Travis County Commissioners Court
October 18, 2005
Item 6
Now, number 6 is to consider and take appropriate action on amendments to the solid waste facility siting ordinance, chapter 62, Travis County code, to include landfills. Commissioner Davis.
>> yes, judge, thank you very much for allowing me to get this item placed on the agenda. As you know, we basically have been dealing with this particular issue for quite some time, and of course we have had staff to bring back the solid waste ordinance without the inclusiveness of a solid waste facility such as landfills. But the ordinance that we have adopted, the solid waste siting ordinance that we have adopted is one that, again, covers other minor and major solid waste facilities. What I致e tried to do, judge, is that there has been an outcry from persons in the community that feel that they need protection by including landfills into the existing ordinance. And, of course, those particular representatives are here today. But what I致e also asked to join us in this particular discussion this morning, judge, I致e asked tceq representative, I don't know if they are here -- okay, right there. And to be here with us. I致e also asked cap cart representative to be here because -- is betty here? Okay. To be here with us. I致e also asked, of course, the many neighborhood groups and stuff that have continued to say that they don't have adequate enough protection from landfills. So they are here also represented. But I致e also asked the elected officials that have brought up concerns in that area. Do we have any elected officials here or representatives? Okay, mayor gonzales. Any of Travis County delegation representatives here? Okay. Okay. Well, but anyway, judge, this is just basically where we are at this point, and I think this is very worthy of discussion and things of that nature. So if there's no further delay, I would like for at this time to look at what we're really looking at here. There's a summary sheet, a summary that's on the table so anyone that did not have the existing current solid waste ordinance, there's some copies on the table there along with the summary that has been overviewed and given to us by john kuhl and our county attorney that's been involved with this to look at where we are, how we got here to where we are. And I want to hear from folks, but again, I think if it's appropriate for us to go through a brief overview of where we are, how we got here, and we need to really be very, I think, decisive and definitive of some of these terms so folks will actually know exactly where -- what we are talking about this morning. So at this time if we can get john kuhl to go ahead and give us a brief overview of where we started from and where are we today. And then we'll just go from there. So at this time, john kuhl, if it's appropriate to have john kuhl to go ahead and give us an overview.
>> okay. Good morning, Commissioners and judge, when you get back in here. Just what we're doing today is real simple, I think, in terms of the big picture. We have on solid waste siting ordinance to books that does not apply to landfills. We did that on purpose. We had some ideas in mind a few years ago in 2003, July 2003 when we adopted that. And it does apply to minor and major facilities she as Commissioner Davis indicated. The definitions for those are very simple. A minor facility is a recycling facility or a solid waste transfer station. Those are the two examples of minor facilities. A major facility is everything else. And the exception is type 1, 2, 3 and 4 landfills. So the amendment that we've brought today just makes that simple change and does make it now applicable to landfills. And just in terms of the history, I mean I don't think I値l go obviously through everything, but just to sort of sum it up, this began back in the summer of 2000 and it began not necessarily with landfills at all but with sludge land application facility called cap tex and it was in Travis County near the northeastern edge, proposed to be near the community of copeland, actually near lund. That sort of spurred this dialogue. And the second one that came right on the heels of that was a proposed facility for sludge recycling -- yeah, sludge composting actually out there on jacobson road in Commissioner Gomez's precinct 4. That one was very close and within 100-year flood plain. So what the Commissioners court decided was at that point to respond to those individual applications was to take a two-step approach and that was first to adopt a siting ordinance that pertains specifically to the flood plain. As administrators of the flood plain in Travis County, we have a great degree of authority in that area and so it was recommended by staff of the county attorney's office and myself to go ahead and take that first step. So that is embodied understand chapter 64 of Travis County code and we refer to it as the flood plain ordinance. And it requires any solid waste facilities including landfills that are expanded or new locations be put within 500 feet of the 100-year flood plain. So that was adopted, you know, back in 2001. And the second step that we were going to take was to consider a more land use oriented ordinance that would deal with setbacks from sensitive receptors. That was first charted out and discussed in mid-october, ironically, of 2001. Obviously there were a lot of questions with that, industry had questions, constituents had questions, and a solid waste work group was formed and, you know, did a lot of good work over a few months there. And, you know, didn't reach perfect consensus but came back down with essentially a similar type of ordinance. That ordinance basically requires a setback for most sensitive receptors of 1500 feet with the exception of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are the big one, which is 5,280 feet. It also requires that these facilities not be placed within most of the important drinking water aquifers. Including obviously the edwards and on the east side of the county the colorado river alluvial. So that, again, as I say, was adopted -- or that discussion occurred pretty much between 2001 and 2003. And an agreement was reached between the major landfill facilities, specifically those on -- off of 290 and giles road that basically they would not apply for their permit applications as long as we were in a dialogue with them regarding this particular siting ordinance and other potential memorandums of understanding and, you know, we went through odor -- preliminary odor tests and all kinds of things, several forms of dialogue. However, suffice it to say that there was not a consensus reached necessarily with the landfill industry and a lot of time has gone by. They particularly waste management decided they didn't have the kind of time they wanted to expend any more and went ahead and filed. That was August 25th of this year. Waste management has filed for an expansion on the wilder tract, and I think that's essentially what's brought us here today. I mean I think that that agreement that we had in place was, you know, a fairly symbolic, nothing in writing type of agreement; however, a significant change has occurred and so this discussion is here today, you know, to take place. If there were other pieces of that time line, Commissioner Davis, or anybody else that you want me to touch on, I壇 be happy to do that. I mean it's a full page single-spaced bulleted time line in your backup so quite a bit of detail there.
>> let me ask who is here today, do you have a copy of that overview that john just gave? And there's some copies on the table if you don't have one because it's a real good overview to where we are and also in the back of that you will find the current solid waste siting ordinance that we have in place now. And john, let me ask you this question. This particular ordinance is strictly just for new landfills sites. Is that correct?
>> actually, Commissioner Davis, this is an amendment to the existing ordinance.
>> right.
>> and it will actually -- it will actually add landfills to the whole long list of solid waste. So it will be actually more inclusive. As proposed anyway today.
>> right. But if it's amended, the setback criterion we have established for the other solid waste facilities will be applicable, but it would just be applicable for new landfill sites. Is that correct? It's not?
>> there's nothing in the ordinance language that says it only -- that it would only apply to new landfills if you make this change.
>> who will it be applicable to then?
>> it applies to landfills.
>> but the other landfills are grandfathered in, the ones that we currently operate, so it wouldn't be applicable to them as far as siting criteria.
>> under state law, you are grandfathered if you already have a tceq permit or if you have an application on file at tceq. So your grandfathering from the ordinance depends on your permit or applications.
>> that's what I wanted to make clear, which is basically another way of putting it legally from our attorney.
>> [inaudible] applies to new ones. You can't affect the ones currently holding permits already from tceq. Right?
>> well, I知 not sure I would state it that broadly. You're exempt if you have an application on file or if you have a permit already issued. So since the exemption speaks in terms of the application or the permit, one way to read that is to say you're exempt in so far as you are permitted. If you go and try to expand your permit, if you try to get additional area permitted, well, that may not be grandfathered. Because then you're filing a new application. See what I知 saying?
>> okay, but I don't want to give anybody the thought, feeling that, okay, this means that we're going to go out there and close down the landfills that are there right now.
>> that's absolutely true.
>> I want to make that real, real clear. That's not what this will do.
>> if somebody has a permit already or they've got an application on file, whatever is covered by that permit, whatever is covered by that application is clearly exempt.
>> okay. So I just want to make sure we were real clear about. That so in essence, it does say that for the new landfills, anybody who is thinking of going into this business brand new, that this ordinance is going to apply to them and they have to comply with all of the restrictions that we have in this ordinance. Right?
>> yes.
>> and for [inaudible] of the expansion that has been filed related to the wilder permit because it's already been filed at tceq, this would have no impact on that.
>> true.
>> people are thinking that this will -- in the roadblock in some way of saying no, by goingy, the answer is it would not aphrao to the wm expansion on to the wilder tract. And in terms of I know mr. Gregory, I see him here, he has not filed any expansion yet, so this would impact mr. Gregory, who is already on multiple locations over multiple years told us that this would have a negative impact on his ability unless he gets his area designated and his expansion area designated. So in terms of one operator in town who has gotten very positive reviews in terms of how he handles things, it would often impact his ability to expand in terms of someone who is a proven partner in this community. Is that correct?
>> unless he files an application with tceq before this ordinance -- these amendments are adopted. Any landfill -- as you all know, in essence can grandfather itself by filing an application before this goes into effect. Now, there are a lot of issues with what's filed, administrative completeness and so on, but that's an issue.
>> let me throw one more situation out here. We know when we were dealing with the sexually oriented business, that you cannot legislate something out of existence. I know when Commissioner Davis wrote this up, there is a kind of fill in the blank section related to meets and boundaries of where appropriate land use is available in Travis County. Do we know what that is today, john?
>> the question was?
>> the question is do we know on your alternative amendments for metes and bounds, do we know where within Travis County where a facility of this sort could legally take place?
>> we conducted a study, a gis based mapping inventory of lands. Basically we applied our setbacks to all of the known sensitive receptors in the county at that time. It was about a couple years ago when we did that. At that time there were several land areas of significant size that we felt would, you know, meet the criteria for siting. Now, the metes and bounds attachment or amendment that you see in your backup really pertains more to specific discussions with operators that might -- you know, the court might find appropriate for expansion. In other words, they would bring in the appropriate metes and bounds that could be inserted into the ordinance during the period of posting is my understanding.
>> it's been a couple of years. Have we updated that, that if we then have to kind of move the clock forward because new things come in, new subdivisions come in, do we have any idea about the accuracy of the study that we did a couple years ago about whether those are still applicable areas that somebody could indeed put something in?
>> it's -- as I stated, it's a bid stale. But I don't -- I really feel like the areas that had significant space probably still do. We certainly could reproduce that effort.
>> I don't know if this is a loaded question. Are any of those areas located west of interstate 35?
>> no.
>> so all of them are in eastern Travis County.
>> correct.
>> so we would be saying -- if we're going to do this and we have to say is there are going to be acceptable for this kind of thing, we would be basically saying it's going to have to happen in eastern Travis County. And I know that is counter to what some folks want in terms of why is it certain areas continue to be the receptacles for everything.
>> Commissioner, I would submit that you want to go the route of designating specific tracts by metes and bounds, under the stault you could designation that area anywhere including western Travis County.
>> well, it still has to meet the technical requirements of putting something in.
>> but under the -- under the county's statutory authority, you could designate by metes and bounds any tract in any part of the county. It has to be outside city limits. You have no authority inside city limits. But you could -- you could designate a track by metes and bounds anywhere and be in compliance with the statute that applies to you. Now, obviously someone who wants to locate there still has to go to tceq and meet all their requirements, but tceq's requirements don't apply to you in designating a site by metes and bounds.
>> john -- are you finished?
>> yes.
>> anthony, tom has brought up a very good point because I want to make sure that the designated area amendment of this -- we actually have two deals before us. We have a solid waste siting ordinance to be amended that deals with receptors. Number 1. Number 2, we have amendment -- an alternative view whereby if county will designate an area for a new landfill site to be located that will be able to process solid waste and maybe do a whole lot of other things, recycling and a whole lot of other things if that area is designated and supported by Travis County. However, I invited betty voigt down here today because I think this is very important, she's with cap cart, a 10-county region which oversees these things. And I know at one time we did discuss the possibility of looking at the region whereby a designated area could be located within the capcart area. Not necessarily in Travis County. I think we have some options and that is another option to look at the entire 10-county area whereby a designated new landfill site, solid waste site, let me say it like that, solid waste site can be looked at to how a series of waste stream products to be dealt with. So that is still another possibility or an option. But I want to make sure that folks understand what we're saying here today is that there are other possibilities and alternatives, but right now I would like to leave here with some type of way of looking at some type of protection for receptors by amending this, but not only that, we have the d.d.z. That a lot of that is in the desired development zone, a lost it is in precinct 1 and maybe 2, I don't know. But the d.d.z., desired development zone, has really been pushed east of i-35. Along with residents that are already there, they are asking for some type of protection up to date. Now, I don't know how we're going to get there, but these are just ways I think that we can get there. And we end up going from there. So judge, if there's no other questions, if anybody else would have questions. Commissioner, I知 sorry, go ahead.
>> john, do we legally and defensively have the right to condemn property outside of Travis County, in your opinion?
>> can we reserve that for executive session? It's not a clear-cut answer.
>> what is it -- I guess, but I mean if we would just tell everybody, I mean I don't have any secrets. If we can do it enough -- you are telling me you can't answer it because of some legal deal, I mean I guess I値l accept that. But my gosh, we need -- we have got to move forward. On this deal. We are fixing to be asked, if I get it, that we are going to move from -- there are some places that you most likely can do a greenfield site to lessening most likely the areas within Travis County, and I知 going to ask tceq, please let me have the opportunity to take and do something in western Travis County so we stop getting, you know, beat up over the fact that we can't do it west. I mean if we can do it west, maybe tceq can tell me since they are here. I mean because quite frankly, we have garbage in west just like everybody does in this county. And I am -- I知 subject to going to my constituency and saying you know what, you may not want it, but you put your garbage out every Tuesdays and Fridays. And I would say that to my folks. Now, is that something that's going to be popular in western Travis County, no more than it's popular to people being asked to do it in eastern Travis County. I would like to get over that subject matter number one. I知 not looking to find a place to put it because I don't want to put it in the area I live or the area that I represent folks. I壇 like to have that question answered. But john, I mean is that accurate if we put type 1 landfills into this ordinance, I mean is it more than likely going to hamper our ability to have the industry go out and to find greenfield sites, in your opinion?
>> it will make it more challenging, and that brings up probably the only other change -- I mean basically what I wanted to tell you is that in terms of what has changed in this ordinance that we're bringing to you today from the last time that you saw it -- yes, sir.
>> okay. Do we have what you're looking at their --
>> we have several backup.
>> there's a memo with the draft ordinance attached.
>> so memo from you and tom nuckols October 13th, that's what you're looking at?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> okay. So basically there are three changes, and tom, do you want to lead them through this or do you want me to stumble through it?
>> I値l do it.
>> okay.
>> if you look on page 3, section 62.02 b-1, you will recall, as john pointed out, when this ordinance was adopted, landfills were excluded. And b-1 is the section that simply said this does not apply to landfills. And so when Commissioner Davis described what he wanted drafted, basically an ordinance that would apply these to landfills, the simplest way to do that is simply repeal b-1. That takes away the exemption from landfills. The way the ordinance is drafted, landfills would become what's defined under the ordinance as a major facility. And all of the various receptors and setback distances would apply to landfills. There's some additional language changes in b-2 and b-3. That's to deal with the statutory grandfathering or exemption I was talking about earlier if you've got an application on file or if you've got a permit already issued. That language is just -- that's basically conforming language to make sure that we are honoring the statutory grandfathering rights that landfills have if they have an application on file or if they already have a permit issued. And then in the back, there's a new proposed section 62.0071. The last time the idea of a siting ordinance apply to go landfills was on the agenda, that's some language that john and I worked up in conjunction with judge Biscoe. So it was our assumption that y'all would still want that in here. This is basically akin to a special variance provision for landfills that recognizes some of the issues you would face in siting a greenfield site.
>> and kind of getting back to what Gerald was saying in terms of special uniqueness, uniqueness of the [inaudible] structure, whether we like it or not, west is limestone, east is clay. We can't change that. But let's just say we could change that for just a second. In terms of major facilities, look down here in what we've got. It has to be far away from public parks. Well, a good chunk of western Travis County is park land, open space tore habitat. It cannot be in the recharge and contributing zones of the barton springs and north segments of the edwards aquifer. There takes out a good chunk of precinct 3. It's got to be at least 3,000 feet from Lake Travis, lake Austin or any other public surface water -- drinking water reservoir. Well, there goes another big chunk. Gerald, this is one of your favorites, you've got to have roads that are tapable of handing heavy truck traffic, and there are very few of those in western Travis County in terms of that are not serving a neighborhood or are already an existing road to a public park or habitat. So it's like -- it isn't happening. So it's east.
>> and the language on page 7, we discussed that when?
>> I want to say that was on the agenda early this year, February, March maybe.
>> actually I believe it was discussed may 17th, right around that time. And that was --
>> in the spring of '05.
>> that was the day that I had the big colorful diagram that showed the setback impacts.
>> you worked with the county judge on that language?
>> yes, sir. The idea is it was actually -- this -- pages 7 and 8 really address Commissioner Daugherty's last question which was how much more difficult does this become now for the landfills. And that's what we were trying to capture here in this subsection was saying, hey, you know, we acknowledge the fact that landfills at least in their current technology seem to require very large facilities, and they are not as easy to site as smaller ones like, you know, transfer stations or recycling facilities. They might need 500 acres or more. So it sort of assumes that there may be challenges in siting with some of these set back criteria. And this opens the dialogue for negotiation essentially. I mean tom may have a better characterization of that, but that's what waoerp trying to do at that time because if you recall, the reason it came up was, well, let's look at these setbacks. Perhaps as a broad rule, these setbacks are too stringent and we should lessen them. So as we talked about it, we said, well, really it's ideally a site by site evaluation that you make. And there may be some cases where, you know, guess what, they could only get 1400 feet from a residence; however, it just happens to be on the upwind side and maybe that's something that we can live with. Just as an example.
>> well, the popbt that I was -- point that I was trying to make is we don't want expansion, we want to make it the most difficult thing that we can possibly do to allow you a greenfield space. And by the way, we don't know that we can force it out of county. I agree there are nine other counties involved in cap cog and I would love to be able to go to judge rite and say, hey, caldwell county has a lot of land in sparsely populated and it could be a good income stream, but I don't think that I have the power to do that. And so -- I mean I知 just afraid that we're about to get ourselves in a spot because I don't think we can start making phone calls and saying don't put your garbage out because we don't have a place to put it. I mean I understand the plight of Commissioner Davis. I understand the residents east that they don't want it, and I wish that I could find a way to do something with this thing. But in two and a half years, all I find is no movement other than let's continue to say don't file anything. I can see where somebody says -- I mean how much longer can I not do something? I mean it's not like we haven't tried to work, you know, with folks. So I知 going to be very, very careful about, you know, what, you know, we do with this siting ordinance. Because the thing that is irrefutable is that we have a lot -- we produce a lot of garbage in the united states of america. We are not very conscious about what some people would like for all of us to do so I mean we have got to be careful with what we're going to do with this thing, but I知 willing to listen to a few more hours of it.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...ask them to be the host for our trash, I would expect robin you would be over there telling them not to let trash in from other counties, from the outside. So that's -- that's -- kind of says to me then I need to be careful about the trash that I generate. Do I bury the -- in my own back yard or do I -- where do I have it sent. So I think recycling, I think we are going to have to look at some new technology in terms of trash, generating trash, throwing things away. Or do we start, you know, utilizing things that we can use over and over and not throw out.
>> I agree with you, judge. I think that -- that we go through the process right now, it appears that to me that we -- we need to amend the current ordinance, we have one already on the books and we need to amend it, based on the -- just the fact that wmt said they will not file for the expansion if of course the court did not amend the ordinance. That's further off. But as far as what you are saying, that would be a perfect, I think scenario of where you have a designated new site area whereby it could take care of all of those things, where the county can process solid waste, have various waste streams, including recycling. Again that's why I had betty barker with cap cart down here, we have the 10 county region, of course that particular site has not been identified as of yet. But I think that it's a site that we can end up going to in -- and putting our arms around it and making it happen. However, in the meantime, what do we do to give some type of protection through the ordinance of where we are now. So -- so is this -- it's going to take some additional help. In fact I understand that senator gonzalo barrientos' aide is here who -- who has come down. They have been kind of following this from the legislature because at the end of the day, we are going to need, in my opinion, some very, very strong land use authority where we will be able to zone a solid waste facility and what can go around those, this kind of stuff that we are dealing with now will not occur in the future. So I just think those are some directions that we need to go in. But in the meantime what do we do today to ensure some protection to the ddz, desired development zone, the folks out in the part of the county that have not had the kind of protection that granted with the other solid waste facilities that we have already had, current solid waste siting ordinance that we have here on the table today. I agree with you.
>> tom, did you get a chance to finish? Do you have specific questions for the representative from tceq? Do we? Can we get that person -- can we get that person to come forward.
>> please.
>> and identify himself. Slide over to the end there, john, get that rep to come forward, give us your full name, we will see if there are questions for you. Where he appreciate you -- we appreciate you coming down today.
>> judge and Commissioners, my name is wayne lee, I work for tceq in the msw permits program, sent here by the executive director of that agency to be a resource for you, to assist you in your endeavors today. I am available for your questions. I believe, Commissioner, you can a -- you had a question about where there are no landfills in the western part of Travis County.
>> in your opinion, do you think that we could permit a type I landfill west of i-35?
>> yes and no. One reason no is there is a direct prohibition of landfills over the recharge area of the edward's aquifer. I believe there's some areas of western Travis County that have a recharge over the aquifer so that would be prohibited. Other than that, there are no laws or rules that I know of dealing with direct prohibition for landfilling -- landfill location in that part of the county. I would say, however, that the geological structure of western -- of the western part of the county is predominantly hills, limestone, rocks, runoff areas and recharge for other aquifers other than the edwards. To protect those areas, to protect the ground water and surface water in those areas, from -- from pollution or contaminants from the landfill would be almost cost prohibitive. One of the things that you need when you are building a landfill is clay material in the western part -- and the western part of the county has a large amount of that. Eastern part -- is -- is not --
>> opposite.
>> seemingly.
>> east has what you need. West doesn't.
>> that's just the way it's made gee logically. Geo logically. I would say that it's not impossible nor is it prohibited by law or rule other than for the edward's aquifer recharge, but it would be cost prohibitive. Consequently, there are basically no landfills in that part of the county. I believe if you will look at the -- at the various regional plans, state-wide plans, you will find that an alternative to a landfill would be to put in a transfer station. I do believe that there may be one or more transfer stations in that part of the county. Joining me is steve shepherd, who is an attorney with -- with tceq and an expert in ordinances of this sort.
>> in terms of [indiscernible] around the state of Texas, any of those that have siting ordinances, are there instances, does it happen that tceq may disagree or take issue with certain setback requirements that -- that a city or a county might have because you are the ones who get to ultimately weigh in on the permit? Do you -- do you supersede, cancel out, what folks locally might have in -- in their setback ordinances?
>> well, we do have a handful of cities and counties which have adopted different types of ordinances. We really didn't start to see them until the last six to eight years. Really the first two to come through, the main litigation and interpretation that we got out of the courts and the legislature had to do with -- with kind of the race to the courthouse issue. The idea of could you prevent something that already had been application on file, that was resolved by the legislature in the late 90s. We really haven't had any administration or court litigation regarding cities and counties that impose the types of site criteria, the idea of having a certain distance from a school or a church or a residence. We do have -- we do have similar types of requirements in our rules. But we haven't been faced with that issue and just to clarify, I知 here on behalf of the executive director of our agency representing our permitting staff. I知 not speaking for our three Commissioners. And we haven't had that issue come to them to be litigated. Which -- which it's the executive director's understanding under the -- under the state laws that you all reference and the amended ordinance, which I believe is the -- is the health and safety code, 363, I always forget which one is 112, which one is 012, there's one in 363, one in 364 which basically say the same thing. The way that we have looked at those from the permitting perspective, what you are -- we are looking to local governments that specifically lays out metes and bounds of where you can and can't have facilities. That would be considered in the front part of our permitting process that we would check, if it's an area where the county designated you can't put it, we don't go any further. We don't process the application. It's a different issue the way it's been proposed in the amended ordinance where it's created a detailed set of siting criteria which are somewhat different from ours, which it's something that I think our office is -- is not willing to halt the permitting process, but we would certainly consider it -- in our land use consideration as part of whether or not it's a compatible land use, so if it's -- if somebody proposed a facility that doesn't comply with all of your siting criteria, we would consider that in determining whether or not we think it's compatible with the land uses in the area. But we wouldn't consider the first step of being prohibited as being clearly designated as an area that you can't have a facility.
>> help me understand related to what we have got proposed here and what are your siting criteria. What are kind of like the -- the top two or three things where we radically differ from what you have within your ordinance? Is it the thing on the public water wells, is it the distance from schools, is it the -- the neighborhood one is a full mile from all neighborhoods. Help me focus in on -- on where are we so far apart in terms of being of like mind, in terms of siting criteria.
>> okay. In speaking strektly in the accepts of siting criteria, requirements where you cannot have it within this distance of another use, we don't have nearly as many as you do. We request a lot of the same information that you are looking at in that we tell an applicant for everything that's within a mile, tell us about all of the schools, the daycares, the different uses, but that's not a specific prohibition that just because it's there we won't issue that permit. We do have a few specific siting criteria, which several -- we incorporated our rules because they are also in the federal rules. Those don't really have to do with those types of land uses, they have more to do with -- with location relative to a floodplain. Or a seismic fault zone or an airport, that type of thing.
>> but for example we have got 1500 feet from a public water wells, schools, daycare centers, places of worship, health care facilities, public parks, historic facilities, individual residences and a full mile from all neighborhoods.
>> we generally don't have a counterpart to each one of those as far as a siting criteria that restricts a permit from being issued. The main thing that we have as a counterpart to that is the amount of a buffer zone that we require around the facility before we permit it. Typically, that's been 50 feet in the past. That is being considered to be expanded, I think we have proposed rules that are open for comment right now that have proposed 125 feet. But that's really the main counterpart that we would have to those siting criteria.
>> I guess what I知 trying to get to is I don't want people to have a false sense of security that if we go this route that somehow by golly we shall overcome in this process. We might. But it sounds like we are not on the same page in terms of what you all do in terms of your evaluation. It could be that you do indeed respect the kinds of things that might bump it out from our perspective, but you might not. And you get to make the final call. Correct? Not us. That's a yes.
>> we make just to clarify, our office, the executive director's office makes a recommendation to our Commissioner, they would make that call.
>> well, if the application of our distances leaves you with no site in Travis County, what would the -- what would the commission's response to that be?
>> well, that kind of -- that really points out the difference between the two different avenues that I was discussing earlier. One is that we generally look at compatible land use. The other is we specifically look at if the county has prohibited locations. And by creating these siting criteria, it's -- my office's interpretation that doesn't clearly designate an jury where you can't have a facility. So we could still issue a permit that didn't necessarily comply with the siting criteria created. Looks like Travis County generates about 70% of the waste landfilled here. But the other 30% may come from 30 plus other counties. How do the other counties in Texas that have landfills, how do they restrict I guess waste from other counties or do they? I知 not aware of other counties restricting the waste streams. As far as I知 aware, that's not provided for under chapter 361 of the health and safety code.
>> okay. What would the commission's response be to -- to an action of that nature by -- by Travis County?
>> we would like to get that on here, what they are going to tell is.
>> speaking for the executive director, I do not know. I知 not aware that we have been faced with that issue or been asked to enforce such a restriction. It's my opinion that more likely that would be played out in district court. Whether or not that would be enforceable or not.
>> perhaps it would be restraint of trade, which there have been cases tested on that in other states and I believe every test on that it failed, so the restrainlts of trade would be -- would be a sacred thing that would be upheld. An ordinance against that would probably not go forward.
>> okay.
>> mr. Shepherd, you made reference to a legislative resolution in the 90s. What -- what issue was that, now?
>> that's the issue that you -- that you see reflected in both the provisions 363, 112 of the health and safety code and 364.012 of the health and safety code. At the end of each of those statutes you will see something that was tacked on I believe in 1998 or 1999 that deals with the idea that you are grandfathered if you have an existing facility or if you have an application in house before the local government enacts an ordinance. That issue was being litigated previous to that legislation being enacted, which is what brought it to the legislature's attention.
>> okay. Any other questions for the tceq?
>> what about health issues or health studies? Do you all address those? Because that is a question that comes up. You know, it's -- it's the impact that a landfill has on -- on surrounding -- if homes are too close or in that area, and the impact on -- on people's health, do you have any studies that you all have done that would help clarify that issue?
>> I can't think of any studies that -- that our agency has done. There are studies done by e.p.a. And these are mostly studies that have been done in the past. I would state, though, that the -- that the predominant pathway for health would be through water, ground water or surface water. These are issues that we take seriously at tceq. We look at designs and how a facility is designed as part of the application. We have very strict rules on that.
>> two more questions. Let us just say that there is some mythical site. We like to use that phrase, the mythical site in Travis County that we could actually figure out something. If we were to be able to describe a mythical, some proposed site in Travis County, that we say you know what, that might actually work and we can describe it by metes and bound, how long would it take to get through the tceq process if as you laid out, if you got metes and bounds of something that a Commissioners court has said is an acceptable place, how fast can something get permitted through the tceq?
>> I would estimate three or four years, possibly more, if you have contested case and that would exclude the time for an applicant to get prepared for the -- for preparing that application and submitting it, preparing and submitting an application could also be two to three years. So if we started at ground zero today, we might be six to 10 years before you could have an operating landfill.
>> six to 10 years, for something even if this -- if this Commissioners court or any Commissioners court said you know what, we have that perfect place and we think that's the appropriate place and meets all of our specs, it still takes six to 10 years to get through an expedited process at tceq, where you don't even have to get past the hurdle of -- of Commissioners court disagree was that location.
>> well, if we have everything perfect, it certainly would be less. So I guess in a perfect world, maybe three years, for -- from start to finish.
>> let's try another one. Let us say that this -- this mythical site is outside of Travis County. And that either through condemnation or you have got the opposition of that next door county or the next, next door county, how important is the opposition of that home Commissioners court of wherever this thing is sited, if it's outside of where somebody -- where the home base is, how important is that in the process?
>> it's -- it's certainly important. We see that in many of our -- in the landfill applications around the state with the county. Either being strongly in favor or opposed. We've had applications denied. And it's -- it's not a binding -- binding thing unless if we are looking at the ordinance that we discussed, if there's an ordinance that specifically prohibits the county, then there's no question. But if there's no such ordinance, then we would look at the county as an interested local government and certainly take that into consideration.
>> are you aware of any counties who have said please bring one of these facilities to us, do you know of any willing host counties that are out there?
>> [inaudible - no mic] [multiple voices]
>> well, what I知 trying to get to is this can't impact an already proposed expansion. It might make it more difficult to find a green field site even if anybody could agree on anything, it could still be a six to 10 year thing and if we can't find a green field site it makes it that much more difficult to shut down the northeast landfill sooner as opposed to later in terms of trying to get to a date certain. Gerald I知 in the same place that you are in terms of it's just -- we want to get to a place where we can find an appropriate place to put these things. But when you find out that even when you find an appropriate place to put one of these things, it's still a six to 10 year process, that -- that just is -- is perplexing and frustrating for all of us sitting here trying to legitimately respond to folks saying you know what maybe there is a better place. We can't even get to a better place even if everybody could agree on what's the better place. In the meantime those folks are sitting here with a landfill in their back yards.
>> any other questions for our two guests?
>> thank you all for coming.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all for coming down. I really appreciate your participation and under the -- under the perfect conditions you said three years.
>> yes.
>> for expeditious purposes, if everything is laid out accordingly especially with a designated area where landfills can process their solid waste, solid waste facilities can process their solid waste. Under that type of perfect scenario, have that ever been done before under -- in other words, you really expedite it, everything has to be laid out. I really would like not to -- not today, but I would like to see what that perfect in other words and ditious three years, as opposed though that other six, 10 years. There is an area where you can visit that would get us there a lot quicker, I would like to hear what that is. See what that is, what type of scenario. What you would have to have on the table in order for that to happen.
>> well, one of the first things is -- the -- no opposition so that there's no one standing in your way, no court cases pending. And no contested case hearings and where the public meetings go rapidly. So that would be number one. So you find a location where you have no opposition. Of course that's in a perfect world. If you found that, you would be way ahead in saving time and streamlining the process. Emphasizing the perfect world, I知 not sure if we have that. Another thing that can be done is the agency that I work for can give you priority. This happens. There are ways of doing that. One way to give you priority is if you recycle, because we like that, we will help you.
>> [indiscernible] recycling.
>> recycling, will get you a long way, as far as streamlining the process. Another way is to have extraordinarily competent consulting engineers and consultants to prepare the application. One of the holdups in -- in application review deals with repeated rewriting of the application of the permit. Based off of tceq staff recommendations. Because the applicants and their consultants failed to meet rules. If you found very competent outside consultants to write the application, perhaps you could shave off months and maybe more time in the application process. So those are three things off the top of my head that would make it go faster. Perhaps we could come up with other ones.
>> well, wouldn't you think that the marketing aspect of things, I mean that's -- there's another large line item, how much money are you willing to -- to put into having folks get out and work with people. We watch that, there are people in this room that make a living doing that. If those are very necessary, I mean, I understand, but that's certainly has got to be part of it.
>> I believe you're right.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all very much.
>> appreciate it.
>> we do have capcog representatives here. Any specific questions for them?
>> yes, I wanted to ask [indiscernible] one question, judge. Or any other repetitive from capcog. Thank you all for coming down on such short notice. We heard what tceq said, the questions that was coming from this court. I would like to ask you some questions, since we are serving, I think the judge brought up a good point, also. With the 30 county region we are serving, of course we oversee a 10 county region, we actually oversee, we are looking at the regional approach on dealing with a lot of these things, recently we just submitted a letter I guess to -- to -- an example to the -- to the Commissioners, tceq Commissioners, a response as far as dealing with the regional solid waste management plan, which is a compliance checklist of a lot of things these folks must do. Even within that overview, something that your folks have been trying to push forward, there has been discussions in the past of looking at a regional site. If this come goes down to tceq about the perfect world or as far as the things that have to happen to make this go forward, what role can capcog do as far as looking and assisting in a regional solid waste facility site that will capture a lot of these things such as what Commissioner Gomez brought up, recycling, they brought it up, prioritizing, to make sure that -- that if there is a designated area, what can you do to help?
>> judge, Commissioners, well -- well judge Biscoe, worked with all of the judges, I guess it's been about a year and a half ago, began to look at this issue. Talent we did do a 10 county area, looked at potential sites that did not have constraints. The next step would be to get the elected officials from the outlying areas to come together and agree on -- on how you might do a landfill that may be multiple jurisdictions controlled. You could have several counties that came together, have a landfill, but clearly there would be huge upfront costs to acquire and develop that. You would probably have to have a consultant to do some kind of feasibility study to look at that. It would be comparable to Williamson county who owns a landfill, they turnkey it for someone else to manage it. So there are alternatives. We can facilitate that process, we can probably even -- we can bring the elected officials back together, we intend to. But ultimately those judges and Commissioners are going to have to obviously vote on whether they need to do something like that as a consortium or not. The other thing that we are beginning to do, need to do a lot more of. We recently completed a waste minimumization study. Looking at an analysis of our current waste stream for the whole region as well as types of projects we are not doing more of to minimize waste. Construction and debris recycling is one of those we haven't done a lot of. Our intent is to bring the multiple counties together to have some serious discussion about how we increase those activities, also. There are several that we are probably not doing that we could do more of. I know that the solid waste advisory committee has begun to look at that. But we just completed that study in July.
>> [indiscernible]
>> talk to the county judges all the time, is there any county judge or Commissioners court in our 10 county capcog region that has said I would love to host a landfill, a regional landfill or Travis County's landfill?
>> no, Commissioner Sonleitner, but none of them have said they absolutely would refuse to consider one either. We did bring all of the judges together, I told judge parish he needed to show up or you might put it in Travis County. They came because they know this is a regional issue. They appreciate that. I don't think we have gone back to the judges and said here are some alternatives. At the very least you all need to command more performance as it relates to recycling. You know the fayette county judge is probably the champion of those kind of programs, he wants to lead a summit for all of the counties to do more. So -- so you know yeah I don't know -- if you tell judge wright it's economic development, maybe, but other than that, I don't know. I do have citizens that have come down for this item. You all have heard the discussion. Please come forward, we would be happy to get any comments that you do have. If you give yours name first, I would be happy to hear you.
>> robin schnieder, Texas campaign for the environment. First I want to thank Commissioner Gomez for raising the issues about what are we going to do with the waste and how are we going to minimize it. Actually, I do think that it's an economic development issue. That as you folks know, the city of Austin has a long range solid waste planning task force, we have heard from international experts about how if we pick apart the various parts of the waste stream, we could have incredible economic development. Especially compared to landfilling, which creates very, very few jobs. So I think that that's the -- really the -- and this has been such a frustrating process for those of us who have been coming down here since the siting ordinance was first proposed. And at this point, I feel like we have accomplished extremely little of substance. The only thing that I think that we could maybe accomplish is if you folks, the other county judges, city of Austin, other cities, other institutions, really embrace the idea of recycling for this century, seeing these as resources not waste, economic development, not just trash. That is tom [indiscernible] to this problem. We need to not just look at technologies, though. We need to look at policies, as policy makers, that's really I think your role. The county, in fact, is -- with its own contracts for certain projects, products, is incorporating the policy of producer take back recycling in many of your contracts you are requiring producers to -- to deal with the end of life issues of those products. If producers are responsible for the end of life, then they will redesign their products for recycling because they will become resources for the neck generation of -- for the next generation of products. I would hope this court would go on record in favor of producer take back, extend that not to your own purchases, but press that for broader acceptance.
>> you have testimony on the siting ordinance?
>> yes. At this point we think the timing of the siting ordinance is not right because what we will do is push other landfills to pursue expansions at their current locations. And that means that we not only will have the waste management permit pending before the tceq, and the b.f.i., ones which we know are coming, is coming, also, but we will also probably have expansion permits by tds and by iesi. Another problem landfill that's right on the bank of onion creek in Commissioner Gomez's precinct. The folks that care about these issues will not only have two major landfill expansions on the plate, but four. And as the tceq staff said, your role as the county Commissioners in opposing is important. And I think that it's going to be very difficult for you folks to oppose four landfill expansions or even three landfill expansions. We want you to oppose two. And not muddy the water bypassing a siting ordinance that is going to push the other landfill operators to file for expansions. So the good news is that in landfill permitting, what -- what wayne lee said, is that it takes two years of data collection on the water to get background levels before they can even submit a permit. So if we get wind that there actually is green field sites being investigated, you will have time to file a sight ordinance before -- siting ordinance before letting this potential new green field sites get in under the wire. I think the timing is bad. The idea is a good one but the timing it bad. It did not serve the purpose to limit the expansions in northeast Travis County of those problem landfills. I can completely understand the folks in eastern Travis County wanting something that will hopefully give them protection in the long run, that's a very valid concern. But I think on balance, given the legal uncertainties of the exclusions and inclusions and the push that this will be for other landfills to file for expansions that the timing is wrong for a siting ordinance.
>> can you put that on a bumper sticker.
>> let me ask this question. I need to ask tceq that question, I really want to make sure that we get a clear understanding. I知 glad they brought legal here. What is considered administratively acceptable. Let's say tomorrow a landfill, any other facility, solid waste facility can say look I like to locate at this site. What is the --
>> new site Commissioner Davis or --
>> I知 asking tceq. What is the requirements for that to be administratively acceptable for us to -- like 1704 or something like that, grandfathered in. I don't want to get into a 1704 situation whereby --
>> technically, the question for tceq after this question -- [multiple voices]
>> we need to get testimony. How many plan to give testimony today? Plan to give comments today? Okay. Mr. Shepherd. If you would try to answer Commissioner Davis's question there. Then we will go to --
>> janet terrill.
>> let's see if mr. Shepherd can answer Commissioner Davis' question.
>> in other words as far as the Commissioners court looking at the possibility of amending the solid waste siting ordinance, [indiscernible] 30 day posting requirements, blah blah blah blah blah blah, and then of course if we amend it, even if we are looking for a designated area, those things take a process of a 30 day posting period. Let's say tomorrow someone can go out and come up to you and file and say, look, we would like to -- to apply for a -- for a facility. At this location. Blah blah blah blah. What -- what is the legal requirements for that to be administratively accepted. Based on that particular filing.
>> let me check the statute real quick so I make sure not to misstate this.
>> thank you.
>> the statutes and the provision that I知 looking at is in 363.112 of the Texas health and safety code. Provides for the basically the grandfathering of the facility, based on an application being filed. We've had some discussion about whether or not that's appropriate, whether or not it should be administratively complete, but the statute that we are following is if someone files an application, then that would get their foot in the door. And there is a follow-up issue that -- that if that application were so deficient, we may end up returning that application, which would take their place out of -- so it would no longer be in front of the county ordinance. But technically under the statute in our rules, what we require is for the application to be filed and for landfills, what a lot of people don't -- don't understand about the applications, is these applications are typically about a foot and a half thick.
>> I understand.
>> the application that can be filed for an applicant to get their foot in the door is just the land use portion of the application --
>> just the land use portion?
>> which is a much smaller portion of the application, which can be prepared much more quickly, doesn't have to consider a lot of the technical issues that take more time.
>> so at that time we would maybe run into the 1704 scenario, the grandfathering aspects of what we are talking about.
>> yes.
>> okay. That's what I wanted to make really clear for everybody, it's not that -- not that -- we are not immune to what's going on here, we can take their word, thank you mr. Shepherd. We can take their word for what folks are intending to do, what we are hearing, I want to follow what the law said. What is administrative acceptable, land use portion being submitted to the tceq is sufficient enough according to what I知 hearing here as far as dictating a facility to locate where -- where -- thank you.
>> I will be very, very brief. I知 here to represent a whole group of people out at Austin's colony. People who are working two jobs that cannot be here at Commissioners court, but who do not want any more landfills or any other trash facilities in eastern county or near our area. Number two things that I would like to break up kind of goes along with what she was saying, we are putting a finger in the dike here, I think we all know this. I worked for b.f.i. About 30 years ago on the east coast. At that time I had an account, fairfax county hospital. They burned their trash, they heated water that increased the energy within their hospital and it was a clean burn, it was a no air pollution, this was like 30 years ago. There was for -- all we hauled from fairfax hospital was ashes. Landfills are extremely profitable to trash companies. And I have no problem with profit. I mean I love profit myself. But I think there comes a time in point where we are going to have to be investing in more technology like this and we wouldn't have these discussions. We would be having different discussions, but we are going to have to start looking at something else but just the finger in the dike. Thank you very much.
>> I知 alex steadman.
>> as one speaker finishes and leaves the table, if someone else who wants to give comments will please come forward. Sorry to cut you off.
>> I知 alex steadman, I also live in eastern Travis County, Austin's colony subdivision. Also on the board of the homeowners association. I overheard somewhere that there's an e.t.j. Study showing growth coming along the f.m. 969 corridor. Future growth. Is this true? I am correct in assuming this, right?
>> [indiscernible]
>> [multiple voices]
>> also, yeah, with s.h. 130 coming through, I知 sure commercial developers are chomping at the bit to develop along that corridor, correct? Isn't it true that -- that by allowing these facilities to I guess to continue to operate or to open, they are basically cutting east Travis County's throat? I mean as far as growth? Because you can't really go north. You will run into Pflugerville. You can't go south, you will merge into buda and san marcos. You can't go west because you have the hill country and limestone and preservation and stuff. The only place Austin can go is east. If facilities such as these continue to be permitted to -- to -- to open in eastern Travis County, where is Austin going to grow? Because businesses aren't going to want to open up in this area, families aren't going to want to move there, subdivisions aren't going to open and -- and I just -- I just can't really see the sense in it. I understand that we have got to have landfills, we have to have trash facilities, that's fine. But there has to be a better way. A intern spoke earlier about a clean facility. Look into that. Has anyone ever given thought to -- to having one regional large landfill and forbidding any development within a 10 or 15 miles radius around that landfill? So that, you know, this is our area, this is where all of the trash is going to go, you know, we can't have any businesses, residents, anything like that because we want to protect everything. This -- this I feel would be a really -- something to consider.
>> thank you, mr. Steadman.
>> I知 larry beard, I am a developer on the east side, I have lived there all my life. Gerald, I wore my pink shirt just for you today, because I know how colorful you get towards halloween [laughter] I wanted to suggest that we do need some ordinances, I知 not here to tell you these are perfect or not perfect, but I think that there does need to be some ordinances applied to the landfills because it's -- it appears to be that time to address the issues. I also see the catch 22 that we are catching ourselves in when, oak, we passed more restrictive ordinances, which I do support from the standpoint that I think they are necessary to -- to haul in the -- to make it very finite as to where you go with these. I also appreciate the fact that it's not all -- you know, when you do that, you are not going to be putting them out west. You know, you are not going to really be putting them anywhere other than east because of the geographical, the geology of the issues required. However, I do want to bring to your attention, there's some things that have been done over a long haul in other states. For instance, if you fly into la guardia, go to new york city, go over the bridge, hit ferry point park, a golf course jack nicklaus designed. That was a landfill. I think you teed to be very careful about -- you need to be very careful about putting this work park in your ordinances, you have 145,000 acres that Travis County owns? I think we have got areas that's parkland designated, it can be park 50 years from now, it possibly can be a park now. You did it over here on ed bluestein you have the first tee sitting on an old landfill. It a beautiful golf course, a little nine hole golf course next to the ymca. We are doing it here, just didn't realize it maybe. There are ways to have maybe special type of landfill recyclable type of landfills on maybe what would be county owned parkland designated, a landfill for 30 years, then after that it's going to be a park. They do it in new york. They -- you are doing it here. It's being done a lot of other areas of the country. We already own, we Travis County already own a tremendous amount of acreage. I知 sure that you can get something that's not within a mile of a residence on some of this land that's open space that you can't even access in terms of preserve, which is a good thing. We are reaching a point where we are in a catch 22 position here on this landfill. That's all that I have to say.
>> larry, I would not recommend that you run for office using that as a platform. Parkland into a type I landfill.
>> worked in new york. [laughter]
>> yes.
>> skate parks over the giant hills.
>> good morning, my name is laura [indiscernible], I live in eastern Travis County area that has recently become host to a I believe you all call it a green recycling facility. And this particular recycling facility was permitted and it is scheduled to open at the end of the year. They managed to do it in four years. So I would question the time line that tceq has given y'all as to how long it takes to open one of those facilities. One of the concerns that I have with that, a lot of the areas in eastern Travis County right now is host to many different rabble companies, if you look at that area from the area you see lots of man made lakes, all of those lakes feed into the colorado river and the colorado river of course is water facilities for those downstream from us. You put landfill, you know, whatever you want to call it into those areas, there is a serious health issue, I think, with the water because most landfills green type of facilities they leak. I mean, that's just what they do, you put in one of those areas, gur going to have, you know, problems with that. Specifically the well for our neighborhood is within 250 feet of that new facility. And that means that my drinking water is going to be affected by this. And this was open the use there were no -- no restrictions on the -- on those kinds of openings. So I -- and in here -- I知 here in support of new restrictions on that, which would then ask whoever is putting it in to qualify that no -- the folks who were going to have to get their drinking water off of this well, you know, it's far enough back, you know, that we are not going to be affected by it. So I would support, you know, further restrictions by making landfills type 1, 2, 3, 4, which I believe the new facility that's going in is a type 1 or ii facility. If we can put more restrictions on that, you know, my drinking water is not going to be negatively impacted. Also, in the -- I did happen to read the permit and the -- the security that this particular company put up for this is about -- it's between 250 and $350,000. Last time I checked, the severe health consequences of that is going to be a whole lot more expensive than 250 to $350,000. Which means that who is going to pay for the rest of the bills for that? So the other aspects of this, which you know also goes back to the money issue, is folks with homes in that area they -- that is considered then a depressed area. You are not going to be able to get higher property values on that, which means that -- that tax revenues from those areas are going to be depressed. So I would think that as -- as Commissioners that you all would be interested in increasing the tax base, that's what I have to say, thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> ms. Macafee?
>> okay. My name is melanie macafee. Well, I would like to ask some questions. They say time is everything, perhaps it is. Ideal the Commissioners court pass an ordinance on landfills now? How will the ordinance impact the rush of applications that are happening with waste management and b.f.i.? Tds says the ordinance will force them to join the landfill rush. Why would the county want three major landfill expansions when their hired consultants, neil sellman has told them our excess capacity will cause waste to come from far away. If these three major landfill expansions are granted, would we need another landfill in our lifetime? Are there any benefits to the communities already hosting landfills to have the ordinance? After working on this ordinance for years along with you, I say the timing in an assault on our efforts and good will. We obviously were in favor of the ordinance to protect citizens from unscrupulous corporate behavior. This ordinance does not do that. There is no protection for the action taking place now. In fact, I see the ordinances a potential blessing for the applications pending. By designating where landfills can go, the stage is being set for land compatibility. Furthermore, the ordinance does not protect or treatment expansions the same as new applications. The theory goes that they were there and can't play by the new rules like others should. This whole notion needs to be reworked and rethought. For example, look at our business that we began before wmi and b.f.i. Were there. We had been able to co-exist up to now. We will be out of business if the application is granted. They passed the requirements in the ordinance. So the business that we have been nurturing for almost 25 years will be lost. At some point we have brought you doubt in the past showing you how few properties that are in Travis County on the national register of historic places. Our building has been enjoyed by thousands of brides and over hundreds of thousands of people, why do we not have any protection that will actually be beneficial in this ordinance. The ordinance should use us as an example. Some of the issues that are not yet addressed are the issues of height and the impact and implications to the community. When landfills expand, their height goes up. What was originally passed should be relooked at. This ordinance does not do that. Also, why are businesses that were there for years before the landfills were even there, not given more consideration. Their rights are being taken from them. There should be written consideration in the ordinance that protects existing businesses especially businesses as sensitive to visual blight as ours. Again, the historical structure clause should be made that protects and not just sounds good. Last, landfill expansion should not be ignored but dealt with. If the law does not allow this, then I think the court should seriously look at why they would pass an ordinance now and what the potential impact would be on the expansion application. I recommend that if the court decides to proceed with passing an ordinance, that they utilize the expertise and experience of an outside counsel such as neil sellman, what suggestions or recommendations would he have considering his global view? Since he has worked with communities that have been successful with actually reducing their waste stream way beyond ours, ideal Travis County not do so? This could be handled by phone, it is -- he is already familiar with our situation, he will come from the direction of reducing waste and how these measures help or hinder this process. He might also offer some creative suggestions dealing with landfill expansions. And existing landowner rights. Let's not pass an ordinance that we have all worked so hard on for so long that to only find because of our present circumstances the results only hurt the community. This ordinance is not ready, the timing is wrong.
>> thank you, ms. Macafee.
>> I believe you were next.
>> I知 marlin [indiscernible], I represent black land prairie concerned citizens, we have in northeast Travis County. We agree with the things that the people have said, but our main concern is -- is the safety and then the future of our future generations of safety and health to them. And while all of these things are worked out, I think we should add the landfills in there. And it will all come out in the end. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good to see you.
>> who was next? Ms. English?
>> good morning, this is trek english for the northeast action group. I believe four years ago on October 30th of 2001, is when we started on this long road of -- of -- of the ordinance and it is the northeast Travis County landfills. If I do a quick math, from -- from October 2001 to October 2005, that's four years, sometimes 12 is 48 months. We are on about the 16th version of the ordinance. So I would imagine that's three times, three times 16 is 48. That means that we've had a new version of this ordinance every three months for the last four years. At an average. I have worked, I believe, on almost every one of them. And at this point it is very difficult for me to think that I have put four years of this, of my life into this and suddenly we are passing an ordinance that is going to restrict the criteria to such a point that -- that nowhere in Travis County can this -- these landfills relocate. If we are trying to send a message and say that the landfills are so bad and they can't go anywhere, I think we need to establish that today. You need to establish the fact that these landfills are absolutely the worst thing that can happen to any human being and apply it to every human being, not just segment the county into areas where -- where well we are going to protect these people, but not these people because they are doomed anyway. At this point we need to stop this excessive concentration of landfill and its excessive -- discrimination of the people that live near landfills. So I知 going to ask you to think seriously about not passing the ordinance at this time. I do think that if -- from what I understood the tceq representative explaining this morning, since it is such a long process, to permit a new facility, I think there's plenty of time to pass an ordinance that would be protective of any area in the county that would suddenly become subject to a green field site. It has also always been my belief that -- that all of the criteria that we worked on, to make it more helpful, to any perspective site or any perspective, any residents that would be facing a perspective new landfill, that all of the criteria or if not all a good majority of this criteria could be incorporated in your contract with that landfill. Or in your agreement with that landfill if you were to agree that they could site themselves somewhere in Travis County, then all of that criteria should be -- could be applied at that time, even though if it's not an ordinance. Especially they need your help. They need your help trying to eminent domain some land in order for them to facilitate the sight of one site, then I think that your position would be before we are going to help you to eminent domain any of this land, you need to meet a good majority of this criteria otherwise we are not going to help you. I think there is a chance to help any -- any citizens of Travis County that are facing the new site. However, what I am asking here is that right now we are the most affected by these landfills. This ordinance does not protect it. It protects a lot of other people that are not being affected. We are the ones suffering, facing two expansions. So I think the focus right now should be on how we -- how we address the problem we have on our hand rather than create a new problem. I believe what the tceq members or mrs. Voight brought out is something very viable, something that we really need to sit down, I would ask all of the people in eastern Travis County to sit down and come up with a location where they think a new landfill should go. It should not be up to me. It should not be up to us, it should not be up to anybody that is presently living next to a landfill probably will be living next to them for a minimum of ten years. I think if people want a landfill near them, they should work on where it could go. That would be perhaps a viable solution. Commissioner Gomez asked about where we are going to put our garbage, what are we going to do with our garbage, we are working on a task force that is strictly working with the reuse, reduction and recycling of waste. It's a serious thing. Not just talk, we are actually going to try to reduce the waste stream. Which is not in the long run it will not help me because if we are successful, that means that they will have more room here for a lot longer. But yet that's the proper thing to do, that's the right thing to do. It's to reduce that waste to where we don't have to treat gigantic problems every ten years. Frankly, I feel that the people that started this mess is waste management. They went and filed for an expansion while everybody was still on board following the rules, they went on their own and frankly they are the ones that need to pay because they are creating one more mess. While we are on the subject of waste management, I wanted to let you know that the ordinance have been constant -- orders have been constant all of the last two weeks on our side of the landfill. The reason I知 not sending you e-mails anymore frankly I知 just too tired, I have not been feeling well, I decided I wasn't going to do that for a while because it was taking too much of my time. I would like to pass this ordinance, but I would like you not to pass this ordinance at this time.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners. I think it's probably about a year ago that I was here saying at that time, this ordinance is too late to be of benefit to us, nothing has changed in the year that has passed. I probably was saying that same thing even before that. So mrs. English already referred to the number of problems that would result from this, the number of expansions that -- that would spring from the passage of this ordinance and the fact that it does absolutely nothing for those of us in the surrounding areas of the northeast landfills. I know that there are many community members here today who are concerned in east Travis County about the siting of new facilities near them. And I -- although I do understand that concern, I -- I would suggest that if we took a drive through those communities and -- and some of those -- of those individuals on-- on garbage day, I think that you would find that a lot of them do business with the same landfills that they are trying to keep from coming to their area. And so this whole thing does create a very difficult problem for us in pitting neighbor against neighbor. But I would like to point out that the -- the neighborhoods around the northeast landfills have made a concerted effort not to do business with those landfills because we believe that that is the best way to keep them from expanding and that is not to do business with them. So that -- that would be my first suggestion. My concern is that the landfills will use this ordinance and you have already heard this from them, that they will use it to say they can't find space to relocate, therefore they must expand where they are. And we cannot continue this excessive concentration. You have heard them say that the landfill has to be close by to this populated area. And that sound good, but I still wonder why 30 counties can afford to bring their garbage here and we can't afford to transport it more than 30 miles. Doesn't make sense to me. So you are giving them a lot of excuses to expand and I知 concerned that your legacy may be that you allowed unprecedented landfill expansions in highly populated areas of Travis County during your tenure. I believe, if I知 understanding some of the testimony correctly, that -- that was given earlier, there seems to be an idea that it would be better to protect relative unpopulated areas of the county that have wide open spaces and allow them to expand and have a lot of economic development and yet at the same time continue to -- to keep expanding the landfills in highly populated areas that already have the infrastructure. This seems backwards to me. And I知 certainly not advocating putting a landfill in any particular area where neighbors are concerned about having it. I like mrs. English's suggestion about how those neighbors could work together. I just believe that at this time, this -- this ordinance does not do anything for the neighbors of the existing landfills. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe. Members of the Travis County Commissioners court. My name is renaldo rodriguez, I知 better known as ray rodriguez. I am president of imperial valley neighborhood association. I知 also executive director of a community service organization called [indiscernible]. We deal with a lot of -- with a large number of people, mostly with very poor people. Socially and economically disadvantaged. I want to applaud Commissioner Ron Davis for his effort. You are working very hard out there. We see you out there very often and I want to thank you for spearheading this effort. And -- and for the -- for the most part, the -- the community supports -- supports this -- this amendment. And they have been without protection for years and years. When I walked in here, I looked at this map that you all have provided me. And it cites the location of landfills, wastewater treatment, sludge, composting, recycling and krematorial facilities. Incredibly enough, if these red whatever they are would weigh anything, this paper would be lopsided. Totally lopsided. And that's an injustice. Totally unjust. Why all of these facilities have been offered to the citizens throughout the years and have been allowed to locate in east Austin. And east Travis County. Our [indiscernible] to the Commissioner that people do not want these things. We need protection. We need this ordinance. But we need to impress upon the entire city of Austin, the importance of having a great city, a great city and a city that shouldn't be divided as it is now. This indicates division and environmental racism and other types of situations that divide people: the good citizens of east Austin should make every effort to recognize that their garbage, too, has to be disposed of somewhere's, not necessarily in east Austin. And this -- this sort of thing has been going on for years and years. We want to educate our children, we want to be aware of the process of -- of -- of securing things for ourselves. For -- sometimes economic conditions and other conditions make it very hard. But I want to assure you that this outcry that I have mentioned will continue to -- to rise. To a crecendo where they will say, I have often talked about it, that the greatest weapon that we have is in numbers and we are increasing and just simply say we will remember in November. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Macafee?
>> good morning. Commissioners, judge, my name is mark macafee. And the timing that melanie brought up is -- is not in time to help us that have been fighting so hard for this ordinance. We appreciate all of the effort that everyone put into it, Commissioner Davis obviously you have been steadfast in support of us. And we have worked many, many, many hours ourselves to help -- to come up with the criteria for that ordinance. However, really when I -- when I think of an analogy, it's as though we have -- it feels as though we are the kid in the school yard whose attention is gotten and while someone is talking to hum, somebody else sneaks up behind him and you push them over. I mean, we have been held up now for four years. Now if this does pass, it looks as though we will all get expansions at the existing facilities. And we are in a very populated area and there are thousands of houses going in. Close -- very close to these landfills in the northeast at least anyway. As you well know. The -- I do have a couple of specific questions, hopefully john may be able to answer this. But the distances used, I guess one of the questions that I have is what is the setback from a school for a sexually oriented business. Does anyone know the toons that question?
>> a thousand feet.
>> a thousand feet.
>> a thousand. Going from memory there.
>> mark, I知 not sure why you would think that I would know anything about that.
>> my timing was bad, wasn't it, john? [laughter]
>> but it does strike me as morally rep hencible to have something that is as serious to the health effects of anyone, let alone a child, be only 1500 feet from a school. The question that I actually had for you, john, was this. When you all did the survey of the properties in Travis County to see if anything would fit the criteria, was it done with this set of distances right here? Because I -- it was? Okay because I know at one point in time, I believe it's June 2nd, 2002 version, possibly June 17th one as well of that year, the distances from -- historic facilities such as our own was 3,000, or 3500 even possibly. That offered us a little glimpse, a little tiny bit of hope, but 1500 feet for these facilities is absolutely nothing. It is -- it is literally -- no way for our business to survive. There is some question I guess at -- at 3500 feet. But there is no question about it at 1500 feet. We are doomed. And I did do that, the survey of historic facilities, we found that there were almost none. I think it was three historic nationally registered historic sites that were not in the downtown areas that obviously are not going to be considered for landfills. These facilities have been operated in a very, very poor fashion for decades. That's one of the reason that's we have such a problem, one of the reasons why no one wants to tag them. Folks are coming out from other areas who aren't usually here with us fighting for -- for justice against these giant corporations, but we let these corporations pollute and probably, you know, basically destroy the long-term economic benefits that east Travis County could have enjoyed from -- from walter e. Long lake. We let them put a blight on the mokan corridor and on the s.h. 130. Mokan corridor is an area that is destined at some point in time -- many entities are looking for large expenditures of public money. To let them become a tumor on that area that would otherwise have great economic benefit to -- to those who have not been able to experience that benefit here in Austin. The --
>> the recommendation on number 6 is what?
>> hold off on this point, I agree with robin schnieder said. These kind of facilities don't locate. We are only talking type 1 landfills, do not locate in a heart beat somewhere. And -- and I知 correct that it only takes 30 days for the ordinance to take effect. From it's -- when it's done. Well then I think that we have -- we do not have to act immediately on this, we obviously feel that there needs to be protections. Unfortunately we should have done this when we tackled it before these guys got all of this -- before we bought the property next to them, looks like we have been stood up by someone and pushed over the back of another. It really -- really feels that way. But at this point I really hope that you all will hold off on passing the ordinance. We do need to continue the discussion. I know everyone is -- is sick of talking about it. But it is a huge issue for the public health and for the public good. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> is there a requested action on this item today?
>> judge, I basically want to -- to expose this for what it is. We have had persons from other parts of the community that have not had a say as far as protection of -- especially with the landfills. I think what they are suggesting, though, those that would like to see an ordinance for us to amend the ordinance, to -- to not have another situation as we have with the wmt and also the situation on 290 east landfills. However, we have heard a lot of good testimony today. Now that challenge to the court is how do we grant the protection for these persons in the ddz, eastern Travis County, which is ddz of course is applicable to precinct 1 and 4 and also the depiction that mr. Ramirez brought in where it just appears that the -- that the -- from appearance that the -- that the -- that the type permitted situations that are granted by tceq are in the eastern part of Travis County. I would like to maybe close saying on September the 16th, I did have a chance to meet with the executive director of tceq, mr. Glen shankos and his staff. The question was posed at that time why is this trend of this type of activity in -- in the eastern part of Travis County. And the answer was that a matter of economics. Land is cheaper, so this is -- one of the explanations that was given. However, what do we too in the meantime to protect the folks in the ddz, the folks in eastern Travis County who say they need protection, they don't have any at this time. What can we look for getting a designated area, a new landfill site which appears to be in agreement by everyone that's spoken here today, let's look for a designated area whereby all of these things can be met. Commissioner Gomez brought in recycling, there were other industry type of things that could be utilized that one site and of course we had capcog to also bring in their role of participation for looking at the 10 county region with the multi-jurisdictional control of that designated area. Thirdly, judge, it was also brought up that the land use capability I think is something very important so the land use authority I think is going to be another role and goal that we would have to achieve, that's basically a legislative type of thing, that's why the -- some of the folks that was here in -- in -- not for this meeting, representative of -- state representative of gonzalo barrientos staff here, along with other staff members from the Travis County delegation know that there is a role that -- of land use authority that as far as zoning whereby these folks can -- can -- the industry has -- has -- have to meet certain standards under zoning criteria. Of course that is a -- that is something that have to come from our state legislature. So I think capcog, all of these folks have a role to play. But in the meantime, judge, what do we do, what can the court do to give these folks some protection out in the county, what could we do? That's the question that imposing to the court this morning.
>> okay. Obviously I don't have an answer. This has not been easy.
>> no it hasn't been easy.
>> I have invested more time in this item than any other item over the last four years. Any action today, though?
>> well, I would like to move that we start in the direction that I just suggested, those particular recommendations that -- that we go and at least start approaching this whereby we can -- on those particular things that I just stated. I think we need to maybe go in that direction to at least begin the process.
>> okay. I don't know --
>> well, in other words those particular recommendations that I brought up, I think we need to pursue that. There may be a direction I don't know but it's the court call I think as far as what these folks -- judge let me say this. Steve -- steve shepherd came, he said this is section 363.112. He said that all that it would take for anyone for those solid waste facilities, including landfills, to go through the permit process, which they will be grandfathered in is -- is just a land use portion of an application. We don't have any guarantees that won't happen. Wmi, I don't know if you can call it honor code or whatever, when they suggested that they would not file for an expansion and they did. And of course at that time we said that we would do something as far as amending the ordinance. But have -- we -- it appears we weren't going to do anything this morning. But I just think we need to do something based on that expansion deal that wmi has submitted and then how do we protect the community. That is what I知 proposing to -- to the Commissioners court.
>> I don't think anybody has an answer today.
>> okay.
>> on number 6, I agree with you that I don't think that three votes in favor of doing the siting ordinance. I think that the immediate interact would be counter productive. It would force the other -- it would force the existing landfills basically to file applications to expand.
>> I think everybody has been right on target. Joyce and trek I appreciate the fact that you are here. Macafees.
>> that's not to say we shouldn't keep working on it [multiple voices]
>> we have to do something.
>> I was surprised this was back.
>> we have to do something, though. Of course that didn't -- you know, again that did not stop wmt from -- from filing an application to expand. On August 25th. They did it anyway. We are still having other persons with the county that don't have any protection. What can we do today to at least go in that direction to protect the folks out there in the county. That's the concern.
>> let's continue to work and have this on the agenda again in the appropriate time with the appropriate wording.
>> okay. Okay. I can do this -- my whole point is to give protections, no sense in creating another situation that we have right now. That doesn't mean anything won't honor that as far as not filing an expansion, that's my main concern.
>> we are officially on record in opposition to a wmi expansion at the current site.
>> yes. That needs to be stated. Again.
>> okay.
>> thank you, I definitely support that because we definitely going to oppose that. Wmi expansion. I know I am.
>> we have various parties coming down on other items this afternoon. Number 7, in my view will not be called up until about 3:00. That's the best that I can do. I think we have folk coming down on about four or five other items between 1:30 and the last group at 2:30. On an item that if we expedite it will take at least 30 minutes. On number 7 my recommendation is 3:00 this afternoon. Move we recess until 1:30.
>> thank you all for coming down.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 18, 2005 10:46 AM