Travis County Commissioners Court
April 8, 2008
Item A3
Y'all saw my e-mail regarding mr. Gossling? He had other commitments today, but he will be able to come this afternoon. Our request for bfi is roughly the same thing for waste management, right?
>> yes, although the resolution is slightly different and the bfi resolution, it references -- to paraphrase it goes to baby-sitting the permit as it's currently worded to essentially babysit the 2015 provision in the provision. Whereas the waste management permit, it's opposed in total. The bfi resolution was written as a material interest in the permit and any changes to how it's currently worded.
>> I don't think there would be any problem, but in view of the fact that we added this sort of at the last minute on Friday, I recommend we take it last today. I thought that might be 130, but if this court follows the judge's lead and work expeditiously, it may well be late this morning, in which case -- so late this morning, early this afternoon. But we would take roughly the same action for bfi except there is different wording in the resolution. Now, we have not received notice of a public hearing for b.f.i.
>> the hearing for b.f.i. Is scheduled for may 8th.
>> so my recommendation is that we pull it up last.
a-3 is to consider and take appropriate action on pursuit of party status and any other issues related to proceedings before the state office of administrative hearings regarding the requested expansion of the browning ferris international landfill located giles road near state highway 290 east, tceq proposed solid waste amendment number 1447-a. Mr. White?
>> good afternoon. I’m sure the court is all extremely familiar with this issue be and I’m just here to answer any questions that you may have. The hearing for this permit is scheduled before the state office of administrative hearings I believe for may eighth.
>> let me ask you this question. Notification seemed to be a hot topic around here. How will they notify the -- will there be notification of persons that are interested in participating or being present in this particular hearing, how will that be done?
>> the listed parties of folks who got party status, a preliminary list has already been established through the hearing process. Those folks were all present at the tceq hearing or had -- or at the tceq agenda session or they had notification that they would be getting -- that the recommendation that was they would get party status for the hearing. So that was a fairly extensive list. That was unlike the item we discussed this morning I think that it was fairly clear who that extended list of individuals was going to be.
>> but as far as the actual notification, you mentioned a date here, may eighth. My question is how will those persons that are on there, how will that be dismun they will actually go through the process of notifying folks and let them know about this date?
>> actually, I don't know what the formal process is for notifying the folks who were identified by tceq. I presume tceq made sure that they would receive notification, but I can check that to be sure.
>> consistent with previous decisions and actions by the court, we're requesting party status to ensure adherence to the November 12015 date.
>> that's correct.
>> anybody else here on this item who would like to give comments?
>> did that answer the question for Commissioner Davis. I’m paul gosselink. Thank you for delaying the consideration of this item. Publication notice was in the newspaper yesterday. The tceq has mailed notice to all the adjacent property owners, all the interested parties and anybody whoals has asked to have notice. They've done that. I think the mail is slow enough that it probably hasn't arrived yet, but it should arrive shortly.
>> judge, in your opinion the resolution is really nothing more than restate whag we had done with our earlier vote saying that we were going to request party status, but that basically just allows us to do what we said that we were going to do.
>> observe and make sure that the commitment is kept basically.
>> definitely we understand it.
>> and when you go on the eighth I guess you would tell that. Commissioner, I guess we can try to commit to help get notice out as we said this morning.
>> yeah, judge. And if -- I want to thank the participants for being here, but if this is similar to what we did this morning as far as party status and also notification, so based on what I’m hearing today I would like to move approval of this particular resolution to ensure that we have party status, and also direct staff to assist in the notification process since we are not sure of the state office of administrative hearings how the notification process. So if there's anything that we can do to accommodate to make sure that persons are present as far as the hearing itself is concerned on may eighth, I’d like to maybe entertain that all in a motion.
>> I think I understood it. So I second it. That's to approve the resolution for us to assist with notification.
>> right. And the party status with the resolution itself as it reads.
>> with the county attorney --
>> and also with the county attorney, along with the motion to have the county attorney present. Included in that.
>> any more discussion?
>> I just have one. So the publication was hearing was in the statesman yesterday?
>> yes.
>> okay. And then will it runny other time before?
>> the rule requires publication --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I see. Thanks.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
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, April 9, 2008 8:51 PM