Travis County Commissioners Court
May 1, 2007
Item A1
I think we've had a request to take public comments on a-1 before we go to the 11:00 item. Because that item is going into executive session, correct?
>> we can either take it -- get to executive session, owe only have two items, or we can hear that now.
>> let's hear the public comments on a-1 then and then we'll go into the legislation item set for 11:00. A-1 says, receive legal briefing and take appropriate action on the expansion, application and related documentation of bfi, allied waste filed with the Texas commission on environmental quality. This item may be taken into executive session. Go ahead.
>> good morning.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. I would like you to consider this item more seriously and perhaps take a strong stance on opposing or supporting our efforts to oppose this expansion. I do believe that there are a lot of statements that have been made on the company that are being manipulated and being changed, and I would like to address this particular comment to you, Commissioner Daugherty, because you told me that -- told us that you didn't like these games and didn't like things that are full of holes and that are not on the table, meaning what they were meant to mean when they were stated by the applicant. I think that there's a problem in what they're proposing in that the Travis County, it is my recollection that Travis County had never agreed not to take party status in this (indiscernible). I think it's important that you take party statistic sus so that you can have something to say, whether it is that unt your concessions that they agreed to or other things that may come up that you didn't know about at the time that you negotiated some of these things with them. So party status gives you the opportunity to put into the permits provisions that will be followed by the applicant and that tceq can actually incorporate in the permit so that 10 years from now they don't have to come back to you, it's part of the permit.
>> can I ask you a question on that very point? Is it your understanding that irrespective of whether one is in favor of a memorandum of understanding, an agreed settlement or not, that it would be valuable from your perspective for us to be parties to a contested permit hearing?
>> yes, because I'm going by what happened in the 1990 waste management permit expansion and the county remained neutral for a certain amount of time and then the county took a position to it based on what proposed at the last minute. Basically that's when the county changed their position. And at the end the permit was agreed to based on the conditions that were put into a contract by waste management -- by at the time the other company, and incorporated in the provisions of the permit. The tceq actually takes that provision and makes it part of the permit so it doesn't have to be enforced by either the county or the people or the public or whomever, it will be enforced by the agency itself.
>> can I ask you a question. Based on what ms. English is saying, from a legal perspective, would it be advantageous either way if one is pursuing an agreed settlement with bfi or not to be a party to the contested hearing?
>> absolutely. And in the discussions of the settlement over the last couple of years, that's been a point we've always insisted on with bfi, that even if the Commissioners court did choose to settle, Travis County would be allowed to be a party so that we have a seat at the table because once the contested case process gets going, things could happen that would impact any settlement you chose to enter into. So party status would be important, even if you choose to settle.
>> and in terms of settlement, the issues specific to the letter that the capcog issued were a date certain closure of November 15th of 2015, correct? Also, the rate at which debris would be accepted I believe was also a provision. And --
>> there was a provision on no waste from outside of Travis County.
>> I believe it was no waste from outside the state. But I believe there were six in all and they were physically defined.
>> right.
>> so in terms of becoming a party based on what we have before us today that we received on Friday, the amended permit, there are some questions laying out there, even if one is interested in an agreed settlement, specifically the fact that now there are two parties pursuing the amended permits, not just one. It's bfi and giles holding.
>> so that's an issue that we would want to explore irrespective of whether we're interested in an agreed settlement. And two, there's also an issue regarding the rate at which waste is accepted. I believe that the permit allows for a one-third increase of waste over the time period, which I believe would be in counter vengs of the capcog conditions, but that would be an issue that we would want to explore as parties as well.
>> well, there's a problem in the fact that their agreement with judge Biscoe was that they would not increase -- except f small annual increase, they would not increase the amount of waste that was brought in so that they don't go 100 miles per hour trying to fill in that expansion. And they had agreed to do so, but that is not what is stated in this -- in their anded application. In it they're actually starting at a --
>> 1,440,000 tons per year with an increase under the permit of 1,825,000 tons per year, which is a one-third increase and defined in capcog's condition number five.
>> well, first of all they've never brought in anything near a million. They had an exceedance somewhere a couple of years ago, but their amounts have been be somewhere around 900,000 tons, not over a million. So if you start out with 50% more waste, then of course you can go -- you can go up to that 1.8 or whatever. But I don't think that that was not the original agreement with all of you and judge Biscoe and with the capcog committee that is not what they said.
>> but my point is I've never agreed, period, on expansion on any of these companies. But my question, though, is to you, what I'm asking you. The continued phone calls I'm getting opposing this particular expansion, and especially on this particular application that comes before the tceq. I have not heard anyone around in that area that continues -- that is supporting this. And of course, this is a major deal. This is a big league expansion project here as far as an application is concerned. And I don't think that the neighborhoods or anyone else out there have really agreed to this. And of course, I'm going to vote today to not -- to not support this particular expansion. So any mind is still as it was before and I don't think y'all have changed your mind, have you?
>> no, we're definitely in support of total opposition of this expansion. And I think that there are too many thing that are just too owe paying here. And -- owe paik here. And the facts have actually been rewritten, Commissioner Daugherty. I don't think that what they told you is what -- mainly because they're going to double the amount of waste they're taking between now and 2015, which was never the original agreement. 1.8 from 900 is double the amount of waste they're going to bring in. Also, they're saying that capcog continues to say that they're in conformance with the regional plan. That was not what capcog stated. It was very clear that capcog did not think they were in conformance with the regional plan, but that they would give them a conditional conformance on the fact that -- and I'm farrah phrasing -- paraphasing, that they would exit by 2015 and it's what judge Biscoe had put to the committee. Do I remember this correctly? Okay. That's what I recall, that was not a conformance. And I would think that if you said they're in conformance now or capcog does, this is opening themselves to a lot of trouble because the other company does not in conformance. So I would think you need to be uniform on that. So there are a lot of things that they're stating here that are not accurate. So thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
>> thank you.
>> and between Commissioner eckhardt and trek they covered some of the issues I wanted to speak to, and that is mainly for this to be a technical repeat, it's very, very loosely worded. And I would just encourage everyone to read carefully. There's even some -- there's even a notation in here about some of the acreage changing hands between the owner and the company a couple of years ago, and we were not aware of that. I just think there is a lot of information here that is being glossed over very lightly.
>> thank you very much.
>> were you aware that they had purchased 54 acres from giles in 2005?
>> I haven't followed the issue on a daily basis, but that's why I rely on my executive session item with the county attorney.
>> for the record, robert schneider with Texas campaign for the environment. And I am glad to see this item on the agenda and I hope that you folks will take party status and oppose this expansion. I think that you would find widespread support from throughout the county, not just from the neighbors that are most affected, but from throughout this county. And we really need some leadership here and we really hope that you will exercise it. I'm also concerned about this provision of having giles and bfi be somehow co-permittees and co-applicants on this. We already have a problem of waste management and bfi blaming the other party when there are problems out there there, and now we'll have a third party to dodge blame and point fingers at someone else. Unfortunately this is a trend that we're seeing just north of here in Williamson county. We're having the same issue between waste management and Williamson county. And there was another issue with iesi and jack borrow up in jack county. It seem like some of the big landfill operators are using this new avenue to try and create more confusion about where is the buck going to stop if someone is issued a permit? And we urge you to take a strong stand against any efforts to have more than one party be responsible for a landfill permit. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you so much.
>> we'll go to the .
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 2, 2007, 8:00 AM