Travis County Commissioners Court
August 1, 2006
Executive Session Items
We have come to executive session. And we do have residents down here on number 36 we will announce that and have discussion in open court before we get legal questions to tom nichols, who has disappeared. 36 is to receive legal briefing and take appropriate action to clarify county position on bfi expansion application pending before the cap cogsolid waste advisory committee. And we have the macafees here and misenglish. What we did last week in response to a request from the solid waste advisory committee that tract give them a statement on our position on the bfi application expansion, was to adopt a couple things. One is that tom nichols had prepared a five or six page sort of detailed response which followed the checklist of capcog and we looked at a document that had about four or five points on it and kind of added a number five. That was a conditional conformance statement more than anything else. Do we have county staff here? That generated some responses. Do you all want to come, just make your points now. Please come forward.
>> we are having the open court discussion. Open court part. We have been married long enough enough.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> okay. We are supposed to be reading this document?
>> I think she has a different one.
>> okay.
>> go ahead.
>> you want some responses? You need some help. Go ahead.
>> okay.
>> john says you all have never been known for shiness now.
>> I guess I'll go first. For the record, melanie mcafee. I don't have a prepared statement but I would like to say after the meeting that we had yesterday, I want to thank the county staff for the work that they have done on this, and that we commend all the parts that do talk about, well, basically the entire document that talks about the non nonconformance issues. And it goes in great detail about all the nonconformance issues. So I appreciate and thank the court for that. I only have problems with the number 5, and i, obviously, would like to see that part removed. I think that just listening today about incentives and the new developers and people and-- and--maneuvering people and businesses to do what you want, I thought about our long journey together and our attempt to provide incentives for the landfills so that our county can move into better territory for how we manage our waste I think we're all on the same page that we think it can be done better than the two operators have done in northeast Travis County. So I think it is a matter of sweetening the incentives. I do not see how a conditional conformance does that at all. In fact, it does the opposite of the direction we all want to go in, which is to take more waste and not put it in the landfill but to do something else with it it. So, I feel like this leads the court down a direction that you have all been on record on saying the direction that you want to go. The expansion of 75 feet is, obviously, going to be much more than they can handle by the date that you have given. The scenario not to limit the capacity in any way is a fright frightening thought. And after all that you have mentioned about the problems that you yourself have stated very eloquently, if they double or triple their intake, I don't think we need to bring in any experts, scientists or special studies to make a projection about what's going to happen. And the document as written could very easily allow that to happen. So, I would encourage the court to get back on track and to think about incentives to get these landfills to really leave. And hearing about all the different steps and levels of incentives. I don't think we have begun to approach. I know the county has said they will help them find a green fill site, but what if you carried that thought a little further. What if they find a green fill site with an extra large buffer? What if they find a green fill site where there is a certain amount of eco park activity where things are kept out? We haven't even begun those directions. I feel like that's the direction the court needs to go, not granting 75 feet of expansion for bfi for ten more years. That will set our region back on the goltgoals that we have, greatly. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> for the record, I have delivered a letter to the court. I apologize for not having signed it. However, I will give john kuhl a signed copy to make it more official and consider it signed. I won't read it verbatim because it's probably one of the most boring things that one can do. I'll just briefly go over each paragraph. I think that the burden from the two landfills has been borne by a very small segment of Travis County for the last 25 years. That segment of people already knows that there is probably another five to ten years to go. They can see the end. Frankly, if you send a message that you don't care if they get a bigger house to do it in or bigger home or bigger box to do it in, you will send the wrong message, and you will come across as being totally careless of their health and the environment. I do believe that you are well intended, and that is not the message you want to give to people. But unfortunately, a lot of people in that area now, a lot of people working in that area because of the add adjacent tech companies, and I think it's time for them to be perhaps considered as asset to the county rather than be dis disregarded and given preference to a landfill company who has so much money they certainly can afford to relocate. My second paragraph is regarding the earth movement. I think that there has been a lot of earth movement in the area with sh 130. A lot of earth movement as I've sent you e-mails in the last week or so, and so has joyce best, and if you haven't received it, please tell me. She has taken pictures from the other side. There's a loft earth . I am not sure they have obtained a land development permit to do such a manure and if they are in violations of their permit, I feel that the earth movement that occurred with all the improvement on sh 130, highway 183 for the last five years and what you are proposing to do on 290 east which is to widen, to ten lines, will provide any more earth movement, all of this only going to create so much pollution that you are going to have a serious problem with all the people in that area. I think if we start tagging the medical records of this people, you will see that there's going to be an avalanche of medical problems because of so much earth being moved around in a small area. When you move earth that's 700 feet, you have a tendency to blanket a very broad area, and that alone should be taken into consideration. If they are really 90 percent full, then where is the closed area and where is the revenge tages of those areas--reveg tages of those areas. My third paragraph, we are the only neighborhood in the state of Texas with two landfills operating side by side. And the fact that capcog did not deliver on their promise to come up with a site when they pointed these two landfills regional in the early '90s after they had been permitted as holland fills fills--as holland fills--as local, lan fills. The third--landfills. The third paragraph has to do with height. They were granted 90 foot height with original permit. They are now asking for additional 75 and they received ten feet in 2003. That makes it 85 feet above the original 90. That's almost a doubling of their landfill. That is almost unheard of for someone that's supposed to leave in the three years after the permit expires. My fifth paragraph has to do with the settling of the landfill and the bioreactive cell that the tcq is considering ter mitting to some of these landfills, which d?r permitting to some of these, which will more than expand the life of the bfi to 2015. They have already used the re recirculation of leachate and they already have a lot of gas extraction wells in place. So their permit would probably be granted fairly fast if they wanted to really have enough room to stay there. And finally, my last paragraph, basically this application on file right now allows them to stay way beyond 2018. Based on all of what I have just said and all of the sick pages that your staff has arrived at, I ask you to please come up with a finding of nonconformance. I want to thank you very much for all the work that you have done for us in the last four years.
>> john, can that question be answered? In other words, if bfi has a capacity right I know, current capacity according to this letter here, of 2012, why would they need extra capacity to take them to, that would really surpass 2015 if it's a 75 foot height expansion?
>> john kuhl environmental officer with tnr. Commissioner, I think it's just a question of business for them. You know, as we have seen over the years, you know, all of these things are incredibly variable depending, she des a good job of listing factors that can affect what the capacity is. I think that in the history of some of the court members here, respectfully not your, there's been an idea that one of the major players next-door is going to be out around that time, 2015 2015. So the idea was that that should be a reasonable sort of, you know, business projection from some members of the court's perspective at a time that would be fair for both to cease operations. That's kind of where that 2015 year came from. You know, obviously, for them it's a business decision. They are going to get as much as they can. Ultimately tcq is going to be most compelled to look at the final contour that is the engineering that they are present in the actual permit application. If the court is able to get them that is bfi, to sign off to somewhat of a date certain, that is something that I think tcq will find interesting and perhaps even be willing to put into the permit application. But not something they are too concerned about. So, I may not be hitting your answer on head. You know, it's a tough question, to be honest.
>> in other words, the capacity according to what I'm looking at here, without doing anything, expires. The capacity is used up in 2012. But their expansion that they are requesting to 75 feet expansion capacity, goes much beyond the 2015 date that they have said that they would end up leaving. It doesn't make no sense. I'm just trying to find out why would that be. But you're not a bfi representative. I was basically trying to come from another perspective of why whyof on that.
>> I think they are just trying to cover their bases. They want to make money, which is sort of, you know, what they feel like they have a right to do and they certainly don't want to be in the situation where they don't have a new green field site yet they are out of capacity. So I just think that's the easy answer. It's not the most detailed or technical one.
>> I understands. Thank you.
>> we did offer them a compromise. If they were to run out of space before the green field site were permitted, they could extend their permit for a certain amount of capacity and certain amount of height. And tcq has been known in the past to do so. They actually would expand the permit. Not amend, they would extend the permit another year or two and exten the capacity accordingly.
>> okay.
>> usually they extend the stay. Not so much the capacity. They extend the stay because of circumstances but they don't amend the permit.
>> if they needed it?
>> yes.
>> you would be okay if tcq extended up to 2010?
>> it would be done through an extension, not a permit amend am am. It wouldn't be full blown. I told them I personally cannot give it to them right now but a lawyer would in writing that we already told them that and we already told the bfi that.
>> you speak for ms. Snider?
>> I speak for the people there at the meeting.
>> I'm just asking the question.
>> ms. Snider is well aware that we extended that compromise. And the people were there at the high school when we did it. It's not like we are doing it behind their back. We already know that we had extend the the small extension. If that was the case. If they could not permit it because of, you know, whatever can happen. We all know what can happen if you true I to permit somewhere else. We already were aware of that. If they were to run out of space we would not oppose an extension of their permit the way tcq does does. It basically allows you to keep on bringing waste until the permit goes through.
>> the only point of my question when you say we, we need to be sure that we means you are authorized to speak on behalf of everyone who could be a stakeholder and who would have a right to permit that.
>> right.
>> I don't think a the northeast action group is legally authoriz authorized to speak for every single resident in every single subdivision that could be impact z?d you're right--impacted.
>> you're rightlve I agree with you.
>> I don't know if that speaks for--
>> one at a time please.
>> sorry.
>> I'm just drawing--
>> I agree with you.
>> all I'm saying, that would be an interesting situation if that could get to you a good place. But we would have to have some sense that that is a legally binding agreement on every stakeholder.
>> have you to understand that things--you.
>> you have to understand this is not a permit amendment. The process is done by notice. Then you get public comments if any. And people comment and the ed rules on that. That's how it's done. It's not hope to full contested case hearing. Period.
>> if I understand your offer, they leave as soon as there's a new site permitted. If there's not a new site permitted, you would be willing for there to be this extension until 2015 at the current date.
>> only a 20 foot expansion.
>> okay.
>> right. Anyway, tcq will not expand it forever. There's a certain amount of time time. You can't do that forever. They have limits as to how much, how long they would extend it of but it would basically be something they wouldn't have to even think about in terms of full permit amendment, noticing, getting public hearing. They would not have to do all of that.
>> will you all be at the meeting tomorrow? The cap car meeting I guess tomorrow. I don't know what time.
>> correct.
>> nine o'clock.
>> nine o'clock tomorrow morning morning. I guess what you are presenting to us here today, with all the other stuff and testimony, will you presenting that to the cap car folks tomorrow?
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> I will say what I have just said verbally. But as far as putting it in paper, I don't have the proper language from the attorney to put it in. So you know, I'm not going to put it in writing right now because I say the wrong thing. You know what can happen.
>> as I understand from mark's clarification, really the only problem you have with number 5 is that it doesn't say no higher than 20 additional feet.
>> right. Right.
>> that's the only difference between the court's position and you all's position did.
>> right.
>> I might like to add too, talking about the citizens, that I can't think of any time that we have taken a vote or petition where there's been anyone who has voted for the expansion of b bfi.
>> no.
>> it's always been a hundred percent.
>> that's why it's important to make sure that we have their agreement before we extend that compromise. And ms. Snider is well aware of it. And so are most of the environmental people that have helped us in the past.
>> so if we put language that says alternatively, Travis County would not object to the extension of the current permit through November 1 of 2010, that would be okay.
>> 2010? I'm lost.
>> sorry, 2015. I'm just dealing with the extension language because seems to me that instead of us not objecting to 2015, maybe our agreement to an extension to 20 2015 will get it done.
>> yeah.
>> but the more conditions we put there, the less attractive it becomes. Then this is a cogprocess, capcog process, not necessarily ours. I still think our number one position ought to be find green field sites, try to get them get permitted there so they can make a bold new start at another location and hopefully avoid some of the problems that have come up out in northeast. But if you put a whole lot of conditions on it, I'm not sure that it will equal an agreement to an extension of the current permit through November 1 of 20 2015, which is what our language was intended to deal with last week. Not an extension, but an expansion application. I mean, I would think that it's six of one, half dozen of another from the landfill operator perspective. The date is the same. If the extension is easier, as I understand the tcq processes, seems to me that would be a lot more attractive if tract agrees to it. Shall we put that in the letter for tomorrow? Alternatively?
>> I understand what you are saying.
>> instead of an expansion application, Travis County would agree to an extension of the current permit to November 1, 20 2015.
>> that would limit the volume.
>> without some sort of limit on how much they can just, you know pump into it.
>> that would be a limit. That's saying you can go to 2015 but you can't go above your currently permitted height. Bfi's application is seeking a 7 75 foot increase.
>> I just heard mark say we don't have any issue with 20 more feet. The language you just said, judge, is zero more feet. You just get more time. Mark just said we don't have a problem with 20 more feet and the b?rk fix I application is for--and the bfi application is for 20 more feet. Which is it?
>> my application--
>> alternatively, extending to 2015 is not going to work.
>> judge, would you like me to actually read number 5 into the record so the community knows what we are referring to? Would that help matters at all?
>> I don't know that it helps me but it doesn't bother me if you would like to do that.
>> the cover letter that was drafted and signed last week by you guys, capcog's procedures allow for conditional conformance determinations. Therefore, we recommend the finding of conformance condition conditioned on all waste handling including both disposal and operation of the transfer station ending at bfi sunset farms landfill by November 1, 20 2015. That's just the fifth of five points that were made for consideration.
>> is this a rewrite of what happened last week?
>> that's the same copy.
>> okay.
>> just for clarification.
>> it shows that I am not supporting, right?
>> you will have your chance to have your say.
>> I will jump in for a second. Thank you, judge. Good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. My name is martin mcafee. I do want to start out by thanking staff and the Commissioners court for all the hard work. I know this has been the most time consuming item without a doubt of any of the others. And certainly it shows in point one through four on this, how, you know, number one, promote siting and management facilities that does not propose a nuisance to neighbors and communities. Add adjacent landowners will sufficient visual, olfactory and other impairments to the use of their property. The applicant has had a history of violations. That comes through on every answer that staff has put forth here. To give them, as trak has said, it basically will almost double the size of the landfill here with this plus their previous ten foot automatic expansion, all of which happened after we began discussions on landfills, you know, before either of the ten foot or anything happened. So again, you know, we are still going to suffer the olfactory problems. The amount of gas is directly correlated to the amount of waste put within. When we were speaking about the year 2015 all during the planning process over the last few years, I think we were, and we raised many times that to talk about that date without having some limit on the amount that can be put in there in a given year, it was to some degree meaningless. I think that's what we are feeling out of this. This is like a real nice bowl but it has a crack in it and that crack is going to allow all the fluid to leak out. I think that serious consideration should be given to rewording that number five, and that, it, I'm not sure how it can be done such that it limits, has some protections in terms of the amount of growth. Because as we know, if they get it permitted and they have to fillet by 2015--fill that by 20 2015, they will ship the waste. Waste is shipped from hazto idaho. I doubt that's what--from hawaii to idaho. I doubt that's what the court intended for our volume to triple over the next years. Thank you.
>> thank you mark.
>> we only have two or three items to discuss in executive session. We will come out of the executive session and take action. In fact, it may be the best thing we do to go in there now and have our discussion. I have some different language here that I want to discuss with legal. Language that I have drafted in the last 30 minutes or so. When we come back out we will indicate, we will take some action one way or the other.
>> could I just add one statement?
>> sure.
>> this was taken from a case that involved waste management in another part of the country. This was written by sandra levin a solid waste engineer who has worked on landfills in more than 40 countries and wrote the word bank guidelines on sanitary landfill design and siting. And she is one of the I guess experts that testified. One of the things that she said was that total landfill becomes a greater hydraulic head. That means that contaminated groundwater is driven further and faster than if the landfill conformed to surrounding top graphy configurations. They generate more landfill gas per unit area than shorter landfills. Without reading the whole item, I just wanted you to know that there are things that have to be considered when you keep going up and up and up. So I thank you very much.
>> okay. Executive session. We have already read 36 in the last few minutes. It would go into executive session under the con consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. In addition to that we have two others, that item, rather, we have two items to discuss. 34 is to receive legal briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding whether the city of Austin selection of the site for water treatment plant number 4 would impact deadlines balcone circumstance canyon land preserve and purchases 1 and 2. 35 is receive briefing there county attorney and take appropriate action concerning extension of administrative leave for Travis County fire marshal slot 22, posted under the consultation with attorney and personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act. We will discuss these three items in executive session but we will return to open court before taking any action
we have returned from executive session where we have discussed the following item. Number 34, which involves the pal copies canyon land -- balcones canyon land reserve and a city of Austin project. We did get advice of counsel and staff. And do we need furd meetings.
>> have it back in two week.
>> have it back on August 15th, 2006.
>> number 35 involves an employee in the Travis County fire marshal's office. I move that we authorize an additional threfb days with pay starting June eighth, 2006 and ending on July 31st, 2006, that and we accept the resignation submitted.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Item 36 was a legal briefing to clarify the county's position on the bfi expansion application pending before the capcog waste advisory committee. Any very, very previous comments by anybody in the here before we went into executive session?
>> only one, judge. I represent bfi through this matter. And we have reviewed the language prid to us by your staff. And what I'd say is that we're resigned to this language. We would like to move forward and let go forward and we won't argue about this lapping or the faght that we are owe he language or the fact that we are here at al a second time.
>> thank you very much. This language I guess new to you appeared ebb else here -- it you and everybody else here. The county judge drafted all of this except the first three lies while we sat in court this afternoon as either I was enlightened or darkened based on comept received not only yesterday, but this mrg and this afternoon. Based on that I move that we reconsider the k that the court took last week to add language. Is that prebl the prept way to -- is that probably the appropriate way to proceed? Are just move to add lapping?
>> I would say direct staff to rewrite the letter with this new lapping and substitute it if the letter you approved last week.
>> I beg your pardon?
>> and the six page document.
>> move that we authorize staff to -- tom like the word direct a lot better. Staff to change the letter that we approved last week to add the following language to the letter as well as the six-page response to the capcog checklist, right? Following language: number 6, therefore Travis County opposes any landfill application by bfi sunset farms for a permit to operate as a waste disposal site and/or transfer station after November 1, 2015. 7, Travis County continues it strongly encourage bfi to locate, acquire and permit a green fill site inner location appeared relocate from its current site in northeast Travis County as soon as possible thereafter. 8, Travis County strongly encowrnlz bfi to commit it take the same quantity of waste that it has taken during repeat years, including factoring in annual increases. And 9, Travis County strongly encourages bfi it bring in waste into Travis County -- into east Travis County landfill facility from of Texas. Out of Texas being the key wrdz. Words. Is there a second to that motion?
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> and judge, I will vote against this. It still luz bfi to expand andic they new what my feeling is on expansion at their current site.
>> okay. Any other business today?
>> move ayour honor.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, August 1, 2006 7:14 PM