Travis County Commissioners Court
May 1, 2007
Executive Session
We are now ready for executive session.
>> all right.
>> we have item 43. Consider and take appropriate action regarding appointment of Travis County fire marshal and take appropriate action. This is under consultation with attorney and personnel matters. And a 1, receive legal briefing and take appropriate action on the expansion of application and related documentation of bfi-allied waste filed with the tceq. Taken into executive session consultation with attorney. We will return when we complete our executive session.
we are back from executive session where we discuss the 43 and a one. No action on 43, and we will roll that over until next week. On a 1.
>> the application filed by b fi, allied waste, for their expansion application.
>> I second.
>> those in favor ?
>> is that what we are being asked out of a 1 ?
>> well--
>> I realize, we realize, you know, where some of us are with the expansion. Maybe that is the legal question.
>> one of the choices is the word you want to use.
>> yes, that is the choice we want to use.
>> yes.
>> may I you ever a friendly substitute? Move to submit formal comments including comprehensive list of concerns with the amendment request of bfi. Will you accept that as a friendly ?
>> friendly, yes, I will.
>> a friendly substitute ?
>> Commissioner, would that be, would this vote be over overriding the vote that the court has taken with regards to the stance of this court and the expansion concerning the 20-15 date ?
>> my motion is not incompatible with that position.
>> it is not incompatible.
>> correct.
>> so in other words, a vote for your motion would not be saying that we are over overturning what we voted earlier to say that this court would be willing to move forward with an agreement with bfi in the event that there was a 20-15 date where they would be gone.
>> right. The aim of my motion is whether or not you as a sid Commissioner feel that we should enter into an agreement around a date- date-certain closure or not. If you want to do that or if you don't want do that, this motion reserves our current status and our future option options either way. All this says is that we want contested case hearings and that in so doing we want to make a comprehensive list of all our legal and policy clearance with regards to permit amendments that we receive.
>> given the fact that we are saying we want a contested hearing, is that not incompatible with our vote that we would not oppose the expansion if the 20-15 date were sol sol-- sol--solidified ?
>> no, I done believe so. My intention is not to be incompatible. My intent is to preserve the ability to take that position or another position either way. Because we won't have the ability to take any position regarding this permit unless we make a formal public comment.
>> do we have to do that today? Do we legally have, I mean, is there a time ?
>> yes.
>> --that kwee still come back? I mean next week, for example, that we can put this back on ?
>> I think, well, this is what I envision. First the clock is ticking and started ticking last Thursday when tceq issued the notice giving us a 30- 30-day window. So by making this motion today, if it were to pass, that would simply set the wheels in motion. We'll still have to come back next week to discuss the comprehensiveless of our legal and policy concerns. It merely set the ball in motion for the enforcement division of the county attorney's office and transportation and natural resources to start putting together our formal comments.
>> the reason I'm uncomfortable with it, on the face of it it doesn't sound that it is not incompatible with the vote that we took earlier that we would not stand in the way, that Travis County would not stand in the way of this expansion if 2015--
>> I suppose it depends on great deal on how you interpret not standing in the way. I believe that the record indicates our position has always been that even if we had a memorandum of agreement in place, signed sealed and delivered, and they requested this permit expansion, we would still ask for party status in order to make sure that memorandum of agreement was incorporated into the permit.
>> since my motion was to the point of proposing, and this is what the neighborhood and the people who live in this area have consistently opposed, expansion, in particular, that and the amount, the cost of land use incompatibility, it's not compatible with the neighborhood. It's uncomfortable to the land use, not a comparable situation there. For the expansion to be, what they are asking for, ridiculous for a 75 foot expansion. We talked about tons and tons and millions of tons of capacity being added. It's just no way I can support an expansion of a landfill, period. I think, of had this landfill especially. And they have not even indicated at all their efforts to relocate, haven't even disclosed anything to anyone that they are even looking in that direction. So again, I made my motion based on what I'm hearing from the community. I just think it's a quality of life thing, as I stated before. I think quality of life ought to be experienced anywhere in Travis County. It should be enjoyed. I don't care where it is in Travis County. Of course this expansion will, in my opinion, take away from that quality of life. So this is why I can't agree with any expansion application from bfi, wi, anybody else over there in this area that actually takes awith a from the quality of life of this community. I've stated this over and over again. So this is why I made the motion.
>> your motion is to oppose.
>> right. Yes, to oppose it based on those reasons. Which are legitimate.
>> for clarification--
>> you can vote that up or down or whatever you like to do if there is another motion that needs to be made--
>> do we have a second ?
>> I already gave a second to that motion.
>> I wonder because then--
>> I thought which was accepted are you withdrawing your accepting ?
>> I am. Because 2015, they have never agreed with that as far as even an intent of memorandum of understanding.
>> that makes it easy to vote. If the motion is that we are voting to oppose it, I mean, and that is a second, if that is the motion, not the substitute, I'm ready to vote on it.
>> and I will second that.
>> all in favor. Those opposed.
>> now I will move to pursue a con assess the case hearing by submitting formal comments including a comprehensive list of our legal and policy concerns with the permit amendment request of bfi, as a separate motion.
>> second. Those in favor?
>> in essence, the result of that will be disclosed in this letter. So the public really understand is what we are doing here, is that the letter will look at the necessary permit filed by bf bfi and those things that we want to make comment on that don't appear to be favorable as far as what we are doing, those things ought to be listed out. Especially disclosure in the form of a letter for public hearing for the disclosures and list of items that we were talking about. Is that it ?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> and the expectation, Commissioner, you probably should have this on the agenda again for next week. It will take us about two weeks to work between our offices to get you something that you can see.
>> right. Okay.
>> okey doke.
>> I think that--
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all those in favor. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 2, 2007, 8:00 AM