Travis County Commissioners Court
May 15, 2007
Executive Session
That get us to executive session. We have an item here that may well have some open court discussion before we go into executive session. That is number 37. Which is to receive legal briefing and take appropriate action on the expansion application and related documentation of bfi al lied waste ms. English and mr. Gregory, anything on this item? We are posted to discussion this with staff and legal and get a briefing in executive session. If there are open court comments that we should consider when we go in there it's probably best to get those first. Rather than, we could take them afterwards, but I don't know whether we will come out with the decision made or what.
>> for the record, my name is trek english, I haven't had a chance to really discuss some of these matters with john cool, so I don't know what he is proposing to bring.
>> I'll tell you this, trek. I'm just receiving this right now. In my opinion, I'm not going to take any action on this. In other words, I'm not going to support anything today until I have a chance to thoroughly exhaust what I have and then also the community have a chance to read this thing in order that it's supposed to go to tc e q with the county already voting on it as far as comment period and the language. Public comment period in a contested case here. We have already taken a position on that. I guess it is a matter of what we send forward. I haven't had a chance to review this and I'm not trying to cram it in today. Did you get a copy of this letter from john cool ?
>> I don't know what we are talking about. I imagine what this is about is the comments that you are going to put forward at the tcq.
>> I thought it was follow-up to conversation that took place last week.
>> two weeks ago ?
>> two weeks ago when I was absent.
>> yeah.
>> party status and stuff like that. Okay. I don't know whether we will come out ready for action or not.
>> okay.
>> I have not--
>> if this was to be for public comment that you were going to submit, I just wanted to make sure that you really look at the land use issue that was brought out in the application. It's really looking the right information. There's some contradict shunce in the application that make no sense at all. The transportation study is really weak in, what is it called, the traffic assessment study or whatever whatever. I don't think it's taken into consideration the traffic patterns in the area what sh 130 is going to bring, the fact that we may be faced with the widening of 290 in the next ten years right at the same time that they are both expanding and both multiplying their waste by more than half or twice the amount. I just don't see how that scenario is going to work for the northeast travis region just for the traffic alone is going to be a problem. Mainly because of the construction that is being proposed by tex dot on 2900. And they are saying that is mainly the road they are going to use to get to their site. How are we going to engineer that so we don't have total carnage with all the new subdivisions that have opened and the ones that have not opened yet. Anyway, I just think there's some point that are just looking. Also, there is some real confusion as to who owns this landfill. The tax records show marvela chemical as the owner and the person being taxed, I guess, or seek notices. Then we are going with child holding now. I don't know exactly who would have the responsibility for financial assurance in the future, who would have financial responsibility for violation violations that are issued. A lot of things have come up in the last month or two that make no sense at all in terms of who holds this permit. The fact that bfi's neighbor never really, let me retract the fact that childs holding has never really made a concerted effort to get on the record and tell capcog and Travis County and anyone else that needed to hear, that they would not stay at this site beyond 2015. There's no record of that anywhere. I am concerned that since they are both holding that permit, that they will not fulfill their obligation to at least what you are asking of them. There are other things that don't, pages of problems with that application. Those are the main ones. So your authority
>> [tao-els] deals with land use. The land use in the application is looking with information of what is really the true conditions around the sigh.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> we are about to get to executive session anyway. So we will call up item 5 first in executive session. That's the one we have discussed during the last five or 10 minutes. And we will also the bfi tim that we announced just a few minutes ago that ms. English spoke on, be and that is number 37. We are advised ta we do not need item 36, y'all. Tnr says we don't need it because they have accepted our counteroffer that we approved last week. So that's good news and I guess that project is moving right along. We do need 35 and that is to -- we won't discuss 36. 35 is to receive briefing and take appropriate action on selection of executive manager of justice and public safety. This is on consultation with attorney and the personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act. 36 we don't need. 38, receive update regarding security issues on the community center in Jonestown. That's the consultation with attorney to the open meetings act. 39, consider and take appropriate action regarding potential purchase of property along airport boulevard in central Austin. That's the real estate exception. Let's also announce consultation with attorney just in case we need to discuss 39 with our lawyers. And our final item today will be a-1, which is to consider and take appropriate action on the sale of real property at 6701 burnet road. That's the farmer's market. And that will be under the consultation with attorney and the real property exceptions to the open meetings act. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court --
>> I received an e-mail this morning from one of the residents who said the order was so bad they had to call tceq, but the inspector came an hour after. And he said yeah, I can smell it, but it's not strong enough to issue a violation. He said if he would have come an hour earlier he would have issued several violations. This is a continuing dilemma we have where we can't capture the smell at the moment that it happens to prove that it is unreasonable for someone to have that kind of odor in their home. Thank you.
>> there should be backup for number 35 and number 37.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following items. 4 b, the item regarding setting the salry for the track fire marshal, mr. Beauchamp. I move that we is the the salary at the midpoint of the posted pay grade of 24, which is $80,712.32.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. We did discuss the item regarding the the--the 9-11 fees and the commission, an item I cannot find at this point. It was right after the one we just left. Number 5. Pursuant to the legal advice received, let's direct county attorney's office to put together an appropriate comment letter to the Texas commission on state emergency communications for court consideration next weekment and we will give either tentative or final approval to that letter and then send it over to the commission.
>> if that is a formal motion, I will second the direction.
>> that was a motion.
>> okay. Second.
>> discussion? At in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Turning to the items that were posted for executive session, number 35 involving the collection of an executive manager of justice and public safety. After a lengthy discussion it's clear that we need another week so this item will be back on the court's agenda next week for follow-up discussion and hopefully action. We will determine how best to proceed. Any further action required on this item today? We did not discuss number 36 and did not announce it. 37 is a matter involve bfi-a bfi-allied waste. We did look at a draft letter prepared by staff, including legal counsel and directed that further work be done on the draft that we looked at, includinging consideration of some other documents that we had available. We will leave open the opportunity for members of the Commissioners court to send to the account attorney attorney's office any suggested language, by noon on Thursday, to be incorporated into another draft by Friday at 4:00 p.m. For court consideration next Tuesday the intention is for the Commissioners court to get preliminary approval to a draft document next Tuesday, that can be released to the public for review, consideration and comment in preparation for the may 29th, 2007, meeting, assuming that time line constraints by tceq will allow an additional two weeks. Mr. Cool.
>> john cool, environmental officer tnr. Let the court know we did get confirmation that will will be a notification posting in the statesman this Thursday which would be may 17, extending the comment period into June 17 17th, 18th time frame.
>> that gives us plenty of time then. Think we still should try to stick to our goal of having a draft document for approval next Tuesday, and give tentative approval to that, release that to the public, and then on the 29th of may, try to get final approval. If we need more time on the 29th of may, then we have some flexibility there. Is that okay? Can we get this done in tom tom's absence ?
>> really tough. Testifien and i--kevin and I will be in a seminar.
>> that is not the answer that we wanted, john.
>> we are taking--
>> we want a yes.
>> taking computers, laptops laptops?
>> we will be working.
>> the two of you are re reknown for your public service attitude and ability to get the job done.
>> where is the seminar, oh. We can find you.
>> yes.
>> an hour and ten minute drive.
>> john's announcement was intended to give the court an additional work, not the county attorney's office. All right. We will work together on it. 38 involves the northwest rural community center and Jonestown. In view of the progress being made, no action is required today. We'll will monitor the situation. If there is a reason for further consideration or action in the future, we will post an appropriate item. Okay. Anything further. Number 39 is a matter involving a potential purchase of property along airport boulevard in central Austin. Move that we direct that we authorize staff to conduct due diligence at this location, including a summary of possible uses of the due diligence matters that are appropriate. We have done this several times before, so I think those come to mind.
>> second.
>> yes, sir. Any other special wording that we think we need ?
>> have a list.
>> I think they suggest that had we have this back on the court's agenda in two weeks, which would be may 29, for appropriate action. Okay? Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Finally, a 1, which involves the possible sale of county owned real property at 6701 burnet road. Commissioner eckhardt.
>> I move we reject the counter offered.
>> second ?
>> and communicate that to the party with whom we have been negotiating. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously by an enthusiastic Commissioners court.
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 16, 2007, 8:00 AM