Travis County Commissioners Court
November 20, 2007
Item 3
Number 3 is consider and take appropriate action on request for staff analysis to determine whether the city of Austin property on 9689 meets the criteria for the siting of a solid waste facility.
>> judge, we earlier had folks to come in and staff, I guess, -- we had a pretty lengthy discussion last time this particular item appeared on the agenda. And, of course, there was some moments of having to wait because we had another item at that time dealing with the bccp. And, of course, during that time the folks had to wait and there were probably some folks who didn't get a chance to say anything on this particular item. But there's been a lot of, I guess, activity and movement before this item item has been exhausted today, I definitely would like to be recognized for a motion on this particular item. So with that, I guess, judge, we've had some legal derp interpretations, been briefed by our county attorneys on some things, and, of course, they are open for -- and I致e instructed the county attorney if there's any questions that need to be answered during discussion, I think that relevant to what we're discussing here be open about this because really I really don't see any reason why we can't do several things here under this particular -- even given directions to the county attorney dealing with chapter 62. So I guess my question, though, is to the staff which we have heard about some of the analysis and some of the things that we've been presented with as far as this particular item is some of the attributes and some of the things that are very significant for this particular tract of property owned by the city of Austin. And significance being of its highest concentration of springs in eastern Travis County. I mean there's no place in the county east of ih-35 that has this many springs there. The uplands, the bluffs, the underground aquifer, the historical webber site, john webber, who colonized that area years ago and was part of history there. So just the significance of the environmental sensitivity of this area I think is paramount and I think it warrants I guess an official overview by staff to look into this particular situation.
>> I don't have any problem with that in itself. Who is here in favor of the request? That we get staff to do an analysis of this property to see if it meets the criteria of the Travis County siting ordinance. That's most of the hands. Who is against it? Let's hear a motion.
>> judge, my motion is two-fold basically. My motion is that we could direct staff to conduct this particular analysis of the 2,853 acres of city-owned property near farm road fm 969 and also near the village of webberville. And also I would like to direct our county attorney to look into the language that I think is necessary to prohibit the city of Austin from using this particular property for solid waste facility. And I think they go hand in foot and that means by amending chapter 62 and to be brought up -- back to the court at a later date. That has been the crux of a lot of this. And for whatever reason the city of Austin has not taken a position or will not take a position on what the property is going to be used for, but it has been echoed all throughout this community that it will be used for a solid waste facility. And that has been just out there in the streets. I don't really know, but I do know that the city has not taken an official position, I do know that. And I think with the authority that the county government has, we can amend chapter 62 that we already have on the books as Travis County ordinance to amend this to prohibit this particular tract of property from being used for solid waste facility.
>> Commissioner, I think the first part of that motion is appropriate and covered by the agenda item. I am not sure that the rest of the request is.
>> I致e contacted the --
>> however, if you -- for you to -- for us to request the county attorney to do work, we can do probably. But I don't know that a motion for a certain conclusion would be appropriate.
>> I contacted -- I wanted to make sure that the language we have here before us today was sufficient enough to give a direction, and according to the county attorney, it is sufficient to give a direction. And that is to look at the language and generate the necessary language that's appropriate and to prohibit the city of Austin to use this particular property for a solid waste facility, according to the deed of records that describes this particular property.
>> let's deal with them separately. First is a posted item which is direct staff to conduct an analysis to determine whether this property meets or violates chapter 62, Travis County code, for the siting of a solid waste facility.
>> I値l second his motion on that first part that's on the agenda.
>> yes, sir.
>> I would just add the criteria of the ordinance is what you are after. The analysis is going to determine whether the site meets the criteria, not necessarily the ordinance per se because the ordinance per se does not apply to type 4 landfills. Basically what we're just trying to determine is you have a set of criteria in the ordinance. If this property were subject to the ordinance, does it meet the criteria. That is the type of analysis that the staff is prepared to do.
>> would you say that -- if it were --
>> if it were subject to the ordinance.
>> then what is the answer to that? Is it
>> [inaudible].
>> the ordinance specifically
>> [inaudible] landfills, type 1 through 4 landfills, but it does include certain other type of solid waste such as
>> [inaudible].
>> so we are running a hypothetical that it is a type 1, 2, 3 or 4 landfill?
>> I think just the -- the neighborhoods and floodplains and that type of thing that the ordinance looks at is what the analysis
>> [inaudible].
>> okay. So in -- okay.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. There's a second part.
>> the second part is that -- if it doesn't meet this language, it does meet the requirements for us to give a direction, and the direction would be to direct the Travis County attorney's office and staff to bring back language to amend chapter 62, prohibit then the city of Austin from using this -- deed of record described property at fm 963 near the city of webberville, the 2,853-acre site for being used for solid waste facility.
>> the language is close and chris and I rung our hands together quite a bit last night trying to see if it did. Out of courtesy to you, we can start that process and then next week perhaps have more clarifying language that the whole court can vote on.
>> okay. Well, if you wanted more specifics, I can bring it back, but right now if it's enough to cover -- if it's enough to cover what we need to take forward as far as generating the language. In other words, you know what the assignment is. We need to start looking at language for that particular request for the city of Austin to be using that for solid waste purposes. If it's that close then, is that close enough to recognize that?
>> right, because of the nature of this kind of request and the sensitivity in the community, I would recommend that we go ahead and repost it for the following week to get a more clear definition of what you are wanting to have on there. But we would be happy to get started with the research on that.
>> but this would be a direction and then next week the actual language, but we can go for direction today.
>> just out of courtesy to you, we can begin that work. But the full court will probably want to speak to it next week.
>> okay. All right. Then having heard from our legal staff, it occurs to me they are going to start generating language, but I guess next week we need to have an item posted that specifically recognizes this language -- I guess my question is --
>> you're want to go amend the ordinance. I would recommend that we clearly say that.
>> okay. All right.
>> but do we want to do that before we get the results of the staff analysis? I mean if there is another angle, seems to me we should have put that first. I don't know how much work it will take, but if I remember the ordinance, you have to go through quite a few gyrations to try to figure out where the different pieces fit. How much time are we looking at?
>> the time is going to be the field checking, all the receptors, we'll have to make sure we know where they are. The actual geographic information system analysis won't be that difficult, but we'll need to, you know, make sure that what's in the field as terms as what's described in the ordinance, we know where it is and we can measure the buffers and -- in the ordinance. Again, it's probably not more than two weeks that we'll need to actually go out and field survey and come back and bring you the analysis.
>> and the intent is to get a good official, official staff snapshot view and report back to the court. This is the reason for the analysis. We've basically got a good idea about blah, blah, blah, all these things that have been going on. However, in the meantime, in the meantime, we have not heard anything from the city of Austin who have not taken an official position on whether this will be used for a landfill or solid waste facility site or not. That's the crux of the matter. And if we have the authority within Travis County to prohibit them from using this for solid waste facility, this is what -- by amending the existing chapter 62 of Travis County, so this is basically the direction we're going. I want to see that snapshot. I think we need to have it officially.
>> we can certainly provide you our analysis of our ordinance. It is our understanding that the city staff is conducting an analysis of the site itself. They did an initial presentation to the city council, I think it was back in June. Part of that presentation they forecasted that they would make another report to the city council in December. I知 trying to verify when in December that report will be presented to the city council, and that may be the time that the council would decide whether or not to pursue that as a site for a landfill.
>> well, I think even if it's a two -- two-course run where we're both running down the different lanes going the same direction, the city and the county, that doesn't bother me not one bit as far as what they have to do as far as telling the community they are not going to use it for solid waste facilities. But by the same token, there is no guarantee that that will ever occur or take place because even six months ago during that meeting that you are discussing, there was a lot of discussion that was had there, and according to the meets, there was never any exclusion of the fact that this particular 2853-acre tract was not going to be used for a solid waste facility. That's what -- that's what got folks all in such a tear here today. What they are saying is this. They are saying water quality east of ih-35 don't mean anything. When it comes to governmental entities. That's what they are saying. They are saying just like you protect the water is an example. The hamilton pool situation where a temporary injunction was just issued to halt development because of what's being done at hamilton pool, which is a pristine and one of the very pristine, good quality water type locations in western Travis County. Folks are saying these concentrated cluster of springs on the east side should have the same merit -- and it wasn't a bunch of folks down here when we voted -- to allow and support a temporary injunction that just would have proved in district court in Travis County. So they are saying the same thing, but the results aren't the same. They want the same similar protection that has not been afforded to them as been afforded to other parts of the community. So this is what they are asking for. So this is why they feel and I feel, I知 just a voice for the people, that they are saying this. That yes, we would like to have the amendment to chapter 62 approved by this Commissioners court just as we did a temporary restraining -- injunction, rather, with the hamilton pool to stop the development there because it was polluting pristine water. So it is an issue.
>> we'll have an appropriate item on next week or the week after. So you think you can get this done in two weeks? And will you have to access city property to do this analysis?
>> no. The siting, we're presuming that whatever landfill will be somewhere on that site. It's a fairly large tract. We're making a certain assumption about how large that cell will be. Basically all the receptors are going to be outside that tract. We won't be getting on the city property. We'll be actually looking around the site to find out where all the day cares, schools, residential areas and all that. And most of those, by and large, are outside this site.
>> numerous residents came last week and I think we heard from those who wanted to give testimony in the morning and afternoon. But if there's someone who came and didn't have his or her say or if you would like to say something new and different, I just assume you all had come down to ask us to support the motion, which we just did. But we certainly want to allow an opportunity for brief comments from anybody who wants to give comments while they are here. Please come forward and give us your full name. We would be happy to get your comments. We have six seats available, and if you come forward -- if you gave testimony last week, assume we heard you loud and clear, kept good notes, and remember, most if not all of it.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] we seem to divide and conquer. I want us to work together on this issue for the good of all families in Travis County. I am not just against this landfill or had this solid waste pa silt. I am against all new landfills in Travis County. In Travis County here, we accept trash from so many other county. I don't believe they are as a matter than we are. I am feeling kind of dumb because we didn't say bring your trash, we will take on your problems. We have a big enough problem dealing with our trash. E come representing the families. I don't come with technical information. I don't come with historical information. I come with a heart for the families in this county. I come with a heart for them because they are under such stress. They arefinancial stress, the price of gas going up. This morning on tv I heard about some families, especially in our part of the county, are having to decide whether to buy their medicine, buy food, or pay their bills. Now, that is a stressful place to be in. I am saying that the use of this land can add a very stressful amount of risk to all these families. I知 not just talking about air. I知 not just talking about water. I am talking about for generations, the use of this land will affect families. I知 talking about families that are not going to want to move into this area. I知 talking about families that are living in this area now who are having a hard time getting through the traffic to get their kids to daycare, get their kids to school, will have trash trucks, all kinds of activity, all kinds of problems. We're asking for by the proposal of using this land for facilities that will cause environmental concerns. I知 talking about the health of our children, my grandchildren. We bought this property that we live on on blake manner road in 1969. We have gone through periods when we thought, when the city bought the this property, they were going to use it for a coal energy plant facility. We went through the airport business of moving out there. Let me tell you, there are some good families that live out there. Just because they may be mostly mexican american or mostly black families or lower income, they have every right to get the consideration that Commissioner Davis was talking about. West Austin gets lots of consideration. We are not talking about something that will just affect us. We're not talking about counseling facility, that if it doesn't work out can be moved. We are talking about something that is very permanent. And I知 concerned about that. We're talking about the reputation of Travis County. Are we going to be known as the county that dumps on part of our county and not the other? Are we going to be discriminatory? Are we going to be the commission, the county, the time right now, are we going to be the once to the just say, okay, justlet let eastern Travis County go because it's for the good of the rest of the county. I love family systems counseling because it does not identify one member of the family that is less important than the other members. As a member, as a citizen of eastern Travis County, I am feel less important than the member of western Travis County. Yes, we need these facilities, but why are we so willing to give up our rights as citizens? Why are we so willing to dump on our counties? You know, are we going to dump Travis County and make a dump out of it? We have many landfills. You know, in systems family therapy we try to make sure that everyone in the family is heard, that they are just as important as the other family members. Travis County is a family. We want to do what is best for all families. I want you Commissioners to stop having to defend your precincts. I want us to work as one precinct together to say this is either good for one part of the county or not. And that good is our goal. You know, I grew up with these studies. I stood in line in the 40s with my ma ma, and we had our chests x-rayed because that was good for you. Mass x-rays. Come to find out that wasn't so good for us. Then our slogan is ddt, don't dump travis. Well, ddt trucks went by my street, and they spewed out all the this dd t. And my husband, he was a little boy, and I would run in the house and get in the closet and close the door because this big fume of ddt come if my home. Well, he didn't. He ran alongside the truck because it was neat and cool for the boys to stay in the fog. I also went through the time when the local shoe store had an x-ray machine. You would go up and if you wanted to get shoes or if you didn't, if you just wanted to go in there, had your foot x-rayed to see how it fit in the shool. You should see my husband's feed because he went there every time he went to town to get his feet x-rayed. I知 saying in the paper today there were two headlines on the front page. One at the bottom had to do with troublesome trend in some of these studies about hard disease the troublesome trend. The other was on the top of the front page and it said, well, I値l read it to you. Testimony, pepper spray used more liberally on kids because they are more vulnerable. I知 telling you, this title could say testimony, eastern Travis County dumped on more liberally than western Travis County. Who is the victim here? Who is the victim? Let's don't have victims. I don't want to have any victims. I want us all to work together for good and find other answers for our problems. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thanks so much. I wanted to just say I appreciate the fact that you heard me and the frustration that I had as well.
>> yes.
>> because it does seem at some point or another that for instance, all households in Travis County contribute to the trash that is generated in Travis County. I致e learned that from the six years of public hearings and hearing information from folks. Every time that we approve another subdivision in Travis County or in the city of Austin, it's the number of houses times two and a half people, times seven pounds, because we all generate about seven pound of garbage per day, each one of us no matter what age we are at. And so, but I did get calls and contrary to what somebody might think that I was trying to pit one precinct against the other, because I really have always managed and really worked at not pitting one against the other, because all people who live east of I 35, whether southeast or northeast, seem to have a feeling had a they get dumped on. It's either the holly street plant or it's the jail or it's landfills or it's airport. People do have this sense that everything is put in the backyard east of I 35, and then everybody travels or goes to either leave town or they get their trash carried away and that is where it goes. So I totally agree with you. And the other thing is that families should not have favorites.
>> that's right.
>> all children are equal.
>> right.
>> no matter whether you are the runt of the family or whether you are the oldest, the first born. But I think that we, I totally agree with you. I think any time we have a discussion about an issue, we need to consider all sides and all communities in Travis County. Thank you so much for hearing m.
>> thank you, Commissioner Gomez. I think we all have a heart for the families in the county. Do I have a question for all Commissioners, why are we still accepting trash from other counties?
>> we've asked that question to.
>> the answer is because the law requires it.
>> the law?
>> we don't own the landfills.
>> money doesn't require it?
>> yeah, it's money--
>> if the government entity owns the landfill, the government entity can restrict what comes in.
>> if the governmentalel entity does not, then we have no power to restrict their accepting waste from other counties.
>> it's like I tell me clients, I知 retired now, but let me tell you, you all know when you retire, you don't retire.
>> right.
>> there always seems to be a shifting of blame. There always seems to be a way of explaining and coming up with excuses. I知 saying, let's do make any excuses anymore.
>> there are laws that we have to comply with.
>> yes, but people make those laws. It's like Commissioner Davis said, you know, let's make the language clear. Let's do what we can do. Let's don't focus on what we want do. I want us just to focus on what we can do.
>> okay.
>> to make this county better.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I will have a sheet.
>> try to self of-impose a limit of two or three minutes if you can of the yes, sir.
>> I知 les todd, a member of the park street neighborhood association. I don't talk very much so I知 going to make it real short. I live about a block from where they want to put that landfill. I have a shallow well. My water comes from 1 --12 feet below the surface of the ground. I bought the place in 1986 and I have been drinking that water ever since. I would hate to have that well polluted. It comes from one of those springs.
>> thank you.
>> drinking water.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is ivan mat ula. I have lived in other places in Texas and I consider this one of the most beautiful areas of Texas that I have ever lived in. I realize that Austin energy has the need to use this property for something. This is a unique piece of property. It's beautiful and I知 sure it's very expensive to pay the taxes on and everything. However, I am opposed to having a dumb or waste facility there even in the vague manner that it's been spoken of or not spoken of. Now, I practice organic gardening techniques. I use compost on my property. I have 80 acres there that I spray compost tee --tean on. We are opposed to using nonorganic fertilizers. The hay looks good by it basically is ruining the soil. This property is presently being used for raising cattle and replacing buffalo, because that is what happened naturally in this part of the Texas I realize they are not going to make any money renting out the land to a farmer or rancher getting $2 an acre for raising cattle so they have to do something with it. But there are so many other this things that they can do. This is Austin, Texas. People are moving to Austin, Texas, because this is supposedly an ecological part of the state, pristine environment, and people want to live here because of that. Now, having a solid waste facility out there or any other type of dump or sledge facility is probably not appropriate in most people's minds did. Now, if they want to call me, I can give plenty of suggestions of the things that can be done that he can make a lot of money, maybe even more than the dump. We are talking about the formation of energy. It doesn't have to be necessarily through waste disposal or waste generating plant. There's so many new techniques out there right now, solar, wind mill generating techniques. California is doing a lot of these programs and I think there are other alternatives. I think that they should really consider some of these. So in view of that, I am opposed to a waste facility that we're speaking about be formed out in eastern Travis County.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> I壇 really like for the people, I壇 like, I shouldn't even come up here like. I壇 like to law other people to speak.
>> I知 a member of the parks neighborhood association as well. I値l be really brief here. I want to look at the bigger picture. You know, our county is one of the most educated in the nation. Because of that, I feel that we are obligated to take the lead on minimizing waste. If we keep building new landfills, we're moving in the opposite direction. If we're talking about hundred year regional lapped fills, which is what I致e been hearing about this land becoming, we're really living in the dark ages on this issue. We continue to feed this monster that is reckless convenience. We consume more and more and more and are just delaying the inevitable. Someday we have to set policy that forces industry and individuals to minimize their waste. That's all I wantd to say. Thank you.
>> thanks very much.
>> may I ask you something on that right quick? Sure.
>> I知 very interested in coming up with zero waste policy for the county. I am, I would like the hear more in the community and have a bigger, a broader dialogue in how bee would achieve a zero waste policy and where we would take our trash in zero waste world to be separated and reused.
>> I知 interested in that as well did.
>> I think we ought to start with getting rid of this out of sight, out of mind issue, mindset.
>> exactly.
>> we keep wanting--
>> I wrote down, continue to feed the monster of convenience. It's a wonderful way to put it. I think had a we all have a desire to throw our trash out and never see it again.
>> right.
>> but that is feeding a monster of convenience because it does nothing to reduce our trash. And I think if we we are to export our trash to another county, that is convenient for us. And I知 hoping in respect to ms. Shin's statement, if we can all take responsibility for our trash, I think we might find that we do have to have places within the county to process our trash even in the best of circumstances being zero waste circumstances. And I want to work toward that.
>> those places should not be on the edge where no one in the population can see it.
>> exactly. I壇 like to stay in communication with you about those issues.
>> thank you. I appreciate that.
>> if you would give us your phone number and we will circulate it. Yes, sir.
>> I was here two weeks ago.
>> your wife as well.
>> I have a couple of items I壇 like to add. Number one, we have set down and looked at this chapter 62 and made several changes that we would sort of like to see happen which if you'd like to see them, I値l give them to you later.
>> we'd appreciate the.
>> another thing, we have a chune case from an attorney in houston who has worked these landfill permits, evidently, as a living. He says, and I quote, the higher the water table, and the lower the pit, the greater hydrostatic pressure. Great pressures make the landfill more difficult, more expensive, and maybe impossible. He also said if there is no opposition and the city moves as quickly as possible, the landfill could be permitted and open in as little as two years. We need to move on this real fast. There's a couple other things here.
>> what is this lawyer's name?
>> it's roland purling ton.
>> okay. In case we get a bill from him, we'll know why.
>> actually, this information came through a property owner on brown cemetery road right across road from the landfill location.
>> right.
>> he owned 100 acres out there which he recently sold probable because he doesn't want to be near a landfill. Of course, all of the developers are buying up all the land they can out there right now. There are signs all over the place. Anyway, we're not trying to put this landfill in another precinct. Okay? We just want it stopped. B razorik county stopped landfills. Out of the 33 landfills, counties feeding us their trash, there are 20245 don't have landfills.
>> they send it to us.
>> why don't they have them? Why to we have it? You're saying, all right, this is private. Bfi waist manage, all I壇 management are huge companies. Why do we have to know tow to huge companies? Why can't the county stand up and say, forgive me, the hell with you people. We want our county cleaned up.
>> in order to do that, we have to cite a landfill that we own the dirt under--site a landfill that we own the dirt underas I --as I understand it--
>> as I understand it, the city owns a landfill. There's been a huge number that have been closed down in Travis County but they are still emitting gasses and polluted water. We live approximately one quart mile from the edge of this sit property. I have two wells, the deepest 25 foot beat. It has never gone dry. Which means the water table out there is extremely high. Even in the driest summers I have never had them wells go dry. If you'd like to come out and look, you're welcome to come out. Anyway, I just wanted to say that everything has pretty much been said. I would like to see the Commissioners and judge Biscoe ban together against the city and big business to represent the citizens that elected you. Strike down this serpent that has reered its ugly head and protect the citizens of Travis County, their children and the generations that will follow, from groundwater pollution and postenous gasses. You will also protect many counties downriver on the colorado from pollution of this gigantic landfill. Don't let this window of opportunity pass you by. Let it be known that you are the county Commissioners that saved Travis County from degradation. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Now we will need those seats. Who else wants to testify today? Take half a minute.
>> I just wanted to address the question from ms. Eckhardt about what do we do with this waste. One of the things that we can do with this waste is to separate it. You mentioned have somebody else separate. That is lard to do. People--
>> far better to separate at the generate.
>> I have five garbage cans. One goes for aluminum, one for metal, one for glass, one for plastic, all of that can be taken to a recycling center. The aluminum can be taken to a center where you actually get money for it. It will probably pay nor for your gas to take it this but there are had things we can do.
>> I agree with you a hundred percent. We need to do that.
>> thank you very much. We do need to move you all. We have several other big items that we need to get to today. But we want everybody to have a say. Let's did a three-minute timer. Beginning now. Three minutes is the judge-imposed time limit. We are doing this in the name of democracy.
>> I did speak last time but I just wanted to say one thing. If we can can, if we pass an ordinance that says that there can be no landfills, then bfi will have to go v--somewhere else. That's what we want them to do. If we can't pass that ordinance that says there will be no new landfills in Travis County, then there will be.
>> that's a good legal question. Can you all come back next week? Let's have that. A good legal question. Yes.
>> I知 germane swen son, vice-president of park springs neighborhood association. And I kind of put at the top of what I have written here something about how I don't trust government. I think it's just the times we live in right now. I am for zero waste. I helped establish with the help of charles williams the eastern Travis County recycling center. Since I found out that there might be a landfill across the street from me, I live with ivan on 80 acres, I have become an avid recyclerment I don't want to be part of the problem. I don't have to drive all the way into Austin to recycle I am for zero waste. I recently took a trip to l.a. Every person there has three large garbage cans, one for yard waste, one for recyclable and one for regular garbage. I think we can do better than that. I have heard that there is a theory of getting rid of the west compostable waste on a weekly basis , getting rid of the dry waste on a bimonthly basis. I like the point of use customer sorting going on so we don't have to have people getting sick from sorting recyclables. I have heard that is a health issue. You know, especially broken glass that can happen on a conveyor belt. City of Austin has given the intent of having a landfill on that property by public meeting held in August in which geomatrix disclosed a study of what needs to be done nrto make the property appropriate for and fill. This is not hypothetical. They mentioned the use of land as wastewater and power plant. I personally have undertaken, well, I mentioned that, recycling to the point where I can now just about cancel my garbage service. I encourage a system of rewards for recycling and make it hard not to recycle. Let's do zero waste now, not later. If we do , we will have ample landfill space right now in our existing landfills, enough to last for a decade with no new landfills. The sitoad is underground high ber nating. I don't trust the government. Can I just talk real quick? Money--
>> have a minute, pleasemoney i.
>> money is the only reason to accept trash from other counties. The stiband Travis County stand to make about 85 million per year. If you add sewer and power, let's say city of Austin will fulfill had their budgetary needs. Current technology of landfills is not adequate. I propose more expensive method of construction using double or triple ee inforced concrete on lime stone rock base. This will be watertight, vapor proof and stable. If we are going to do it, let's do the it right. Make it safe. Don't spare the expense. Make it harder to choose not to recycle. I think every county needs to take responsibility for its own waste. That way people will have to make hard decisions on how to deal with it. Some counties have lime stone with underground caves and fractures that prohibit the use by current methods. That is why they export their garbage. But if we could entomb by the method I mentioned earlier, every county could keep its waste within its borders and we could put this safe type of landfill anywhere.
>> thank you.
>> I知 helen jobs with the h b lee group for environmental justice. I was here last week, of course. What I did did, I brought, I will be very brief, but these binders are for you. They are another 2000 pages that we have but we didn't feel necessary to bind them. If you look at the table of contents I want to call your attention to the sections. We discussed last time the pousers granted Travis County commission. It says that you guys are concentrating on 62 but there are other issues and I have it all there. We have the amounts of the landfill assessment enclosed in section 2 and then we have the amount of the the proposed landfill study. I know there has been a lot of talk about what the city has not decided on but we have evoked the open records lack and know they are considering that. Other, section 3, current landfill technology and health risks. I think someone on the panel there said that we didn't have any recent studies. We have gone back as far as 1988 to 2007 and there's a preponderance of evidence now in the 2003 to 2007 range about the health risks within a mile to two miles. Of course, there is another study that we are looking at to see if it's been replicated at the four mile arrangement we have section 4, research from the unit e pa. Section 5 is the record of bivesand wm i. We making the assumption that they would be the ones to handle the waste. Section 6, we have 15 studies from 2007, every time I get up here, sorry, to 1988. Of course, if your aids are interested in more studies we can put those together for you. Then in section 7 we have the score cards, pollution information headings. We have pulled the studies and put them 234 there for you. The references in section 8 are based on sections. I did do a bibliography based on e pa format. However, studies are in there. If I missed anything, I think I got a little modified on the format. Also for each one of the Commissioners we have the top profiles for 2006 including tox facts and public health statistics in english and spanish should you desire. Any questions , I知 done.
>> this is really a fantastic effort that you have brought forward. I really do, I really appreciate what you are doing and how you are presenting the material. It is very meaningful.
>> thank you. By the way, do I recycle. Even my batteries.
>> do we have your e-mail address?
>> I don't think I put that in there but I will give it to your aids.
>> this is a work of art here.
>> my name is evelyn williams. I work with h b lee associates. I wanted to inform you that due to an open records act recently we have the new estimated time line of the environmental reports on the webberville tract for city of Austin. The nod plain evaluation is dated for April 2008. The historical archeological assessment look completed depending what is located on the tract, the dates are between April and December 28. I went down to tceq and looked up what the city of Austin's landfill record was, predominantly for the one on farm road 812 , the open one right now. The January 2002 report entitled landfill gas collection and control system assessment report reads like an environmental horror store. It gives a brief history. The city of Austin was sited like the old landfills in two streams, two valleys that fed into onion creek. In the early 1990s, a state agency that underwept name change to tceq, womened remediation of the northern portion to eliminate surface leachate. This wasn't done in time and the failure of the northern slope resulted in a mass flow of clay and landfill debris into onion creek. In 1995 the city of Austin installed 18 probes to monitor gas at the property line.
>> let him add just you there.
>> sorry.
>> just having difficulty with this one mike getting staticky.
>> okay. It was discovered that me thane gas was present at levels mexcess of a hundred percent of the lower explosive limit of meth ane. In 1996 the sate requested the city to perform a defailed gas assessment submit a remediation plan outlining steps to bring the landfill into compliance. The city of Austin submitted the report in August of 1997 and documented the migration of methane explosives across farm road 973 to 200 east of the permit boundary. In 1998 the city of Austin contracted ecogas corporation to install a gas collection system. The project was not completed and the gas collection system was not activated, in June 2001, the city of Austin contracted with weston to perform a gas landfill collection and control system assessment. It took from 1995 to 2002, seven years, to install an incomplete gas collection system. And two reports to the tceq. Is this the kind of operation that the city is going to place on the webberville tract. Will the city of Austin hold their contract landfill operate tor high standards, higher than the state when they themselves are unable to do so? As a historian I look to the past to foretell the future. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> (applause)
>> our final speaker today.
>> hi, judge. Is this on?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> the other one may be better if you pull it towards you.
>> hello.
>> it's on.
>> okay. Hard to follow all that. They have a lot of good points. Thank you judge, Commissioners, for allowing the people and myself an opportunity to speak. In case you don't know who I am, I値l stet my name for the record hector gonzalez, mayor village of webberville. I spoke with many of you all about my opposition of the potential of a landfill. I hear the word hypothetical. I have met privately with the mayor of Austin and most if not all the council members including the city manager with Austin. I think it's a little more than hypothetical. In private meetings with them they already have their plans of how they are going to do it. Even if it was hypothetical or is hypothetical, before it becomes factual, I sure hope that you all take some action and prevent it from occurring. Like you said, you can't prevent land that is owned by a private entity, you have little control. Correct? Well, let's do something before that happens. Kind of touch on something Commissioner Davis had said about Austin, essentially they are thumbing their nose, I would even think at this court. They did to former senator barientos in a letter he sent opposing the possibility of a landfill going on this property. There's also a letter cowrnn about representative dukesand rodriguez, same thing. There's also a letter brnn wherein by Commissioner Davis opposing it as well as one from me. They have just kind of thumbed their nose at all of us and saying we are big bad Austin, we can do whatever we want. We don't care what the county thinks, don't care what the state thinks, we surely don't care webber ville thinks or the people directly affected by it. I have had other, you know, other electioned officials and other governmental entities that are also opposed to it that stood beside me at a press conference that I conducted in may of this year. Superintendent of del valle school district, emergency service district number 12, the fire chief of manor, the sheriff's office, acc board member, and many others, for a number of reasons. I知 hoping I知 going to be extended some professional courtesy and not be subjected to itlve but I値l try to wrap it up. There's money opposed --many opposed to the possibility of a landfill. You have heard many reasons why,el, historical. I don't know if there was much mentioned about traffic and transportation. It would be a nightmare. The reason that the superintendents for the school district are owes opposed as well as the sheriff's department and Travis County emergency service district, there's only two ways to access the property, two lane fm 969, and with my discussions with bob day with tex dot, there are no plans to wide be the road. The other way is blake manner. I don't flow if you all want hundreds of trash trucks caring up the county road. It would create a nightmare. 969 is already carrying thousands of four-wheel vehicles hundreds of 18-wheel gravel trucks, compound that problem with hundreds of trash trucks. I realize there's a need for landfills. But do they all need to be in eastern Travis County? Or anywhere in Travis County for that matter. The city of Austin is trying to make Travis County, regardless of what part of the county, they are trying to make Travis County the host of central Texas's refuse. Why? Why would we allow that? Why would we want that? Why would we want, you know, eastern Travis County to be known as the host. Anyway, I thank you, and I seriously hope you consider an amendment to chapter 62 that would prevent the landfill from going there. I mean, there's other areas already in Travis County. Pds is one. Gold standard landfills. Austin says that if we do it we'll do it like them. Don't trust them.
>> thank you, mayor.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all very much for coming.
>> judge, before we conclude, number one, on the deal when you bring the item number 9, make sure it is corrected.
>> when I call the item, when I read the item to announce it, did I say nine or three?
>> nine.
>> but I read three. Should have been three.
>> sculting with the county--consulting with the county attorney, had he feels it's possible to amend the necessary language to prohibit the city of Austin from using the 2853 acre tract of property for solid waste facilities. So that will be on the agenda next week.
>> if I could, I wanted to add one other thing. People are always opposed the this or that. In addition to being opposed to the landfill, I have offered a solution to the city of Austin. I have made an offer, quite gen areas offer to purchase the property, three times more than the current appraises value. They can take that money and go buy property in a more suitable location that won't affect our drinking water and our citizens' health and welfare.
>> let me explain. There is a process. If it comes up next week on the 27th, there is a process that we have to go through. And when you amend these type of ordinances, you know, have you to go through a process as far as getting public input and a whole bunch of things. So there are some time lines required by law that we have to go by. But whatever it is, whatever that requirements are, we are going to meet them. First thing we are going to get this item, formal action on the Travis County Commissioners court agenda on the prohibition of the land use for solid waste. That will be on the agenda next week. Thank you.
>> thank you again.
>> (applause)
>> I want to clarify. That is two weeks? One week.
>> .
>> one week.
>> you need to look at the agenda.
>> 27th.
>> which comes out probably late Wednesday.
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, November 21, 2007, 18:30 AM