entitled "dear neighbor" dated August 25, 2005.
>> judge, a question. In terms of talking about a siting ordinance, the siting ordinance is something that would impact not just the issue that's before us which is w.m., but it certainly would have impacts related to b.f.i., iefi, city of Austin, and I知 missing one.
>> b.f.i.?
>> b.f.i., yeah. I mean oh, excuse me, t.d.s. Sorry, bobby. I mean there are things beyond just the [inaudible] so I look forward to the discussion, but it's the action of one, but a siting ordinance would impact all of them. And I知 just making sure if there's a need to bifurcate discussions because there is still a pending item related to b.f.i. Mr. Gregory has been talking to us about getting considerations related to expansions at whatever point during the designation. Certainly the city is a stakeholder related to the operations and iefi, although they are not type 4, it's still out there.
>> the last time we chatted, we talked about the siting ordinance that would cover solid waste facilities not covered by the current ordinance and that would leave types 1 and 4. It would be difficult to carve out a specific facility, right, tom, if we cover type 1, we would cover type 1 facilities. Now, we could put in the ordinance itself any language that would cover -- that would leave flexibility to reach any sort of agreement, et cetera, that we chose except the language would have to be applicable to all facilities that met that definition. However we find it, right?
>> I知 not sure I understand.
>> if we wanted to leave open agreements with the county -- you know, said the siting ordinance there are certain stharpbdz must be met. But if you reach an agreement with us --
>> in other words, a certain site is acceptable if you reach an agreement that does certain things.
>> right. Right. Make it necessary to complying with specific standards in the ordinance. The purpose of this really is to try to discuss exactly where we want to go if anywhere. Now, we indicated over the last two or three years that if there were an application to expand, if I were tceq, we would basically post the citing ordinance and go ahead and move to adopt one. And so when we receive word from b.f.i. -- from waste management that they had in fact filed, in my view at least that triggered a discussion of how we want to provide.
>> and the part 2 of that is, tom, we would need to be reminded if that's the path we chose to go down, there are certainly procedure requirements in terms of it needs to be put out there and then there's x amount of type, and then the question is whapts in that between time, and grandfathering, et cetera, et cetera. So -- not something you just instantly flip the light switch and all of a sudden it happens.
>> judge, I think it's very appropriate as we go through this process, and I know there may be individual concerns from different -- and I think we've heard basically all of them from the different solid waste operators, landfill operators here within Travis County doing this process over the last few years. En, of course, I think you were right on target as far as bringing this back before the Commissioners court and placing it on the agenda when an example, w.m.t. Decided to expand, and as we stated going through the process and I think moving forward, in my opinion, is the direction we need to go. And looking toward the necessary posting requirements that has to take place as far as the number of days and that sort of thing. And I guess there can be things sorted out as we get to that end, but I think as you stated earlier. This is what, you know, triggered this particular scenario because even if that hadn't come up, I think that I had basically indicated that he would like to have this item placed on the agenda some earlier, some date soon. So I think this is the appropriate manner and I would like to make sure we epbtd up going in that direction. I guess we can hear from those folks as we go through this process, but I think we need to move forward as far as the posting requirements and toward adoption of the solid waste siting ordinance. And I guess we will hear accordingly as we go formed. So I think -- forward. I think you're right on time with what you are doing.
>> tom, can you give us just some idea of legal standards that we have to comply with that culminate -- steps in culminating the adoption of the order?
>> well, as with any type of ordinance that you propose that affects how land is developed or used, you trigger a takings impact assessment which requires a 30-day posting. So basically you need to go through a 30-day posting. The statute you're operating under on the solid waste siting ordinance talks in terms of posting the ordinance for a certain period of time. It's not the case that I think you could post intent to adopt an ordinance and take that 30 days to decide what's in the ordinance and take public comments on it. My recommendation would be be pretty solid on what the ordinance looks like before you post it. And if it is tweaked or changed a little bit, then no one is prejudiced by that as long as what is originally posted and what's finally adopted are basically the same thing. But if you post notice and don't really know what you want to do, you post notice of a particular ordinance, and at the end of the 30 days you end up doing something very different, I think it leaves somebody room to argue, you know, they really didn't get notice of what you intended to do and you are prejudiced by that. I think it's better if you have a pretty good idea what the ordinance is before you post it and go through the posting period, and obviously at the end of that time you're not obligated to adopt what was originally posted, but if at the end of that time that's still what you want to do, you can go ahead and adopt and be on solid ground. If at the end of that 30 days you decide let's do something completing different, then you would have to consider, well, should we do our posting again.
>> when would the 30 days for the taking of the assessment start running?
>> when the notice is posted.
>> notice of the ordinance or of the taking of the asessionment?
>> it's sort of one and the same.
>> how long would it take you to prepare an appropriate taking assessment?
>> it would not take me very long if you could tell me what you want the ordinance to look like. That's the starting point. Ly need to know what you all want to be in the ordinance.
>> john?
>> I was just sitting there -- john kuhl, environmental officer. If the ordinance looks anything like the previous ones, I bet tom has got one sitting right there ready to go. So it shouldn't take very long at all.
>> there are several persons here on this item. Do you all have input to provide or are you all here merely as observers?
>> I would like to speak, if I may.
>> good morning.
>> can I pass out some information to you?
>> yes, sir. Is this the draft ordinance that you represented to us? [laughter] we had in mind something a little smaller than this. [laughter]
>> what I致e passed out to you is information that all of you with the exception of Commissioner Daugherty has seen before. And it takes us back to 2002 when this issue was last being discussed. For the time that it was discussed most when it was brought up following a lengthy review of a solid waste task force that the commission -- Commissioners court appointed. And what it is is behind tab 1 in the document that was passed out is -- first of all let me announce I知 bob gregory president of Texas disposal systems principal owner here in Travis County. Behind tab 1 of what I致e passed out is t.d.s.'s position statement on a landfill siting ordinance and specific t.d.s. Facility expansion proposal that was passed out to you in July of 2002. That has been before you since then and I致e been up here numerous times pointing that out to you. And there is a yellow tab sticking out of the side of your booklet that shows an aerial photo, and the e-mail that that aerial photo is attached to explains what those colors mean and it directly relates to the ordinance that was pending at that time. Behind tab 2 is a general description of the provisions that were proposed in a t.d.s. Operating agreement regarding that ordinance, and behind tab 3 was a list of proposed operating agreement requirements that go beyond current tceq regulatory requirements and the operating enforcement requirements of the degrees-m.s.w. Permit number 23. To point out what t.d.s. Would be committing to beyond the regulations in the permit requires currently. And behind tab 4 is the proposed t.d.s. Operating agreement language that contains those commitments. And behind tab 5 is specific t.d.s. Comments regarding the last Travis County draft of the sitting ordinance that I recall. I searched my files at the end of the week and over the weekend and there may be a later one, tom, I知 not sure, but if there is forgive me, and if you will give me a copy, you know me, I知 going to provide you comments on that. So you have my comments to the last draft that I知 aware of behind tab 5. And then behind tab 6 is a position statement by numerous members of the Austin area environmental community regarding the county's consideration of an ordinance back in the summer of 2002. The purpose of hanging you this information -- handing you this information is to just give you t.d.s.'s position on the siting ordinance as well as the -- the operating agreements that would -- an operating agreement that would go along with it. And t.d.s.'s position has not changed since then, so please allow me to give you this information and accept it even though the date is old, it's three years old, it's the same information, it's the same subject, we're just picking up where we left off then. And it also points out the status of conditions at that time, and I don't believe you have ever had anyone come before you during all this process -- I知 not aware of it over the last eight or ten years where anyone has come before you objecting to t.d.s. Operating practices or the margin we do business or odors or any kind of complaint. So the purpose of t.d.s.'s proposal is to -- is to ask for a specific designation of the facility that is now permitted as a landfill of 341 acres, and including the adjacent and contiguous land that is outside the village limits of Creedmoor, which is approximately 1133 acres total. Asking you to specifically designate that as appropriate for solid waste disposal and expansion, and as well as our composting and recycling operations that continue out there. And in return, t.d.s. Would offer to enter into the proposed operating agreement that would commit t.d.s. And any future owners -- I started to say god for bid, but obviously I won't live forever and these landfills will outlive all of us. But what I did back in 2002 and am proposing good now is to commit so that Travis County would not have to rely on tceq for enforcement alone. Travis County would have a document with a commitment within it that would allow you to go to state district court to take action against bob and jim gregory, Texas disposal systems, we're being the owners of t.d.s., I mean, as well as any future owners who may own this after we're gone. So that you could have assurance and the surrounding property owners could have assurance that the way we've operated it would continue. And we couldn't just go back to what the rules allow or our permit allows. We would have to continue to operate it and anyone else that operated it in the future would have to operate to it the same standards that people have enjoyed and not had problems with for these last 14 years. It also gives the county an opportunity to provide an incentive to a good operator who has proven itself over these years with a responsible landfill disposal program effective and efficient recycling and composting and recycling programs and what I believe is unprecedented good neighbor practices and community assistance practices not only for Travis County but even for the whole nation. It allows the county also to set a standard that other landfill operators would have to meet in order to receive county acceptance for site -- landfill siting or expansion approvals. And it would allow a public discussion of the specific t.d.s. Proposal and what should be required in any solid waste operating agreement in general. And I hope you'll take the time to review this information because it's -- it includes a lot more opinion and discussion and recommendations than you want me to spend the time today to go over. And I hope you'll review it prior to making your decision on a siting ordinance approval and any landfill operating agreements that you might consider. And in summary, I do support a solid waste siting ordinance. I just think it should have a specific designated location in it. I think the law requires that. And not just be specific to locations that may be 1500 feet away from certain receptors or a mile away from -- from something that meets the definition of a neighborhood. And I値l just read a sentence out of the statute that authorizes you to do a citing ordinance which says from state statute: to prohibit the processing or disposal of municipal or industrial solid waste in certain areas of a municipality or county, the governing body of the municipality or county must by ordinance or order specifically designate the area of the municipality or county as appropriate in which the disposal of municipal or industrial waste will not be prohibited. So that's why I知 recommending a specific designation, whether it's the t.d.s. Site in its ajoining property or somewhere else. If you want to do a legitimate and sustainable ordinance that will hold up in court, you should specifically designate a location. That allows you to then state where one can't be. It can be very general, it can be everything east of i-35 or west of i-35 or whatever, it can be that general, but you have to specifically December I go nature something, in my opinion. Those are my comments. I値l be glad to answer any questions.
>> I think I would have to tell you right up front I知 in agreement with most of this, but and since you've already gone through the process and gone through the community of getting the -- the permits to do that is correct I really don't agree with the regional approach. To then have the southeast quadrant of Travis County be the receptor for the garbage from the entire region and other places, I think that probably the generation of garbage here is enough to probably keep you very busy for many years. And so I would have to disagree with that approach.
>> I have a question. Especially since we've learned good lessons from going on in northeast. Right now you don't have a high profile. What are you permitted to do in terms of elevation?
>> I don't recall the exact sea foot elevation, but it's roughly our permit allows us to go down roughly on average of 62 feet and above ground 62 feet for a total waste column of about 120 feet. Half being roughly below ground and half above ground. I wasn't prepared to give you that sea level elevation, but it's -- it -- depending on the topography of the site, it's anywhere from very little above ground to as high as about 97 feet, I think I recall someone stated, from the lowest point to the highest point over which garbage sits.
>> I think that would be very helpful because in the same way that there are no issues today, people change their mind when it's 10, 15, 20 years later going I had no idea, I mean with all seriousness and with respect, people have been talking about mount trashmore from the day that the b.f.i. And w.m.i. Sites back in the '70s and '8 0z it's the kind of thing it didn't happen to begin with, but it's a huge issue flash forward all these years to say, oh, my goodness. And so it would be very helpful if you could visualize some of this for us in terms of some topography of what's some of this is going to look like. But again, it's not an issue today, but people may have differing sraoptsz in the future.
>> could I respond to that?
>> sure.
>> when we very first excavated -- when we excavated our first hole at the landfill back in 1991, we intentionally -- we had to build a stockpile. We intentionally built it to the maximum elevation that the landfill could be permitted. So that surrounding property owners would know what the permit allows. I know all of have been out to the site and/or driven by it at least. There is a hill there with grass on it that does not contain solid waste, it contains soil. It's a stockpile. That's the highest hill you see there. It's been in place since 19 -- early 1991. That is the highest point that we can build from elevation standpoint. So we have done -- we did -- I wanted to make sure people did know the maximum that was permitted. It still exists today and you can go see that. Now, I will tell you the proposal that I致e handed out, particularly the photograph, the little foldout that you have and the document that goes with it, it calls for a lateral expansion going over into the land that we own that we prepared -- that we've purchased for long-term landfill and composting and recycling use, and it calls for a hao eult increase of a maximum of 43 feet additionally. Because basically you have a hill on 341 acres that's being expanded to the west and to have drainage have you to raise-the center point gets moved out. So you have to have drainage going off it. That's the minimum height increase we could have and still have the drainage. Meet drainage requirements. So if you took the hill that's there now and in effect moved it to the west and raised it 43 feet, that's the height that we would -- the maximum height that we would propose.
>> well, that's 105 feet and that's getting bigger. And it seems like there ought to be some kind of visualization of, you know, letting some balloons go up so that people can visualize, even though it's not there today and it's not on the current site, I think we owe it to people -- I congratulate trek and joyce and the other neighbors that are making us ask other kinds of questions that we have to kind of flash forward, what's going to be the landscape, no pun intended, 10, 15, 20 years from today. Because there isn't an issue today, but we could have a different set of neighbors who will go what were you thinking in terms of 105 feet tall. Gee, that's as tall and mount bonnell. I don't want to go there. It's like we need to be thinking ahead on some of these things. Have you got a map also that can update us as to where we think sm 45 southeast is going to go? Because that too I think is a helpful locateer to have on this map. Margo, what's the thaeupl of that road coming out from hays county thars loop thing that's supposed to --
>> 150.
>> 150, is that what it is? I think we need to see because of the cabell situation, we need to see also transportation things that are going to be platted in here, ongoing planning, these are not -- well, see what happens on 45 southeast, but I mean there is a campo road, there is a hays county road that comes up, and that needs to be put on here. We need to have a full picture of what's going on here. Do you have --
>> may I respond? I degree absolutely. I知 just giving you on very short notice, this came up last Thursday --
>> it's okay.
>> so I知 giving you where we were. And I totally support public process. And I知 going on rorbd saying I知 not asking you to do this without a full discussion of the public. Y'all should know me better.
>> this is --
>> full discussion of the public on what these issues are relative to the t.d.s. Proposal as well as any other operating agreement. Because as you start approving operating agreements, one affects the other because you are setting a bar. And I知 asking to you set a bar high.
>> have you also gotten a letter -- since part of this is in the Creedmoor e.t.j., have you got a letter from Creedmoor saying we do not oppose the expansion of this site and think this is an appropriate industry use, et cetera, for our community? I知 just making sure you've got the signoff from Creedmoor.
>> no, but none of it is in the e.t.j. Of Creedmoor. It went all the way to the supreme court and other efforts to stop our landfill back in 1991. It was a first in time situation. Austin's e.t.j. Was there. Creedmoor came in upped a circumstance that did not give them an e.t.j. On the north side. But it's a fair question because they are our neighbor, and I致e not gotten their recommendation or consent or denial or whatever it would be.
>> then I値l reword the question. Do you have a signoff from city of Austin in terms of their leadership since all of this is being talked about through their solid waste advisory commission? I mean they are basically saying listen to the flack. Do you have a position staeplt from the swac and/or the Austin city council saying we don't have an issue of this in the e.t.j. Of the city of Austin. We think that's an appropriate land fuss use for that area, neighborhood planning. I知 just trying to think it's not just us, it's consideration of the other elected officials who have a say in terms of how this area develops.
>> no, we have not. And that would be appropriate. It would -- again, this started in 2002 and is now possibly being picked up for your discussion and consideration as it it show 'you will on this skwrepd. But if there is any -- and it looks like it is going to move, if there is any interest to move, then t.d.s. Has to protect itself from an ordinance that would preclude t.d.s. From expanding to the west. So that -- those things will come in very short order.
>> and these questions are all being asked with the utmost of respect because you have not been a problem here and I知 just making sure that we go through the same kinds of due diligence questions that unfortunately we're doing after the fact related to the northeast site. It's like there have been lessons learned here and to appropriately ask the questions and updating related to infrastructure, skwr etd, neighborhood planning, height. The idea it could be another 43 feet on top of where you are already at, I think that's something that has not been visualized yet by folks down there and I知 just making sure that people are going I knew it, get it, and if they say that's fine with them, I would be fine too. But I don't want there to be straoeusz something saying what do you mean you approved a plant fill to go 105 feet, did you realize how tall that is.
>> no matter what facilities there are, homes will continue to be built, and that brings in comments from the people who live there as to why didn't you do this and why didn't you that. And so I知 trying to really look down the road. I too have learned a lot about this process. And what happens when we don't think all these things out all the way through. And so those are some of the things that I値l be thinking about.
>> and I致e been before you guys many times recommending a long-term solution to this and that's why t.d.s. Has gone to the trouble and the expense of going beyond the 341 acres that we've per hit and now has a total of 1350 acres of which we're asking designation on 1133.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Ms. English.
>> good morning, my name is trek english, and this ordinance is a very hard subject to talk about because at this point a lot of people work hard to make it happen. It didn't happen because -- or it wasn't posted or passed or adopted because you were trying to accommodate the landfills in finding new locations, and unfortunately here we are three years later with really not a solid alternate location. And a company that is basically going to be totally circumvented from this process because of their action. I would like you to focus on that for a while because, frankly, I don't understand why everybody in this county has to pay one way or another if you pass it or you don't pass it because of one company, and that's the waste management company that is not able to abide by the rules and does exactly what they want to. I知 sorry, but my opinion is this should be run out of this county and not do business here anymore because we cannot trust them. I don't know understand why if you pass this document -- forget pass, if you post this document and it's adopted, you will then cause, in my estimation, natural headlines because it will result in four companies filing for an expansion at their present location. That is just -- I don't think that's --
>> 82 request today is for you don't want us --
>> you've worked hard on this, I understand why we need it, I really do, but I don't understand who is helping. There was on page -- section 6202, number 2 of the may '05 draft, you know, the wording of it says that if an application has been filed and is pending, well, during our deliberations on this ordinance, one of the things that the group -- the solid waste group asked is that it said administratively complete. And I know what the law says. But considering they've had three years to find another location and considering you've held off posting this, considering that they've worked on it with us, then you -- the -- all along what the criteria was, what we deliberated, what we agree on, considering all of this, I don't understand how a court of law would not side on your side and say they were given plenty of time to know what was going on with this ordinance. So I am asking you that you change the language in that particular paragraph and make new law and say, you know, that when people have been given that kind of notice and have worked on that ordinance themselves -- this is not something you are pushing forward here in one week or one month or even three months without them knowing about it. This is a long process. And it only helps waste management if you pass it. And another company that has been trying to get your blessing but has at least abided by the rules is not going to be forced to file. Another company had no suspensions to file, is not going to file. And we don't have the four company here because they probably don't even know it's on the agenda.
>> what section was that?
>> I said it was 62.02, paragraph 2. It's now 2. It used to be 3. And it says an area for which an application for a permit or other authorizations under chapter 361 safe and health code has been filed with and is pending before the tceq prior to the date of this chapter became applicable to the eup of facility described in the application. And if you go back to our recommendation, it said administratively complete, which would give you enough time to post it and pull them under this particular amendment. I mean ordinance.
>> so is your recommendation we do ordinance but make that change?
>> if you are going to make that change, it probably would be more fair because then all of the landfills need to come under it. That's why we have a variance. They have a variance that stands on its own merit. And i, I personally don't like vertical expansions. You know, we've talked about -- you've talked about that. I personally don't like it. And I think that, you know, if there's another location where someone can operate at least at a level where people are not totally overwhelmed by the size of that landfill. And whether it's b.f.i., t.d.s., whatever -r it's been my position all along. They know how I feel bit. I just think there should be a limit as to height expansion. In fact, I came to you two years ago -- no, I知 sorry, it's more like four years ago, before the odors even started, and asked if you would pass a height ordinance, a height limit ordinance for facilities in this county. That was before the smell, before I knew anybody was going to he can spanned.
>> do you believe we have the authority to do that?
>> it's been done in other counties. I haven't researched whether you have the right. That's why I came to you to see if you could. Finishes.
>> draft an ordinance that puts a height limit, that was discussed when the ordinance was first proposed back several years ago, and of course the landfill operators think you don't have the authority to do that. It depends on how you interpret the statute.
>> that's what you are referring to [inaudible] making the law, that means we would have to go to court to --
>> well, I would say say you can't make new law. The constitution gives that power to the Texas legislature, and they have made law on this topic. I will admit that as is with the case in many laws that the legislature passes, there's room for interpretation and room for disagreement over what it does and doesn't authorize and gray areas. And trek is pointing out a couple of gray areas, the administratively complete issue, the height issue, and it comes down to what interpretation of the law do you all want to take a position on, and will a judge uphold you or strike you down if it goes to the courthouse. That's the issue you all face. As with so many other matters on the landfills, that's just one more in the long line of issues where you may just have to come down on a particular interpretation of the statute.
>> and that's where we are, so ...
>> I know, and I agree with what mr. Nuckols said, I mean that's what I meant by new law, I guess the interpretation of the existing laws. I don't know, I知 just going to ask you that -- if this ordinance is going to be an excuse for them to be able to relocate, then I don't know. I don't know what the position should be. This is not, you know, this is not like the expansion. I have mixed feelings about this ordinance and in a way I understand the purpose and this certainly needs to be there. We work to protect everybody. However, we would not like this to be used as something that comes back to -- to affect just us and cement their existence here forever because they can no longer relocate. So thank you.
>> and also in regard to that, I don't know if you've heard the conversation that have come I guess particularly from me [inaudible] have basically been trying to make sure we have some type of ordinance protection, and I知 quite sure these ordinances can be challenged. I think any ordinance probably can be challenged in anybody's court. But my concern overall is to have an ordinance in place looking at the big picture. The big, councilmember la active impact on these type of facilities, and they are major facilities, that have received permits from tceq, but when you look at the disproportionate number of permits that have been allowed by tceq, the majority of those permits are east of ih-35. So without protection of some type of ordinance in place, then we are just open -- it's open season on these type of major facilities that, as I stated earlier, are disproportionate as far as east of i-35. So there is a big concern. But, of course, the letter that we received hand delivered [inaudible] is a part of this backup today from the w.m.t. Representative continuous to refer to arterial a in the letter for support of the expansion for w.m.t. Austin community landfill. And, of course, right now currently arterial a, us a know, the court has taken a position to delete arterial forecast the next bond initiative that's going to be held in November. And, of course, those things still have to be taken into consideration probably later on. But -- but as the letter that we received that refers to arterial a in several instances in the August 29th letter from w.m.t., arterial a mentions several times is not a part of what this Commissioners court decided to do as far as dealing with arterial a. So it's not a factor. But again, I think the judge is correct by bringing this up at this time because of w.m.t.s proposal to expand. And -- but -- but within all of that, I still have to look at the big councilmember la active picture of the -- cumulative impact of what's happening east of ih-35 of these major facilities receiving permits and the disproportionate cumulative effect that's east of i-35. And an ordinance may curb that to some degree. That's something further down the road, but I think it's a step in the right direction and I think some of these things probably may be challenged in court by the landfill operators. I don't know.
>> well, I just think the road -- forget the road for a minute. What I meant is the -- the location where the road was going to be, the two cells is probably not something they are going to get into for five years. There was plenty of time for them to discuss with you all what -- what could be entertained as far as, you know, exchanging propositions about whether this would be a reason for an expansion or not a reason for expansion, whether it could be relocated somewhere else. There was plenty of time for them to discuss this with you reasonably. And I知 not talking five years, maybe just one year before they filed. There was no reason for this filing except to muck everything up, blame their own people, create this smoke screen, and basically I think they are trying to circumvent the rules at the tceq and that's what it's all about. I知 sorry, but this is typical waste management practice. I know, I致e dealt with them long enough. It's the company that I do not trust and it's a company I will never trust because of that.
>> trek, I知 intrigued by your comment you talked about in terms of going vertical. And I知 hearing you, I really am. How high is too high? I mean if I知 at ground elevation, whatever that site is, how high up is too high?
>> well, there's different ways you can look at it. If you go into a reasoning position, to me, is that you should, you know, when you put something up on top of something, it should be at least where the base is strong enough or is solid enough to take on the top. So when you have an equivalent amount down -- I can see where that makes sense. Now, as far as residents are concerned, I知 talking if I were, you know, into the waste management industry and I was an engineer, I would try to make it level. But on the residents side, and I知 not, just saying if I were. On the residents' side, what becomes really obnoxious is when a facility becomes so large and so high that you can never avoid looking at it no matter which location you are because it is above the tree line, above anything that is normal within a quadrant of a city and where it takes over your, you know, your sensation. By the way, I wanted to tell you it smelled really bad this morning in my neighborhood when I left. And yesterday I was delivering fliers, I was in another neighborhood and it smelled terrible there and there were witnesss. So I was very close to waste management landfill yesterday, and my neighborhood is directly affected by the waste management landfill. So waste management cannot say like they did in our letter we fixed everything. That is a lie and they need to correct it. Thank you.
>> can somebody -- steve, can you remind me because on the wilder tract expansion, the letter says you wouldn't go any higher than you are already permitted on the -- I値l call it the original site. Can you remind me how high up that is from if I知 standing at the base, what's the highest point on the stairsteping.
>> steve jacobs, waste management of Texas. I don't know exactly how high it is above existing ground. Per agreement and our current permit allows us to go to elevation 740 feet. I believe in that area it's probably in the 660, 680 range is my guess, and I値l have to double-check that and get back to you on. That but our expansion proposal would not go any higher than the 740 that's currently permitted.
>> so we don't know what the base is?
>> I can find out and get back to you, but I don't have that information in front of me.
>> can b.f.i. Remind me what's your high point on the stairsteping? I guess where I知 trying to get to is this, I am sensitive to the issues ms. English has raised related to height. But what -- but we also have to be fair in terms of how we're going the treat everybody. We just heard on the t.d.s. That they can go up 62, and on the expansion they would go up 43 beyond. That that's 105 feet above base in terms of their highest point. In terms of if it's allowed to happen and it stairsteps up. I知 trying to get of sense of okay, what the b.f.i.'s stairstep up highest point and same thing with w.m. Because I知 trying to get a sense of perspective here of where could all of these things be headed in terms of vertical expansion.
>> [inaudible].
>> yes.
>> theirs is a two-level, split-level proposal with the western approximately half being at a maximum of 795 feet above mean sea level. And the lower half, which is towards giles road, would be 770 feet above mean sea level. They have stated that from an engineering perspective if they wanted to they could go to 900 feet and through 2032. Those are just some notes I had from previous meetings and their diagram. If I could read -- I mean they have profiles here, but I cannot read the elevation sour rounding 's such a small document I can't read the numbers.
>> I think they can they will you what it is, but they've already made it public at their meeting of July 9th. I知 sure they can tell you what they said.
>> waste management is way above 100 feet.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners, judge, heath from b.f.i., district manager. I believe john is correct, 795 mean sea level in the western half, 770 on the eastern half. Off the top of my head, I believe we're about 150 or 155 feet above the actual ground grade that's currently there.
>> wasn't your column of waste 100 feet under the old permit, then you got 10 feet which came to 110, and now you want 75 feet, which would be 185 feet.
>> no, I believe we're about 155 feet above the current ground level. But I can double-check and get back to you. I think john can concur with that. Then the 795 and 770 mean sea level.
>> I知 just wondering what you said at July 9th, you satisfied you were -- 80 feet above you, plus seven. It would be 110 feet right now of the column of waste.
>> we're talking about -- Commissioner Sonleitner asked what we were above ground. And you're adding in what we are below ground.
>> yeah, I thought that -- okay, just above. So it was -- it was 80 feet plus 10, that's 90 feet, right.
>> I think we're 150 to 155 feet above ground is where we're at.
>> I知 just trying to do some quick and dirty math in terms of if we're saying how high is too high, you're talking about a potential expansion at t.d.s. At 105. All of a sudden we may be getting to the same kinds of ultimate numbers, lower but I mean we're kind of getting into the neighborhood of numbers that are making the northeast folks nervous. And I知 not saying that's not appropriate and I知 not saying that's not what the thaeubd is going to agree to, but there's a big difference between 62 feet tall and seeing something already that that's what it's going to be and going 43 feet higher than that. And people kind of readjusting the perspective here.
>> let's give you an opportunity.
>> joyce best, I live in northeast Austin, and I wanted to reiterate something that trek said and that is by virtue of passing this ordinance as it is exists in the copy that we have from may, you are in effect making it unnecessary for anyone to ever use it. Because you are going to cause such a rush of landfill expansion, there will be such an excessive saturation of landfills in Travis County that it will certainly not be in any of our lifetimes when this might be something that somebody would need to use because there would be so much landfill capacity here. I知 a little baffled over the discussion about mr. Gregory's potential of 105 feet when the court is currently considering a b.f.i. Contract that would go, as well as I can figure, and Commissioner Sonleitner, I知 doing some quick math as well, I believe that, according to what we have been told, the contract that you are currently looking at signing with b.f.i. Would be 60 feet higher than mr. Gregory's proposed 105 feet, and that -- that potentially could happen to us if b.f.i. Really intended to leave in 2015. That could happen to our area within the next 10 years. And I have no idea of the time frame of mr. Gregory. I suspect it's far longer than that. So that being the case, at this point a lot more concerned about what is going on in our own area of the county than down the road. I understand it should be a concern to all of us and I appreciate that you are looking at that. I think what's in front of us as far as what the county is considering is far more substantial than a height expansion than what mr. Gregory -- and I go appreciate Commissioner Davis has put in so much time and effort and trying to protect the east part of the county. And Commissioner Gomez as well. But I hope that you realize that when you pass an ordinance with the language that is in this one, you are allowing all of them to go and expand right now, and I don't know who is ever going to be needing to use this.
>> I listen to what you are saying and I know there may can still be adjustments, as I stated earlier, within the current ordinance as we see now, but I guess maybe there may be some stuff we need to bring up. Maybe have to go to executive session to look at some of these adjustments.
>> and Commissioner Davis, you don't know how much I appreciate that. But I guess my thought is after we have spent three years working on this, I personally have little hope that this is ever going to be something that will benefit the people of northeast Travis County.
>> I hope when we meet in executive session and as stated earlier I can understand the urgency of bringing this up because of w.m.t. Filing a permit, and I guess I would like to ask w.m.t. A question, the representative from waste management a question, per se. If they could come up to the deal, I really would like to pose a public question to you. At some focus and some point of all the discussions over the years, there were opportunities I think that were available to you to -- as far as greenfield sites, new location where you don't have to deal with expansion, per se. I壇 like to know what you did on those particular new locations, where you are in those particular new locations. That's the first question. And then the second question is the caps you are requesting, it takes it up to the year 2027 according to what my sources are of your capacity to continue to operate in the same location. I壇 like to know exactly can that be reduced significantly. Thirdly is that are you operating or seeking a permit application through tceq in Williamson county, and if so, what is the projected capacity for that particular site in Williamson county, and also I guess the number of acreage that you are seeking to actually operate another facility in Williamson county. Those three questions, if you can, in that order.
>> once again, steve jacobs, waste management of Texas. I know we have updated the Commissioners in writing and in person on our search for greenfield sites. We have basically reached logger heads. We located a parcel of land. We've had discussions with a number of poerpbs. Several of them told us in no urn certain terms we don't want anything to do with you. We were actually working through an outside agency so it wasn't waste management going up and knocking on their door and saying, hey, would you like to sell your land for a landfill. But there's been enough activity that anybody who is showing up at these places, people put two and two together and they say we don't want to sell our property for a landfill. So we're basically -- we've located a parcel of land on the surface would work and I think I致e addressed you ladies and gentlemen a couple times before that's basically looking at transportation issues, of visible issues from a map, some flood plains, basic geological issues if it's an area that lends itself to having good soils, but we can't go to step 2 until we can actually get access to the land. We do in the have access to enough of the property to make beneficial to go in and start that work. A lot of that as we said in our letter is even though we have filed our application, we hope to be able to sit down and continue to work with the Commissioners and the neighbors to try to solve some of these issues. We didn't look at this as a thumbing our nose at the county. It was a situation that developed due to a number of circumstances where we felt if we were -- any of us were going to have any options, we needed to do something right now. If there is a greenfield site or if we can work through our issues and get the greenfield site permitted either one the county brings to us or one we find, the date of closure and the current landfill can obviously be moved up. The second question you brought up was our application is for the full size of the property on the wilder tract as well as the existing footprint. That can be and the intent was if we can get the expansion area permitted quick enough, we would back away from 9 and 10 which would reduce that number significantly. So as you said, the numbers work out right now to I believe it's 2027 at current volumes. If those volumes increase, obviously the time line would decrease. We would fill up quicker. But if he we sit down here and agree to over the next few months to make the landfill smaller, to reach an agreement, we're open to that kind of discussion. As for the Williamson county facility, that is an operating contract we have with the county of Williamson county. They purchased the land. They designated how big the landfill would be. We have submitted an application for that landfill property and we're currently working through the process. Two big issues at that landfill are the height and they do not ever want to see Travis County waste in that landfill, even though two-thirds of the waste generated in Williamson county finds a resting place in Travis County, the issue of anything leaving here and going there is a key issue to the local residents around the Williamson county landfill. Those are the issues we're dealing with at that landfill.
>> you said two-thirds of the waste generated within -- generated within Williamson county is coming to the Travis County landfill.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right. And in exchange, Williamson county does not want any waste from Travis County --
>> there are people in Williamson county that have different names, but they represent the citizens that live around the neighborhood or around the landfill. Their concern, not the Commissioners, the neighbors' concern is taking waste from out of Williamson county. Those are the two issues, the height of the landfill, which on that particular facility maxes out at 140 feet. And similar to what mr. Gregory said about his facility, it was designed to meet the minimum requirements for drainage through the tceq. And because of the size of the property, that's where we ended up was 140 feet.
>> the size of the property that's being considered in Williamson county?
>> I believe the actual acreage is about 570 acres in total.
>> and on the -- you mentioned something where you are going to maybe in your testimony, where you mentioned you were basically looking at the possibility to vacate cells 9 and 10. What was that vacation of dealing with those cells? What is that predicated on?
>> I知 sorry. I don't know if I understand your question.
>> the vacation of cells 9 and 10.
>> there's a number of issues. One those are the two closest sites to the new neighborhoods and existing neighborhoods in the area. It also has a roadway, arterial a, which you discussed in great length which may or may not be built, but if we fill in 9 or 10 from the discussions about cost it basically is not going to be built because there will be a landfill in the way. Part of our rationale for filing the applications when we sat down and looked at the numbers -rblgs and believe me, this was a hard decision to make because we didn't want to send a message to the Commissioners we no longer wanted to deal with them. That's the last thing on our mind. We do want to sit down and talk with you. We want to sit down and continue discussions with neighbors that we've had recently and bring in more people that are involved in that and see if we can work through some of these issues. But 9 and 10 not only leaves room for the road, if it's ever built, but it also moves us significantly further away from existing residents.
>> is there any way possible since the letter that you sent to the judge was hand delivered from a representative of August 29th of this year, that was prior to the action -- that date of the letter was prior to the action what the Commissioners court took on August 30th to delete artery a out of the bond initiative all together. It's not there. So by using arterial a in your request going before tceq, are you going to in turn now say that the Commissioners court is not even considering arterial a as an issue because they deleted it from the bond package, and yet you still have capacity under existing permit to fill -- l 7, 8, 9 and also cell 10 under current permit that you have right now. So is that going to be entertained before the tceq at any future date saying that you do now have the capacity to fill those other cells and not even look at the wilder tract for expansion? Could you answer that question, please?
>> I知 not sure I entirely follow it, but I値l give it an hot. Our application to the tceq does not reference arterial a whatsoever.
>> but your letter does.
>> the letter was trying to inform the residents around the area what was going on and give them some reason as to why we were doing it now. It is a very complicated issue. As we all know, we've been going through this now for several years. There's a lot of information flying around. If I had to pull it back and rewrite, I probably wouldn't mention arterial a. But it was a significant issue in our decision process because even though it's not in the bond proes; it's still in the plan and it may be built down the road. If we fill 9 and 10, it's not going to be built. And there was a significant number of people that came to me and sat down and asked us if there was something we could do, and we looked at our operations and how quickly we were filling up, and in order to give everybody some options and some time to work through it, we felt it was prudent to file the applications. But it's not reference understand the tceq application. Our intentions were if we're granted the expansion, we would submit a modification to reduce the size of the landfill which is relatively easy fairly quick. We would cut the footprint back as far as we could, hopefully 9 and 10 is our intentions, and leave room for the highway if they decide to build it. At a minimum it moves us significantly away colonial place and chimney hill and walnut place. It does a lot of things including leave room for a high ay if it's so decided to build it later on.
>> that's my final question for right now.
>> ms. Williams.
>> good afternoon. Judge Biscoe, Commissioner Davis, I知 [inaudible] I am from the lbj neighborhood association. And I would like to concur with what has been mentioned by ms. English and ms. Best regarding the comments and the issues that are at hand concerning this ordinance. In listening to Commissioner Sonleitner talking about the height and just visualizing how far we're going up, I知 visualizing also the amount of stench that's going to bring because if I can smell on a bad day clean up to 183 and ih-35 corridor, and can -- I can imagine how it's going to smell further on down the road if that height goes up. You're talking four, five times, maybe up to ten times, you never know. So I mean those are the other kind of things that need to be thought of in the process of allowing things to have -- to go through and they shouldn't be. So I知 just really concerned about that because that smell is really horrible. It not only stays with you, it really is sickening. It's just sickening. So I just would like to see if you would at least visualize what that is going to cause as far as the smell. There's tons and tons of restaurants in the area. I don't know what kind of effect it's really going to have on them, but just even driving 183 and 35 at times when the smell is really bad, that's enough to tell me I can visualize what it's going to be like by the time they expand.
>> what do we have posted today?
>> basically it's what do we do about the siting ordinance. Ms. Best seems to indicate she didn't think we ought to do anything. Ms. English said she really didn't know. So my -- I mean should we do the siting ordinance or should we back off of it?
>> well, what I知 saying is it's kind of like I don't know, but I do know something has to be done. And it has to be done now. While we have the time to do it.
>> there are some language modifications they were basically indicating, if certain language was changed in the ordinance they could deal with that. They could deal with it, rather.
>> yes. Something a little more clean-cut, but also taking the equations away. Visualizing its height and smellinto the equations.
>> we have three more minutes or we can come back at 1:45 and take as many as --
>> I only need one minute. I want to make one more statement about your ordinance.
>> you have two minutes.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. My name is mark mcaffee, and, you know, this county has needed a siting ordinance to govern landfills and other related -- I guess we already passed one regarding other types of facilities like that, but we certainly needed an ordinance for the five years we've been talking about this. And it stands in light of the recent permit request by waste management, we really should have done this four years ago. And I hope we will pass something that will protect other people in the future and I hope you all will realize out in the northeast we are in the attics and the water is rising and something needs to be done about that as well.
>> so you favor the siting ordinance if it's the right one?
>> I think we undoubtedly need a siting ordinance so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
>> okay.
>> ms. English?
>> my question is what do we do about the one that's already out of the chute.
>> I知 sorry?
>> my question, and I know that's not on the agenda, but it's what we do about the expansion that's already out of the chute.
>> we'll have to address that. As to the siting ordinance, should we do one or not do one?
>> well, I don't think that you should do -- pass an ordinance that's going to trigger four or three expansions of landfill. That may be just something you may not be able to live with. I don't know about the consequence of that. I don't think there would be a t.d.s. Expansion and that's why it is going up because it's easier to file one of those, a lateral expansion. But it wouldn't be one if waste management hadn't triggered it with the passing of this ordinance. I also want to remind you waste management cannot go above 740. They have limitation on their present permit. And they know what would happen if they tried to file above and beyond what they are allowed right now because of a neighborhood agreement in 1990. Also what they file would extend them beyond 2027 at their present rate of disposal. And I値l be happy to sit with mr. Jacobs and show him how I arrived at 2040 versus 2027. And my last statement will be on the 62.0071, which is a special exception for landfill, number 6.
>> you are look tagt ordinance. If we decided to one, there's nothing to keep us from going back to the first word and reworking it. The reason we didn't do the siting ordinance four years ago, mr. Mcaffee, was because of the same circumstances we're faced with today.
>> exactly.
>> the landfill operators can beat us to adopting a siting ordinance because there are legal requirements that we have to meet. And the gentleman's agreement was they wouldn't file an application to expand if we didn't file the siting ordinance, but the gentlemen's agreement was also the minute one of us filed, the others were free to do so. So it is not new that the four landfill operators can file an application to expand each without -- before we can adopt the siting ordinance. We've always dealt with that. So we're not on new territory. It's just that one of them has filed an application to expand. And so is our response to that on the other three is the gentlemen's agreement still in place or should we put together the best siting ordinance we think we can come up with and go through the legal requirements to adopt it.
>> well, that's why I was bringing number 6. I think also you need to go back to the role of capcog that not only should it benefit the overall public, but it also -- their intention was never, never to keep regional landfill in populated areas.
>> capcog?
>> yes.
>> I don't know we can do anything to empower capcog or --
>> if you are going to mention 6, I think you should say it can benefit the public but not if it's also harming the public because it is now in populated areas. You know, you can't help an area that close to town from developing. Any, that's all.
>> if we say okay, let's move toward adopting an ordinance, in fairness we ought to say if you got new ideas that we haven't received, that we haven't incorporated into the old draft, send them to us. That's another 10 to 14 days. You see what I知 saying?
>> no, I know.
>> as a governmental entity, no matter what we do, you're really looking at 40 to 60 days. Unless we do something unlawful, which we would not do unintentionally.
>> the catch 22 to all of this is saying where you can't go, you in effect have to say where it can go. If we know where it can go, we ought to all be moving to say, hello, akwaoeurt, move it and it gets out of the northeast. That's the dilemma because I don't know if there is that mythical location. That we can all get to.
>> we've all been waiting long enough.
>> I know.
>> we can't have an unconstitutional ordinance. We've been here done that on sexually oriented businesses. It's not just a matter of saying where it can't go, it's saying where we can go. I have yet to hear of a neighborhood step up to the plate and say take me please. I think we're finding in terms of the some of the attempts to try and find land within Travis County that people are not saying I volunteer my land. And we've certainly got that attitude going in bastrop county and I think in Williamson county.
>> the other thing we haven't done either is to say we don't have any use for these facilities anymore.
>> should we come back this afternoon?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> or is this enough for now?
>> well, if you're not going to adopt anything, that's enough. I can't come back this afternoon. It's up to you, whatever you -- if you want to postpone it or discuss it.
>> well, should we at least invite recommendations as to wording that should be put in an appropriate ordinance and indicate our intention to look at that and have the wording the same as to a the same as two weeks ago?
>> I値l second that.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...we have adopted one solid waste sight ordinance that we have adopted, of course that is holding true to form, as far as criteria, setbacks, they have to conform to. The -- the industries and again I think that -- this is something that we need to move forward with and just not -- not get to a dead end and just -- just sit there again. Judge, I think it's very appropriate for us to move forward.
>> why don't we do that. If there's specific wording, suggestions, I guess if the --, the latest revised draft is what date?
>> I don't know that I had a date on it, judge. I think the latest version that I had, the document no. Is 43892-14. Every time a new draft came out the last two numbers changed. The latest one that I have got is version 14.
>> 14?
>> I got 15, with the -- from -- it's dated may 10th.
>> I don't have the latest version.
>> it came from you. That's my --
>> 15.
>> from that dan smith.
>> I know that we discussed it -- may 10th.
>> I have may 17th, actually.
>> could be.
>> does it have a date on it?
>> it's not dated, but my notes from the last court session were may 17th and --
>> john, do you have a copy of the application that -- that wmi, wmt filed with tceq?
>> no, sir.
>> it would be good for us to get a copy of that. That the users, would they have a copy of that?
>> I would imagine that you could request that from them.
>> I would -- if wmi -- wmt -- waste management of Texas do have a documentation of that particular application that they have filed, with tceq, I would request that if they don't mind to give it to john kuhl, sitting there, and you can go from there if that's at all possible with their permission, is he still here.
>> yeah, I知 here.
>> did you hear that request?
>> no problem.
>> for the record, if there's anybody that's interested in it right now, there's a copy of file at the capcog offices. I think that you have one in the library -- dismoopt yet?
>> don't yet? Okay. That's where I was able to find it on Friday when I was looking for it.
>> that would be good to have a copy.
>> judge, could you provide some clarity, if we do go to a siting ordinance I do hear mr. Gregor's. -- [video discontinued for emergency broadcast system testing] -- [video discontinued for emergency broadcast system testing]
>> settlement of issues in a performance based contract. And while we all continue our efforts to try and find a greenfield site someplace else, but we have things still pending out there.
>> if we address whether or not -- to -- to consider adopting a siting ordinance two weeks from today, part of that discussion would be, where would any agreements fit into it. You wouldn't discuss the specifics of the agreements, you would discuss do you provide in this siting ordinance for a -- for agreements that basically would obviate landfills having to comply with all of the terms and conditions --
>> or the siting variance.
>> didn't we go -- I think we went through this in 2002.
>> we have been through it several times.
>> mr. Nuckols, that's how much we --
>> you did.
>> I --
>> who do I look like now?
>> when mr. Nuchols looked like clark gable.
>> I知 not saying that you don't, I知 just saying we have gone through so much but we are all changing, but you do.
>> who do I look like?
>> I look like sophia.
>> I feel like I知 living groundhog day.
>> yes, yes exactly.
>> sonny and cher are playing on the radio. [laughter]
>> I wanted to have an independent, moving, functioning, moving part that's really as far as an ordinance is concerned, really -- that will really govern the future growth and integrity of east of i-35. These agreements with the landfills I guess is one thing. But I just think there needs to be two separate and distinct parts. And the agreement with the existing landfills won't serve the future concerns of folks that are -- that have brought to me and my intention is that we do not want these specifics -- particular facilities located next to neighborhoods, blah blah blah blah, across the board. So the ordinance, in my opinion, need to be in place to do that. So I think there needs to be two separate and distinct things.
>> okay.
>> judge, could I suggest -- in the booklet that I gave you earlier, exists a -- a June 17th draft. And I noticed that tds was giving comments on it on August the 6th. I知 assuming you all would have been making comments with something close to a current draft at that time. August 6th of 2002 was the tds comments. The draft was dated June 17th. In the course of today's meeting someone mentioned a may, maybe a June draft. I strongly recommend that before you start the two-week comment or review periods for us to come back to you, at least we all start from the same point. So that I don't have a different draft than other people and we are all looking at different drafts. That would be very confusing and --
>> the latest draft is later than '02, right?
>> right. Let me remind you of why that happened, when we started talking about the different buffer zones, questions about whether or not we would in effect be sort of perhaps cutting our nose off to -- to spite our face in we were too restrictive when we really wanted to help somebody relocate. Remember I had the colorful diagram that showed you the different effects of different sized buffer zones. So that's -- that's the draft that we discussed on the 17th and it -- it also had that special exceptions section which was new. So -- so --
>> 17th of what year?
>> 2005.
>> it was the -- this summer, judge.
>> does it have document no. 15?
>> yeah. The one that I have is 43892-15.
>> that's the latest version.
>> the latest version.
>> I just didn't grab one.
>> can we give an account of the latest version to whoever needs one. Bob needs one because his is a few years old.
>> that would be great. I would just recommend that we all start from the same point.
>> I agree.
>> absolutely.
>> good point.
>> I would just like a little time off so I could do some volunteer work on this katrina -- frankly, I really would like to get away from this. I知 sorry, I know this is not maybe feasible.
>> trek, you and I agree with this. [multiple voices]
>> you give me a little while off, I might start looking like clark gable again [laughter]
>> move that we recess to 2:00, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez gone.
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, September 7, 2005 10:24 AM