Travis County Commissioners Court

December 18, 2007
Item 24

View captioned video (morning discussion).
View captioned video (afternoon discussion).

24 number 24 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding, a, staff report on whether the city of Austin, Austin energy property on fm 969 near village of webberville meets criteria of chapter 62, Travis County coder, for citing of solid waste facility, and b, alternative mentsto chapter 62, Travis County code, relating to the siting of solid waste facilities. We'll indicate that there that we will get legal advice in executive session under the consultation with attorney and open meeting act. Therefore, at this time we will convene in executive session and hopefully in ten or 15 minutes come back to open court after the discussion with our lawyers.

we have returned from executive session where we discussed with legal counsel agenda item number 24. Now we are ready for the open court discussion. Does staff have a report for us?

>> yes . Judge, before we go there, though, if you don't mind I’d like to maybe update the public on where we are, what happened in the last meeting and what has transpired since we last met. I think it's kind of significant to mention these things. First of all, I submitted a packet of information to our clerk and also the Commissioners court and some of the folks in the audience, a series of events that have taken place such as letters is that center sent back to the city council back in December of 2006, referring and wanting to get a response on the Austin energy property near webberville off of 969. I have not yet had a response from the city of Austin elected officials, city council, as far as that response. Just recently I received a response letter from council member cole and council member martinez, which is a letter dated December 3, 2007, who vividly oppose, and I want to underline, oppose the webberville tract, the Austin energy tract that I described earth year--earlier, of having a solid waste facility located in that area. I received a response from council member lefenthal just recently, and that was dated December 14 of this year, who basically he wanted to wait until the city evaluates this particular piece of property. And he would give us a decision as far as the questions that he needed to entertain in January of 2008. So I guess the sooner they get through doing the evaluation and things like that, we will know they have done something here. And of course, there's a lot of other things that have popped up in this regard am let me put it to the public very clearly, that I didn't bring this fight. The city of Austin brought this fight to the residents of precinct 1 and to Travis County. This is why we are trying our best to see what we can do to deal with the city of Austin. Because of the fact that sources have revealed to me that we have elected officials from the city of Austin such as the mayor and such as council member, well, another council member, have brought to the attention that they would like to use this particular site for a landfill. Now, those have been brought to my attention as far as sources are concerned. So again, I’m concerned about the fight that we have gotten engaged in. I’m going to fight the best I can to deal with the situation where by the city has put us in harm's way as far as eastern Travis County, east of I 35, where by we have already impacted overwhelmingly, if you got a chance the read the December 2, 2007, version of the american statesman written by marty tuer, you will see the disproportionate bad things that come east of I 35. I want to set the stage and as we go through this process. So again, staff, if you will, judge, I direct you to go into this, make sure a and b there's no confusion.

>> request it.

>> we asked questions when we had the discussion last, we had proposals from residents. I think it's appropriate that we hear staff on that. They have worked since that time. It's two weeks ago, wasn't it? Yeah, loose commission--lose Commissioner Gomez at 12 noon.

>> let get started. Travis County, while we are not in the landfill business, we do have legal authority to regulate the siting of facilities. On July 22, 2003, the Commissioners court adopted Travis County code 62 for the siting of solid waste facilities. We were asked by go through that analysis to show you the method we went through and conclusions. Part b of the agenda is basically if the court desires to amend the ordinance to now apply to a greater variety of landfill operations, how might you do that. There are two versions of an amended ordinance in that backup. The first is basically presented by the neighborhood of webberville and it has change some of the criteria of the ordinance, changed some of the buffers, and we will present that version of the ordinance. The second version is one developed by the staff inp cooperation with your designated Commissioner sara eckhardt on what other changes might take place. You have two different versions of an amended ordinance that you can look at and decide whether or not you want to do any of the above. That is basically what the staff is going to present and we'll do that as quickly as we can so that you can reach some conclusion before noon. I will have david walk through the first part of the agenda.

>> joe, did you mention the maps? Maybe you did. Did you mention the map that showed the footprint of that area?

>> we're going to be going through thosefrom.

>> from the neighborhood and also from staff perspective on item b.

>> that will be part of the presentation.

>> thanks.

>> I’ve david shore, staff analyst for tn criteria and buffer distances for major landfill facility.. Also, those all fall neighbor0 foot buffer. The first map shows how I ma 5,280 feet and considered that the area I needd to look at for all the receptors the on that visit, I identified three the corner adjacei added. So that identifies the receptors that are called t in t ordi?

>> you need it m.

>> okay. From there, I applied the buffers associated with those particular receptors. And this map shows a 1500 ne r tey an avegesie actoorr a, anattoh. I was really lenient. E g, also fe to the structure of the residencand not e ahead ined the wle prty ju be extra cautious on we were defining here. Also, withth dsity criteria, I was interested also and identified three neighborhoods, the main area of webberville on 969, the the community off brow thulplngthe h off ed acklin 5,280 fobuffer from tha thwir o is 15foot er wchas from of the receptors that were looked at. So with all that in mind, after that there were a few other criteria spelled out in the ordinance and the two that applied here was colorado river aquifer and associated deposits as depicted by the geological at last of Texas and also the 100 year floodplain as defined by fema. So this map, as those two, crosshatching is the need plain hard to see. In here it defines the aquifer and associated deposits. Those, I forget the buffer on those. 500 feet buffer was applied on both of those and what resulted was an area in the middle of the tract, approximately 560 acres after taking everything into consideration.

>> the end result, what you are saying is after just the existing, no change at all to chapter 62, Travis County code, with no change, you applied this to this particular tract of property, and as a result of that, the footprint indicate there is 560 acres that could be is thaly ud sost iorretobe sure everyone understands this is with nothing done to the ordinance.

>> correct.

>> all right.

>> and that is the result of my analysis.

>> okay. That is a.

>> these are the criteria that the court adopted. This does not speak to the suitability of the site for landfill otherwise as regulated by the state agency. We are not--have not gone any further than this. To suggest that this is a suitable state is really undetermined. There's a rot more analysis that would have to be done either by the city or by a landfill operator before they could probably get the cite permitted. So our analysis strictly was on the county's ordinance.

>> right. Because the direction of the court at that time was just to apply that to that particular tract of property since the community came up with the concern about the ordinance that exists and just applied to that. So that does not mean that this is the only acreage in Travis County that could be made available. I want make sure everyone understands. We are just not targeting this particular area but there are other areas that may fit the same footprint if this was applied throughout the county.

>> I am presuming there are other sites. We cannot include that analysis.

>> exactly.

>> there are other site --probably other site but we did not do that analysis.

>> I understand. Thank you.

>> that is the first part. The second part is laying out two parts of the amended --ordinance, one presented by the neighborhood and one by staff. I’ll have john white present this.

>> john white, environmental officer. Three weeks ago you considered one potential amendment to the solid waste siting ordinance. Today we're here talking about two additional alternatives. Alternative, it's marked at version a in your packet. This is prepared by joanne gun locke who is a resident nearby the webberville site. In generally terms, what that amendment does is revise the ordinance so that it will apply to landfills, type 1, 2, 3 and 4 landfills. As you know, our current ordinance does not lie to landfills. It also increases set backs in generally terms and specifically prohibits the siting of a landfill within the designated area by meetsand bounds for the webberville tract. There are some other provisions in that but we'll come to those as we go through. The other version is something of a staff recommendation. This particular version would also amend the ordinance so that it applies to type 1, 2, 3 and 4 landfills, uses the original setback requirements approved in the ordinance back in 2003. However, it adds a special section regarding potential contamination of water sources, particularly things that may be a water supply. And it specifically does not exclude the webberville tract, just to keep the analysis simple. So let's go through sort of blow by blow here. In the first section--

>> do you have a map of this? So you can show the public the neighborhood version and the staff recommendation verse?

>> we can do that.

>> something you can put up so folks can see what we are talking about.

>> yes.

>> and judge, this here, the map shows.

>> use the microphone, please.

>> this whole criteria of this map according to the neighborhood plan, I believe the buffer was extended 10,600 for residential properties. That reflects that this is the only, basically you take any of these yellow residences and on that tract according to what the recommendations that have come from and show the other versio.

>> the staff recommendation.

>> okay. That is the map that goes with version a.

>> this will be for version a, that the correct--that's correc.

>> this is looking at staff proposal the two thin added to this map would be a buffer for previous buffer.roximately 500 s remaining for a footprint.

>> you mention the colorado alluvial aquifer was added, whereas before it was lake Austin and . --and travis. My concern is, from that normal high line, the bank of the colorado river, is that where we start measuring?

>> it was--

>> I guess I need to ask john that.

>> excuse me.

>> in other words, from the . 500 acres, though.

>> yes, sir.

>> all right. Thank you.

>> let's go through some of the principal changes recommended by the two different versions. Version a, the neighborhood version, again, would make the ordinance applicable to type 1, 2, 3 and 4 landfills. Same would be true for version b. Version a, the neighborhood version, would increase a number of the setbacks for both major and finer facilities. For many of the finer facilities the standard setback in the existing ordinance is 350 feet. The neighborhood proposal would increase those across the board to one mile. Staff recommendation is version b, again, would retain the original setbacks to existing setbacks. For major facilities, the neighborhood proposal would increase setbacks from 1500 feat to 10,600 feet or essentially a little built over two miles. Again, the staff recommendation would be to retain the existing setbacks. There is, however, one particular category within which the staff makes an additional recommendation, and that is for public water supply sources, whether it be surface water or wells or whatever. We propose a new set of criteria a new section, I guess you would say, within the ordinance, which would provide that the setback would be at least 1500 feet for both major and finer facilities but not transfer stations. For public water wells, residential and springs, both versions you are looking at today have new definitions for residential water wells and springs. It's just a matter of what your preference is in terms of precision on these things.

>> in the definition of springs, we're looking at the usgs geological survey as far as springs are concerned.

>> correct.

>> the neighborhood definition, I guess we're basically looking agent the --at the point of where the water is flowing underground. My question to you, when this map was devised as far as setbacks, were there any additional springs outside of the definition of the usgs survey definition of springs? Were there additional springs if we were to look at springs as balance a point of water appearing from underground with all the springs covered, I guess is my question. In other words, did the usgs survey leave out springs as far as the definition is concerned? The neighborhood definition versus our staff recommendation definition.

>> the usgs map identifies specific springs that have, they mete specific criteria that the usgs has for definition of a spring. There are probably areas in which there are temporary ephemeral seeps that some people might refer to as springs but which usgs would not recognize as a spring. We don't have any idea where those might all be. We would have, you would have to go out to a very extensive site survey to identify all those . More would it be entirely clear there is an appropriate feature to stay away from. It would be a matter of some judgment in terms of how much water, what the value of that water seep might be. It would be found by situation analysis.

>> nigh my question, when we looked earlier, there was a cluster of springs. This property has a most significant amount of springs comparable to the hamilton pool even up to the balcones area. Most clustered. What I’m fearful of is that the usgs survey of springs actually levers out the full concentrated cluster the of springs that may be there and not being counted. That is my concern as far as that definition is concerned. What are we trying to protect.

>> I believe the cluster that you are referring to actually was identified by usgs survey. However, I believe most of the them actually lie north of this property. Two of the two southernmost in that cluster that you see in eastern Travis County lie at the north end and are identified on this map. Then there is a series of about four or five that are just north somewhat north of the property in the next sort of watershed top graphically.

>> okay.

>> certainly we have the maps to if I want those. Again, a lot of it depends upon how you define a spring. We would rely upon the usgs criteria for that.

>> at some point they would come in and do an extensive study to make sure that everything is identified properly.

>> that is correct. Anybody with a serious proposal on this would have to come out and do a site reconnaissance. They would identify perhaps other springs that have been missed as well as a number of other kinds of receptor features that we would be concerned abou.

>> okay.

>> in this new section we would provide protection of major and minor facility of 1500 feet setback. We recognize there will be circumstances in which a simple setback is not an appropriate buffer and we would provide that where there is a potential for surface or subsurface flow from a major facility or transfer station, that means if you have a facility and for whatever reason because of topography or geology or whatever else on the site, there is a potential for some kind of water flow on the ground or underground nearby that could impact a water well, a spring or some other kind of water supply source, that we would provide for a larger setback and the full extent of that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to review by department.

>> which department?

>> us. The way we have written, it would be my responsibility to review that.

>> okay.

>> now, the wells that are a drirvinging source that folks have said that they--drinking source that folks have said they use the water from those wells to drink, I notice that we are saying that staff is recommending that you end up using the Texas water board and stuff like that for certification and all these other kind of things. I guess my question is, what with about persons that may not have a well and it's not registered through this entity that you are suggesting here? How are you going to deal with that?

>> two different ways. One s if somebody has a well, they might want to be sure that it does get into the Texas water development board database. They have been collecting data for some yearsment of course--years. Of course there are older wells they have somehow missed. You can get your well registered with them, I’m sure. The other is, as Commissioner Gomez is saying, you would still have to come in to be sure you are not impacting features previously not identified. If somebody has a water well not in the database and a proposal comes in and they start doing site reconnaissance and they discover the fact there is a well they have to address.

>> because they have to do that intense thive study to make sure they don't miss anything.

>> correct.

>> so these setbacks in the special section here, 2.004, public water wells, all these other kind of protections, of course I understand you are saying you would basically oversee, if you need to increase the buffer, you would leave that to your discretion, staff discretion to increase the buffer.

>> correct.

>> for protection. My question, though, is this. I want to go back into time just a little bit. But I recall very vividly a five-mile radius around the gasoline storage tank. As far as determining and looking at water that may have been contaminated from the gasoline storage tank farm. There were persons at that time that had wells and we didn't know anything about. But in that particular initiative, there was high traces of contamination that really made that water unsafe to drink. It was polluted. In a five-mile radius around the tank farm. So I’m just envisioning something that we are doing here but envisioning how things can be contaminated especially undergroundwater. Doesn't take much for it to go down and do some damage. Just want to keep that in mind when you say increasing that buffer.

>> yes, understood. In a nutshell, this is basically the outline of the changes one other change is of particular note, between the two one difference between the two versions. The neighborhood version suggests changing the definition of a neighborhood. In essence, going from a nine residents cluster basically on nine acres to nine residences on 45 acres, basically going from a one per acre to a five per acre threshold to define a residence. That is a significant difference between the two. Onthat it makes much difference in terms of the actual impact on setbacks here except in conjunction with the increased setback that the neighborhood proposed of 10,600 feet, which of course would take out the entire tract.

>> that is not five to an acre.

>> that is what I said? Sorry, I miss spoke.

>> yes.

>> sorry.

>> judge, I invited tceq here and also city of Austin to participate in today's discussion. I think it's a significant question that need to be asked of them. The residence here also. I think they ought to be part of this particular conversation since it involves them. Could the representative, excuse me, staff. Just one second. Could the representative from tceq and also the city of Austin please come forward.

>> if we can get your nainname, please.

>> my name is dr. Richard car michaelrb the manager of municipal solid ways permits.

>> judy saller, the manager of real estate for Austin energy.

>> I appreciate your presence. I guess you probably have been following this issue for a whilelve I hope so anyway. I guess I wanted to ask each one of you individually some questions I think that need to be asked. Number one, I started with you, doctor from tceq, and that is the process for new sites, green fill sites, what we call them. New landfill site. What is the minimal requirement for a new landfill site as far as acreage is concerned? What is the minimal.

>> by rule there is no minimum anchorage--agerage. I guess the landfill industry could address that from an economic standpoint.

>> all right.

>> in west Texas we have small municipal landfills, a matter of ten acres.

>> ten acres? For a very small landfill in west Texas. Generally speaking, currently landfills are hundred of acres in a footprint.

>> in had a footprint. All right. So number two, if you can answer for me, what as far as process is concerned, how long does it take the from filing a permit, let's say there's no opposition, to pursue, operator to pursue landfill going through tceq to acquire a permit. Without opposition. Opposition may stretch it out. How long would that process take?

>> generally spook--speaking, in the landfill process an applicant would first have to submit a soil boring plan in which they would lay out how this e want to characterize the geology and the groundwater of the site. We normally require a year's worth of ground water data. The individual would file that plan, collect data. That would be approximately a year's process. If their consultant could prepare the application in that time or maybe within six months, then we have by our commitments to the legislature, a year to process and issue that permit.

>> okay. Have there been any applications within Travis County filed for new landfill site within Travis County?

>> not for a new landfill site to date, no, sir.

>> so the answer to that previous question was that it takes how many years?

>> for us to process, it takes one year. The up front for the applicant, it probably takes at least a year from the time they identify a location.

>> within a two-year? Within a two-year period, yes, sir.

>> for new landfill. Okay. That is all the questions I have for you at this time. The others may need to ask question. I’d like to get to the city of Austin. Don't run off because somebody else might have a question.

>> I have a question. So the soil boring data will tell the you what?

>> it tells us if the site is suitable to use as a municipal solid waste landfill. Our criteria, whereas you all have the authority to site landfill as far as location goes we look at the drainage features the underlying geology and the groundwater and helping to determine the adequacy of a site to locate a landfill.

>> geology, groundwater, what was the other?

>> surface water drainage, yes, sir.

>> thank you.

>> don't run away. Thank you.

>> you know where a type 1 landfill has been permitted in a two-year period in the state? Can you if I want? All we--can you identify? We have never never heard one or two years. I mean, everything that has been told to us, maybe it's because you have never had one of these that doesn't have some conflict. But if you, I mean, is there one that you can tell us? Just so we would know where that is?

>> as far as a type 1 municipal solid waste landfill, mr. Davis, who works for me, is a licensed geologists and has been in the program much longer.

>> if you know where a type 1 landfill has been permitted in one to two years, even though thee retically you can do it, is there one in the state of Texas that has been done?

>> a landfill has to meet criteria. They cannot accept more than 20 tons per day on the average municipal solid waste. Generally speaking it has ton in an area where rain.

>> thank you.

>> when are you going to get to me? You're next. Anyway, a couple of questions I need to ask you and thank you for being here.

>> I hope I’m the right person.

>> thank you to the city manager for coming down when I made the call I didn't know in anybody would show up. The other person that was here earlier, according to sources, they said they were in support of a solid waste facility there, landfill, the council mccracken. That is according to sources.

>> for or in opposition? He is an elections official. Anyway, let me ask you this. Has there been any discussion with any of the landfill operators within Travis County, outside of Travis County, discussing the city of Austin to allow that site as a landfill, the webberville energy tract?

>> with operators?

>> yes, landfill--

>> not to my knowledge, Commissioner. Again, I’m with Austin energy.

>> I understand. But Austin energy owns the property.

>> right, but in the city it's become an asset of the city. So I would not be included in those conversations.

>> on okay. Secondly, well, it's a possibility that and rumored that this particular property may be annexed by the city. And if so, if that is annexes by the city, that kind of takes the county out of the hunt, I guess, to protect that area because of the fact that the way the chapter 62 reads right now is that it prohibits us to dictate within a jurisdiction that particular use of land. So, I received a letter from council member lefenthwel that basically said there is a vel weighs process taking place right now. Of course, I made an earlier statement that there have been several attempts to try to get the city to respond to a series of questions and input in this particular issue of that webberville tract, or your tract Austin energy tract. My question to you is, are you familiar with that type of evaluation of what the being asked? Because it appears that the evaluation that's supposed to comfort at an earlier date, and some has fallen through the crack because that evaluation is not readiment and according to council member lefthenwell, he would like to see the results of that evaluation. Are you familiar with any of that evaluation and has what has taken place?

>> I do know they are evaluating the property. We have had, over the years, several private requests to purchase the property. If we put the property on the market, the way we handle that on the city, you put it out for bid. I’m told each of those people that have inquired, that I can't do it, I just can't say we would sell the property to you. We would have to put it out to bid. I do know that because it is an asset of the city, they are looking at the property to determine who mr. Gieselman's office has shown now, stream and so forth. I haven't seen the final report. I haven't been part of that report. They have not requested anything from me at all.

>> what role do you play, and I guess the question is, on this particular property.

>> I am the real estate director. We handle the leasing of the property.

>> is there a possibility that the property may be leased to a landfill operator?

>> not without going out for bid. The people that currently lease it are leasing for grazing. That was the way that went out was for grazing. It wasn't for anything. Those have been, that land, I came to utility about 14 years ago, and I’ve handled the leasing of it for the last ten. The last time we put it out to bid, it was strictly for grazing. The reason we do that, Commissioner, is that that is a large parcel of land. We don't have the resources to keep fences up and make sure that you don't have poaching, which does happen. The people who lease it keep the fences up and keep it moweded and so forth.

>> how familiar are you with this particular piece of property? Hands on knowledge, per se?

>> I have been over, around and across the proper, but I haven't gone in detail. I have a gentleman in my office who has ridden the property several times on one of those things, the three wheager--wheeler or four-wheeler that goes around. I believe he went with the mayor of webberville. I have not done that but I have been on the property multiple times.

>> okay. In respect to what you are telling me, of course, and showing up here, I was kind of hoping that I would have had someone from the city that may have been a little more in tune with the actual day-to-day situation as far as what is taking place where the city of Austin because there's a lot of things happening. We are hearing from annexation, that you are going to annex, from leasing. We are hearing all these, all of these allegations, and yet we have not been able to put a face on itni. I’m trying to put a face on to what, you know, beginning to be kind of illusive and kind of leaves the county in a tough situation because we are going to have to deal with this.

>> I do know, Commissioner, it's in our extra territorial jurisdiction.

>> I understand.

>> I do know that, but I have not heard nor have I been y to --privy to any discussions about annexation.that's the first I he heard about it. As to any studies, I just haven't been part of it. That's why I said, I hope I’m the correct person. I got the request yesterday evening.

>> I understand.

>> I was the only person that was around when it came in.

>> we thought you got here because you were the favorite person down there.

>> I am questioning my status at this point.

>> there may be some others that may note need to answer the questions. There are cosome other questioni have to reserve but I am going to reserve them for those, not to say you don't have any authority, please don't take me--

>> I understand? I’m just glad you showed up, somebody from the city of Austin. I’ve been trying to mutt a face on this thing for a while and haven't been successful. I’m still trying and not going to give up on it. There may be somebody that has other questions, judge.

>> judy, a few weeks ago mayor came and testified to us that they had made, maybe not they, but that somebody had made a substantial offer to buy this piece of property from, I don't know if it's the city of Austin or Austin energy. You would know that. Has there been someone from webberville that has come and offered to buy that tract?

>> my an understanding is, and I did see a letter from the mayor to our mayor, it did not come to my office, imcame to the mayor's office. But I thought that had been, I guess almost a year ago now. Seems like it's been quite a while since that the happened. And I didn't see the letter for the longest while but then I did get a copy.

>> does Austin, I guess this is without saying, the city council is the one that makes the real determination on what happens with this piece of property even though Austin energy technically owns it because Austin energy is the city of Austin. Is that correct? So it is the city council that would make the decision?

>> right, it has to come from the city council. We do own it. We purchased it. I think most everyone knows it was purchased to be a coal powered plant and they determine not to build the plant.

>> in 1980.

>> yes.

>> at the time I remember, I wasn't working there at the time but I remember hearing it was going to be the airport and a lot of people thought the land was being accumulated for the airport but it was for a power plant. The most recent time that I have really done any kind of personal in depth on it was when we talked about building another power plant we used the sand hill energy center.

>> since you know as much about the real estate as you do, are there any impediments to this piece of property that would inhibit it from being able to be annexed, to have to have contiguous property, does this prompt allow for an annexation if the city wanted to do that? Technically in a spot where it could technically be annexed?

>> I think you would have to, the ones I have seen in the past and don't hold me to this because I’m not the annexation expert, but usually if you remember in the '80s, a lot of things were annexed. They went down highways--

>> strip annex.

>> strip a hundred foot down and get to where they wanted to go and expand. They did that on the lake, lake Austin.

>> right.

>> they went out and strip annexed but that was primarily to get the e tj expansion.

>> so is this property subject to that, in your knowledge? Is there a strip annex ation that has taken place? Can you technically annex this property?

>> I guess if you came down. I used to ride my bike there. I think where the property stops there, it's likes nine miles to webberville. That would be a pretty long haul to do that.

>> based on current policy and practice, the city council were to decide to sell this property and went out on public sale, do you see them restricting the use of it by the buyer? You would basically get as much money as you could?

>> we owe a lot of money on it. Bond money on it. I pagen they would like to get as much as possible am but they could restrict it. The people that contact thed us before were for housing. I say that, but they are in housing, people that we talked to in the past. And the mayor, I think that was his idea also to do neighborhoods. I would imagine that would be the primary use for the property especially since sh 130 has been completed to 71.

>> any other questions or comments ?

>> I just want to thank those folks showing up. It was kind of a late call, late innings of the game. But ear here and I would like to appreciate the director and also the city manager and the doctor from the tceq being here and also the city manager for allowing you to be here, judy. I appreciate that. I have some other questions but I will save them for another time.

>> see you all.

>> thank you.

>> now, we have a lot of folk coming over on another item at 1:30. Actually, 1:45. And if we want to allocate another 30 minute or so to this item, I need to get up there and get on the phone and let them know. Actually, a lot of judges on item 32 and other people on the precinct 2 office building. So who is interested in coming back at about 1:40 to spend another 30 minutes on this item?

>> this happens to us every tim.

>> unfortunately, the agenda is out of my control. We had people from interfaith come down on the citizen's communication this morning, seven or eight of them, and that item tk us 30, minute.

>> last time we were here, the people beforus sit there and talked forever. And you limited us to three nutes. I think we are being a little bit discriminated against here.

>> I think you need to know what directions the court will give. The city has asked us basically to wait until they get their analysis. They are saying they will get that in January, not December like they thought they would.

>> a couple items that I’d like these folks to know before they leave.

>> who is interested in coming back at 1:30? They will be here at 1:30.

>> they will?

>> yes, sir.

>> well--

>> we will come back.

>> that is the problem with a democratic society. If I had my way, our Tuesdays would last three hours, but I don't. So most of the time they last closer to eight.

>> I don't want to eat lunch. Are you all hungry?

>> if you all come back at 1:45, we should be done with corporations then and we'll spend more time a this item the. I need to go and call probably 15 people or so and tell them motor to come on two other items until much later. I think that if nothing else, we should indicate to you what direction we plan to take on this. If we plan to take action today, that's fine with me. If we are waiting until January, you are coming back in January anyway, right? If we wait that long on. Okay. Move that we recess until 1:30.

>> second.

>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. With director Gomez temporarily away.

now let's call back to order number 24 that we spent a little time on before we recessed for lunch today. And we were about to hear residents, right? Mr. Done lap, to show you that the city is fair, I’ve got more parking tickets at those city meters than anybody in town the last few years.

>> y'all need to take over the home depot facility. There's plenty of parking over there on st. John's. I think that would be a really good idea. By the way, my name is dave gunlock. I’m with the barton springs neighborhood association. And I’ve got a few questions and a couple of comments. First of all, I was wondering how many of you are familiar with the Travis County green print and tpl program? I know Commissioner Gomez is because she's mention understand their report of December the 14th, which I have read of course don't fully understand, but I understand the program is to create green space along the colorado river corridor, which of course a landfill on the webberville fact would affect through its runoff down into webberville and the colorado river. Next of all I sort of wondered if y'all have seen our publicity on channel 36 of November 20th where they did a real good news report on our fight against the landfill. Also channel 8 on December 12th did an excellent report on the new east metro park and our fight against the landfill to ruin that area out there along with our park. Also there have been numerous reports done by the "austin american-statesman". Marty tuey is one of the big writers in that sort of thing. Plus many letters to the editor from citizens out in the east Travis County area. I know that ms. Eckhardt is against trucking our trash out of Travis County. I don't really understand why because they have been trucking their trash in to Travis County for years and years. Therefore maybe it's their turn. If we didn't have all this trash truck in, we wouldn't have to truck any out. Now, I don't care about what it costs these big trash companies in fuel to drive their trucks several hundred miles out of Travis County because they're already spending the money to truck their trash into Travis County from over 100 miles out. Now, it seems like the county has the power to red tag citizens that are building decks on to their properties, driveways into their properties, and putting in septic tank systems. So why can't you hammer the companies that are trying to trash out our county? If y'all can control the citizens, why not control these big companies? If you look look around, we're gaining support by the publicity and the tenacity of the people that are coming down here every week or two to sit in on these Commissioner court meetings. And we're here to support your struggle to get the power to stop this kind of thing or at least minimize it. So now it's time for y'all to support us in our fight. We want to keep our neighborhoods clean and healthy and as elected officials of Travis County, you have both the obligation and the power to stop the raping of eastern Travis County. If we support you, you must support us. There are only two Commissioners up there that have to be concerned about a dup in their precincts and that's dai Davis and Gomez. Anybody west of 35 don't seem to have to worry about it a whole lot. But you are in our county and we do want you to help us do this fight. There used to be, I believe, a state flag that had a picture of a rattle snake on it. And it said don't tread on us. Well, I’m saying, don't trash on us. Thank you.

>> thank you. I appreciate your patience also. Yes, ma'am.

>> my name is evelyn williams and I’m with park springs neighborhood association swgd the hb league group. I appreciate the time to talk to you today. Eastern Travis County residents bear a disproportionate burden of toxic contamination. Our homes are no longer refuge from the onslaught of toxins. As a result we feel threatened, stigmatized and betrayed by our local governments. We are poisoned in our homes. Today according to the experts in the field, a newborn child faces a risk of one in 600 of contracting cancer by the age of 10. Cancer is the most common form of fatal childhood diseases and accounts for about 10% of all deaths. Physicians rejeghts genetic change or better diagnostic detection as an explanation. Instead, they point to the toxins in the water and the air. In the year 2000 a Texas state university student, gentlemenning on raffy student, received this ph.d for studying the occurrence of lung cancer deaths in populations who lived around Texas landfill. He based it on 12 different scientific studies that supported associations between the existence of msw landfills and lung cancer mortality. We cannot idly sit by while politicians dictate what science disputes, all landfills contain toxins, all leak through the air and water. Landfills are hazardous to people who live nearby them. We recognize that with today's technology, landfills are a necessary evil; however, there should be wide, secure buffer zones between landfills and people's homes. It is up to you as our represents to provide justice for all the citizens of Travis County. It is time for east Travis County residents to have the same quality of life as west Travis County residents. It is time for a change. We need to pressure these billion dollar landfill companies to recognize it is time to spend money and locate away from people. It is time to find alternatives to make landfills safer. It is time to pressure the marketing industry and prevent wasteful packaging. It is time for us as citizens to take responsibility for our own trash and work towards zero waste households. And it is able to for you as our representatives to stand u for all of Travis County residents. Children should be able to play safely in their backyards. Young women should happily expect the birth of their babies and families should be allowed to look positively towards the future of their children. We ask for a minimum of 5,280 feet, one mile buffer zone from a person's home from a landfill. Thank you.

>> I’m jermaine swenson and I’m vice-president of park springs neighborhood association. And I want to make a statement on behalf of sharon and claude bramblet, who are two members of our neighborhood association. And they wrote, we bought two contiguous 10-acre parcels of land on burleson manor road in 1973. When we applied for a septic system permit in 1983, Travis County made us subdivide the land into one 20-acre parcel and were allowed -- and were allowed only one septic system on 20-acres. In chapter 62, a neighborhood is defined as a density of one residential unit per five acres, and that's in the version a. Or one residential unit per one acre, that's version b. Whichever is adopted, we and many of our neighbors who live on larger lot sizes are excluded from the protection of being in a neighborhood. We do not understand why a safety buffer zone of 50 to 180 feet is applied to a neighborhood, yet a buffer zone of only 1500 feet is required for larger lots. Are people who do not live in neighborhoods immune to dangerous gases, runoff and odors? Is our health less important than the health of people who live in neighborhoods? Please give us equal protection. Protect our health from documented, dangerous gases as you do those living in neighborhoods. Please, change the ordinance siting criteria to include all homes within 5,280 feet after landfill site. Thank you. Sharon and claude bramblet.

>> you're aware that individual residences are treated equally urtdz both versions.

>> I thought it was 1500 feet for --

>> no. Under both versions, the buffer is consistent for individual residences. Neighborhoods -- you should 62004, version or not.

>> and my comment is a question. Did all of you familiarize yourself with the content of the binders, those three ring binders? Does your staff read them and then summarize them for you?

>> no.

>> the one we were given before?

>> the nice, thick binders.

>> I read some of it. I didn't read all of it, though.

>> I read some of it.

>> I can't say I read every single page, but yes, I was familiar with a lot that was if there. I was already familiar with some that was already in there. I did not have a staffer read it.

>> what did you derive from the info? What did you derive from the info?

>> that there are in looking ate went -- you may not have been here this morning when we had staff to bring some key points up, especially when you looked at b of this particular item you had two different maps. One map which was version a that showed if you apply the residents' request to chapter 62, it really did not leave any footprint at this particular webberville site for a landfill to be located. That version a is the same conclusion that I came up -- in other words, when they applied their criteria and made the adjustment to chapter 62 is the same thing that I requested when I made a motion to amend chapter 62 to solid waste processing and disposal to prohibit that piece of property at fm 969 and near webberville as follows, which has been describe later. Under an appropriate land use. And by doing so it would be the same results of version a here as far as applying those -- that criteria to that site. That's exactly what asked. It's exactly the direction we have tried to go in and this is I think the direction I’m still pursuing is to make sure that this particular site is taken out of consideration for a solid waste site. Now, I didn't get a second on that motion, but apparently the neighborhoods after they went through and looked at this process, applied it, but in doing so it just wiped it out as far as the footprint is concern. So I think that what I suggested is consistent as far as what we're isolating on. And what we're isolating on, let's face it for what it is, is that as far as I’m concerned, I’m isolating and focusing on one tract of property and that's that Austin utility tract of property, Austin energy.

>> did we give you a chance to finish?

>> the rest is about -- that binder would have convinced you of the science that current style of landfills, the usual lining with clay, the polly prop lean diner and a capping, that that style of doing a landfill is hazardous, it fails. It will always fail. In fact, the current active landfill on giles road is currently leaking. Tceq has evidence it is leaking into decker lake. And that's not a very old landfill. So if you want to dig a hole, line it with clay and poly propylene, that's the way to make it fail? Fail.

>> so do we shoot it to the moon?

>> no.

>> I didn't mean to cut you off.

>> and what do we plan to do about it? Since its government's purpose to exist to protect the health of its citizens takes political courage, which is taking a stand on n issue that is not popular. And taking the best place to stand on that issue. I hate to use moral like right, wrong, but the best place to stand for all concerned. Lincoln did this. Either the current landfill practices are safe or they aren't. The binders proved that it's not. Like global warming we have scientific evidence, but no one is acting on it. It takes political courage to act on these things. They can't just be a little bit safe or almost safe. If you can use the ordinance 62 or the health and safety mandate to make sure no more new landfills are created, that I think would show political courage and I have done a little bit of investigation on the internet about the way they do the e.p.a. Super fund cleanup. The cheaper way of doing landfills, and it's safer. It's cast concrete, 12 inches thick on the base.

>> super fund is for the cleanup of brown field sites. Not for creating new landfills.

>> but this style of landfill would use up less space, be cheaper to operate and safer, cast concrete.

>> if we take that to bastrop, no political will in Travis County will help you create that in bastrop. Do you see what I’m saying?

>> if it's a safer way to do --

>> have you read about it?

>> yes. There are some incredible innovations in landfills. And tceq does not require that higher standard. The only way we can get that is through contract. And we can't contract in another contract for that kind of operation. We can only contract in Travis County for that kind of operation. We. We have no power to contract in bastrop for that or lee or caldwell or Williamson.

>> what I read about the cast concrete storage cells that are seven stories high, it's best to build them on rock. Just make sure there's no caves or mines underneath. But sandy loam or clay is not a good siting place for this style of landfill. That means that the big tracts of land in western Travis County would be appropriate for this style of landfill. Would you have the political courage to do that?

>> absolutely. Absolutely. If we could find an appropriate place in western Travis County that wasn't shot through with karst caves and was appropriate for a high-tech landfill and we could make it marketable, absolutely. But I challenge you to fine that. I hear what you're saying and it's a beautiful idea. But we have to find -- we have to find way, y'all have ek changed phone numbers before.

>> yes.

>> basically all I’m trying to say is that the land in eastern Travis County was supposedly sighted for a power plant, this tract. And you mentioned, judge Biscoe, that the land is always chosen east of Travis County because it's the cheapest land to do that kind of activity on. And I’m saying that $7,500 an acre for 2800 acres in 1980 is not cheap and tfd not cheap then, I

>> thank you for giving me time to speak. I’m carolyn shin. Impart of the neighborhood association, but I come as a marriage and family therapist and as a licensed professional counselor because I come on behalf of the families that live out in this area. We just recently built a new school that opened last year. Those kids are so glad to have a new school and I’m sure that if they realize that a whole lot of trash trucks would be out there competing with their school buses, a lot of those parents would be upset about it. I was glad to hear about the program and projects that y'all do fund, that you do care about. I believe each one of you care about the people that live in Travis County. I believe that you're our friend. And I’m asking for something besides money, something you can give, and that is protection for those families. Some of these are the success stories of the programs and projects that Travis County has encouraged, has supported. Hundreds of homes have gone up in this area. If you just drive out there, you think wow. And you don't believe that over the hills and dales that are hundreds of homes and most of them are occupied by two-parent working people. They go back and forth on these roads. They bought the home of their dreams. They've gotten off drugs a lot of them. A lot of them have worked hard to get the jobs they've gotten. Now they're having a hard time making their house payments and just keeping up with being able to pay their bills. And now to feel like they've got to compete with a big landfill that's going to make their property values go down, that's going to make their lives more stressful, just getting their kids back and forth to school, we're talking about a two-lane road. But now it takes me a long time to get into manor, and I’m eight and a half miles out. And I go right by that beautiful park that we just dedicated last week, and it's going to ruin the air and the water and the people. And I’m just asking you to please help us protect this area. You know, this is the christmas season and we can celebrate in our offices, we can celebrate in our schools, we can celebrate with our friends, but it gets down to christmas day we're celebrating with our families. And you know, I can't save all the families of the world. My husband says, carolyn, you can't save the world! But I can help save my family. And Travis County is like one big family to me. We're all in this together. And what happens in east Travis County is going to affect west Travis County. In fact, I have two daughters that live in west Travis County, but let me tell you, I believe if we work together, if we do what we can to protect our families, we're going to be a better county and that's what I want. And I think you're there to help us do that. Thank you.

>> hello. I’ve been here before. I’m with the park springs neighborhood association, but I speak on behalf of the (indiscernible) for environmental strategists. I don't believe that you're necessarily concerned about the families in Travis County because we gave you a tool that would kill it and yet you still work under this ordinance 62. And it's defined in such a way that sort of gives you a way out where you're apiecing maybe the city and you're appeasing whatever special interest you're representing. However, I need to say that, you know, I feel like -- this is my third time and I just feel as if I’ve fallen down a rat's hole -- a rabbit's hole. And this is alice in wonder land because I hear people say it's not cost effective and yet I hear you say you care. And I hear you say no, we're not in the business of running landfills when you have run along with the city of Austin the brinkly anderson one. It's defunct. It's not defunct, but it's closed down, but nonetheless, you're still monitoring it. That's the 51st street one.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] however, there are no active landfills on the western portion. But all the five active ones are in our portion in the eastern sector. And as you see wanted to go close one near the airport but open another one in eastern Travis County. There are no active ones again. And the real catch 22 for you guys is that you don't know where the others -- tceq doesn't list all of them when they started to monitor these things. You could be sitting on one for all you know. However, and I think it's sort of appear proceed poe, the mexican-american cultural center is sitting on top of a landfill. Did anyone think when they saw this massive this is wide open, let's put it there. Doesn't that tell you something? Maybe it's sort of just one of those things that happens. But yeah, they put the mac on top of a landfill. And that just goes to show you that if we're not vigilant, then anything can happen. So no, I don't think you are in the business of taking care because all of the talk -- and as I said, this is my third time. I was even here on my birthday, but I need to do come and I wasn't going to get up, but when I started hearing the conversation, I was compelled to get up. Now, I’m

>> [inaudible] but we need to get in the business of changing our habits, absolutely. But we have to have a law of the land that says this is what we're going to do. If I put my plastic out now, they leave it. They take the newspapers. So the city needs to get clear on just what they mean by recycling because that's your baby. But I’ll tell you one thing, five active landfills in the east, that's not acceptable. The mac sitting on top of a landfill, that's unacceptable. You guys saying that you are not in the business of running landfills, that's unacceptable. Maybe you are not doing it now, but you -- you beg the question -- actually I began to wonder when you say that a governmental entity can run it better, are you going back into business on this? I’m going to pose the question, when you say that government knowing the city of Austin, the last time we were here on November 20th, we had sold the record and we have more. And I told you there are 2,000 other documents we didn't give to you because we figured we would give you time to read what you have. But to hear you only read some of it, it's like we're spinning our wheels and going nowhere. This is the alice in wonderland that I’m living in every time I come to Commissioners court. And I want to say something, and I used to be able to quote it in spanish. I’ll leave you with this. There's an old saying that says you have seen the signs, you have seen the signs, yet you still refuse to kneel down and pray. If you cannot write this 62 ordinance, go with the Texas public health code. If you are indeed, as carolyn said, you care about them because you haven't convinced me. You care about distances, you care about the cost, a billion dollar industry, they can have their trucks in timbuktu. The other thing is check your truth serum on this thing. We have never sent our trash across the borders when hays has five of them. They are inactive. Check the records.

>> I didn't say that. What I said is if we send our trash out of county, we will not change our habits. If we say you cannot bring trash here, we will not have zero waste in central Texas.

>> and I will], prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, respiratory problems. Landfills. Witht it. 5,000 feet buffers.

>> then you care abo absolutely adore to find a site, a piece of dirt where there were 5,000-foot buffers from every residence and was going to do a true zero waste industrial complex of green color development. That is my dream.

>> where have you

>> thank you very much, ma'am.

>> thank you v you.

>> anybody else here on this item? Anybody else who has not had a chance to come up --

>> go ahead, tell the people who don't understand.

>> [speaking in spanish]

>> thank you very much.

>> anybody else who has not had a chance to give comments on this item? Anything else from staff? Looks like we kind of got off of the two items that we had posted here. Any motions?

>> judge, there was some language that we looked at last time around and this appears to me that we're right back -- after all this has been said and done, we're right back to where we started from as far as the amended language that was introduced and I didn't get a second on last time the chapter 62. And the neighborhood version depicted very well. Focused in on that map. It shows no foot plint of a landfill at that site. And I think that is the direction I was going in at first focusing only on this particular situation. I would like to go in that direction again. However, there's been a letter submitted by councilmember lee leffing wells dl they would like to evaluate this a little more. They have been evaluating this a long time. I sent letters to councilmembers in 2006 on the same issue and in my opinion we are at war -- in my mind, we are in a struggle and a battle with the city of Austin as far as solid waste in precinct 1 in eastern Travis County. Now, I have not heard anyone raise their hand and say, listen, I represent precinct whatever. We're going to have to take our trash somewhere in Travis County. Hey, bring it to my precinct. I haven't seen no one here on this court that will raise their hand to that effect, say bring to it my precinct, we'll take it on. No, but try to direct it to precinct 1. So I’d like to entertain that same motion and hopefully

>> [inaudible] hopefully that evaluation will come back from what the city of Austin is looking at, we'll see what they are saying on this. But right now I would like to meet this criterion right here as far as what the neighborhood is coming up with as far as no footprint at all for a solid waste facility at this particular city of Austin utility property, energy property on 969 in webberville. So I may not get a second again today, I don't know, but I’m going to keep fighting. This may go ten rounds and maybe we'll get a decision or it could be a third-round knockout, I don't know. But I’m going to keep fighting for the residents of precinct 1, just as you are going to fight for yours in your precinct. Like I said, no one has raise add hand, Commissioner, I would love to have it in my precinct. No one has said that yet. So hold on --

>> Commissioner -- no, I’ve heard you. You just asked and let me give you something. If I can find 500 acres in precinct 3 that tceq will permit, I am glad to tell the people in precinct 3 if you take your garbage out two days a week, then you ought to be willing to take care of your garbage. You are hearing me. You've asked me that, I don't want to hear again that I’ve asked you and I haven't heard anybody say it because I’m saying it right now. Here is the progress that I think you are finding with some of us about a. I don't want there to be a landfill in webberville. But in my heart I know what is going to happen. We're going to put ourselves in a spot where the city of Austin will do what they want to do versus -- and I know some people say, well, let's just fight. I’ve been in those fights before. I would rather -- let me finish.

>> go ahead, Commissioner.

>> I would rather waitthat all of us in our heart feel that way. And I’m trying to get the ball over the goal line, but all of us know how to read the tea leaf. And we know, you all know because the reason you are so frightened is you know that the city of Austin has the ability to probable do what you don't want done. I would like for them -- and I’m very willing to say it, it's already on the screen, I’m not supportive of that landfill being there, but I’m not supportive of entering into some sort of -- doing an ordinance or something where it precludes us from being able to do a landfill anywhere in Travis County. And I think that Commissioner eckhardt is exactly right. If we apply a, if we apply 5,280 feet as your distance that you've got to be away from either one house -- I think the lady that wrote the letter that says hey, what's the difference in me living on my house on five acres or five people living in a neighborhood, I think that's a legitimate question because I don't think it's fair to that one person living there. I think that is an honest to goodness question that unfortunately the answer is not something that, you know, most people, you know, want to hear. But we have got to approach this, you all. Governments have to work with governments. What I have learned here is that it is easier for me to go to the city of Austin and plead work with us -- they know what fight we've been in in the last two and a half years. It's not any of us wanted to leave the landfills on giles and blue goose. But we are faced with the notion and we are faced with the actuality that zero garbage is a pipe dream. I mean I wish that we could do that. I mean I think that most people in this room probably say, well, I do my part. But unfortunately there are 840,000 people in Travis County, and about 98% of them have no interest in that. And none of us will be alive if you ever put something in existence, you know, to create that situation. So I think we need a dose of reality here and we also need, I think, a dose of pushing back in this thing a little bit, recognizing, sending the message over -- and I don't know whether -- I’m happy to make a motion about this court send over something we would like for the city of Austin to not consider that as a landfill site. I mean that is the court's desire. But before I’m going to sign up on something, Commissioner, that's in your face that I as consistent asou think possible when it comes to environmental concerns, health concerns, all across Travis County. I don't think nobody can argue that point here from the court or anywhere else. Health, safety issues, environmental issues on the western side of Travis County, just as big a fight there as on the east side. This is environmentally sensitive area. And we can't take that off the -- off the realm of destruction because someone may feel different. It is an environmentally sensitive area. This par fact. What I was -- Commissioner, is that I applied -- I asked staff to apply the neighborhood's recommendation to this particular site also. In other words, throughout Travis County, but how would it look on this site, and this is what it came back with, it wiped it a as -- so -- I said, well, that's the same conclusion as far as the amendment I made to -- before the motion is concerned and it was generated and I asked legal to do it. But legal, can you read that information again? 62.002-e, that language that if we end up voting in support of it because I think that's going to come back, in my opinion. What the language is.

>> [inaudible] set out in section 62.002 b 1, this section 62.002 e shall apply to landfills, processing and disposal of solid waste is declared to be an inappropriate land use as prohibited and a following area and then a metes and bounds description.

>> what is that property?

>> that's the --

>> that came before this one even went out.

>> it's contained in the did dunlop.

>> is that language in the --

>> it's in the neighborhood version. But that's the same language that I have suggested before and end result that's the same we end up getting in that amendment as far as chapter 62. I still don't want to divorce myself from that particular language. And we're just basically talking about that, but however, that doesn't preclude anybody else's particular precinct coming up from scoot knee as far as being looked at at far as landfill sites. But this does, the language he just read would preclude just the city on property for inappropriate land use.

>> seems to me the city wants to wait until we get the analysis back, one. Two is that I don't know that anybody has documented efforts to find other locations. And councilmembers cole and martinez seem to emphasize that in their written responses. So I think we ought to communicate that to the landfill operators. So my recommendation is to do nothing today and put it back on when it's right and what I mean by that is we know we have specific recommendations before us and we move on them. But at this time if there is any motion covered by the agenda, I think we ought to hear it.

>> well, I would like to maybe entertain that -- because I would like to keep my foot on the throttle, I want to keep the pressure on the city of Austin to let them know that Travis County do mean business. They have stirred up a horn net's nest here and at the court level, Commissioners court level and I would like to move approval of that language he just read. It may not get a second.

>> let's see. That is version --

>> it doesn't incorporate -- see, the conclusion of what --

>> I don't understand what the motion is. Attorney, is that covered by the agenda?

>> I think the agenda is pretty broad and I think the motion is just to add that provision to this current version.

>> to which version?

>> this would be the -- just that language --

>> to take it off.

>> to the version of the chapter 62 that we have now. The other two that are attached to the agenda have other changes. But that --

>> I’m sorry, could you point your mic toward you more.

>> so 24-b covers the language that is contained in the motion? I’m not trying to ask a trick question. I’m just trying to find out --

>> alternative amendments to chapter 62, what that would be.

>> and just for clarity, Commissioner Davis, what you are moving is that we include 62.002 e into the current chapter 62. Not version a in toto.

>> no, it accomplishes the same thing that the neighborhood have come up right here.

>> what's the language again? The precise language.

>> now, hold on.

>> what's the language again?

>> I’m sorry.

>> notwithstanding the general limitation on the applicability of this chapter 2 landfill set out in section 62.002 b 1, this section 62.002 e shall apply to landfills. The processing and disposal of solid waste is declared to be an inappropriate land use and is prohibited in the following areas. And then the metes and bounds description of that tract would be included.

>> okay, now, how does that square with staff's recommendation that when they applied a to the webberville tract there is part of it that would not be valid?

>> that was the version b. And the version b doesn't contain that language.

>> I’m not talking about version b, I’m talking about a on the agenda. Not option a, but a on the agenda. A on the agenda was to apply the current policy to this tract, right?

>> right.

>> if we add e, what are we doing?

>> we're saying notwithstanding all the requirements of chapter 62, e says this particular chunk of property irrespective of it meeting or not meeting the criteria is not appropriate for landfill.

>> inappropriate land use.

>> so the amendment basically is exclude consideration of webberville tract.

>> right.

>> that's the exact motion that was -- so you move it again, basically. Which is fine. Is there a second? Is there a second for that motion? It dies for lack of a second. I move that we put this back on in January after we have had an opportunity to review the city's analysis, after we've had an opportunity to have some input from the city that we try to put together a strategy that includes looking at other possible options in Travis County for a landfill. That was the recommendation for us. Thank you all for coming down on number 24.

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, December 19, 2007 12:43 PM

December 18, 2007 Item 24

December 18, 2007
Item 24