Travis County Commissioners Court
December 22, 2009,
Item 15
>> item number 15, consider and take appropriate action on the following, a, applications for site development permits for t.x.i.
hornsby bend east and t.x.i.
hornsby bend west mining sites, permit application numbers 08-2430 and 80-2431, respectively; and, b, road improvement agreement with t.x.i.
operations, l.p.
we do indicate that this matter will be taken into executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
if we could have staff at the table there.
the court did ask staff to look at two or three issues.
that were raised toward the end of the meeting last week.
amelia, we're getting a whole lot of feedback from these microphones.
it may have to take a minute to adjust them if that will help.
are we on it or we're on our way?
are you headed this way or are you just on it?
just like that it's been fixed.
>> here he is.
>> I was defending you in your absence.
thank you.
okay.
there were two or three issues raised towards the end of our meeting last week and we asked staff to take a look at them.
a couple of them were of first impression.
so any feedback?
>> yes, sir.
i believe that we addressed them in the backup -- I'm sorry, backup memo dated December 17th, and I will ask theresa and tom webber to speak to that.
>> did we share that e-mail with the residents who had asked those questions?
>> I e-mailed mr.
metz yesterday afternoon and we did provide that.
it should have been included in the backup that went to court and online.
>> okay.
>> it should have been.
>> okay.
and the gist of those responses?
>> judge and Commissioners, I'm responding to the question regarding the requirements of chapter 64 and in particular 64.064 that permits are required prior to issuance of a county development permit.
the staff has found that the applications do meet the -- for the mining site applications do meet this requirement.
in particular, the applicant is complying with tceq's storm water permitting rights and will be implement ago storm water pollution prevention plan.
because the projects are located within the city of Austin e.t.j.
and are subject to obtaining city of Austin approval, we have confirmed with city of Austin they have completed their technical review of both permit applications and are prepared to issue permits upon the record education of the drainage easements.
the project will include constructing additional driveways and the applicant has provided acceptable driveway permit applications for these driveways.
we have found the applications to be compliant with fema regulations.
and the applicant will be required to comply with the quarry and pit safety act which is implemented by txdot and are required to construct barriers from public roads and mining pits which they have included on their plans.
they are also required by state law to provide a safety certification application to txdot no later than 60 days prior to opening their mining operations.
and they are obligated to satisfy that requirement.
but in short, we have found that the applications do comply with our requirement that they obtain with approval.
>> there is a you are regarding u.s.
army corps of engineers and some standards that they have.
and I think the specific concern was that action taken by us may well preclude having to meet those standards.
>> judge, for the record, tom webber with t.n.r.
the issue here is that decker creek crosses under mf 969 under dunlap road.
there was an existing box culvert placed in decker cream essentially filling waters of the united states at some time in the past.
because item b includes a roadway improvement agreement, it's anticipated that there could be a corps of engineers permitting issue that would come about later, but before -- I was trying use another word -- before the mining can actually occur.
if additional culvert is laid, that would constitute the filling of water view and be subject to us getting a federal permit from the u.s.
army corps of engineers, and that's pursuant to section 404 of the federal clean water act.
the exact scope of the road widening and the placement of fill isn't known until it's designed and those designs are approved by appropriate transportation agencies.
as you are away, dunlap road is a county road intersecting with state road fm 969.
depending on the exact design of those features, county transportation and the txdot at the state level could be in play on this.
if-the corps can authorize the filling of water of the united states in two ways, either through an individual permit that looks at project specific aspects and impacts on water quality.
they do an analysis of alternatives to, you know, is there some other way in which this roadway could be widened other than the way it was initially designed.
they could look at things like aesthetics, historical properties, wide life values, flooding, et cetera.
but this is under the individual permit and it includes public notice, consideration of comments from other public or governmental entities.
on the other hand, there's a nationwide permit that was issued by the corps made available for specific minor activities that could include filling the waters of the united states.
there's typically very little review and a streamlined process.
this is purposeful by the army corps to make it easier for these more typical projects to be -- to be approved.
there's a nationwide permit number 14.
it specifically allows an applicant to get coverage for activities involving linear transportation projects.
the construction --
>> which one
>> [inaudible]?
you got two different types of
>> [inaudible].
mention the one before the nationwide permit, number 14.
which one supersedes the other?
do they both have the same merit?
apparently not.
>> yes, the -- the short answer to that is the individual permit would be necessary for more substantial projects.
but you can qualify for a nationwide permit to construct, modify or enlarge a roadway that would result in loss of less than one-half acre of water in the united states.
in other words, if what they had to place into decker creek was less than a half acre of fill, they may, and I stress may, be able to qualify for that nationwide permit.
one of the things that the fort worth district engineer at the corps has the authority to do is to deny nationwide permit coverage.
this is typically done when there's a presence of an endangered species or if the aquatic habitat to be affected was very significant in some form or fashion.
it appears -- obviously, it's the corps of engineers' decision to make on something like that and we haven't seen what a designed this kind of thing would be, but it appears to me that by adding to the width of that bridge on decker creek that you could qualify under a nationwide permit.
there's been some discussion brought up about nepa, national environmental policy act, and it's worth pointing out that when -- the corps has to issue and then five years or so later reissue these nationwide permits.
when they go through their process, they go through a nepa review before they reissue a nationwide permit.
in other words, you know, they are trying to look at what is the overall detriment of issuing this permit over, you know, wide swaths of the 80, either a region of the corps or nationwide as the name implies.
so they did do an alternative analysis on whether they should reissue that nationwide permit, and essentially they found that there would not be a significant impact on the quality and human environment.
that environmental impact statements not required.
they also determined that the -- that nationwide permits in the public interest and wouldn't result in significant degradation of aquatic environment.
so all these things being said, they went through a nepa analysis on that.
and it's -- it's going to be up to the corps if and when a road widening project is before them to determine if that nationwide permit can be the device to authorize this or whether something special or additional needs to occur.
>> what effect, if any, would our action have on the u.s.
army corps of engineers' decision-making?
>> this -- well, our permit is for a different plot of ground.
so this permit that you're considering approving is for the mining site, not for the widening of this road.
so they are separate and distinct.
but, of course, as we know, they are linked because once the development permits are received, if they are received by the county and by the city before the applicant -- before the permitee can engage in mine, they would need to take care of this roadway issue.
so I would believe that under a -- we can't say, I think is the what would the corps do in -- in considering this widening and whether they would open it up to a larger analysis.
>> but as to their decision, they have a whole lot more authority than counties do.
in areas under their jurisdiction, don't they?
>> their area of jurisdiction are those waters of the united states.
and they can consider aspects kind of beyond the footprint of that.
i mentioned some of them, you know, is there some sort of impact on flood.
you know, there's things -- there's impacts that could happen away from the actual footprint of the project that they might open up and consider.
>> okay.
anything else in response to issues that were raised before the latter part of our discussion last week?
>>
>> [inaudible] who in the public receives those actual comments that you just stated?
was there anything in writing, per se?
>> this material was summarized to some extent in the backup memorandum.
>> all right, but as far as the public is concerned, I mean people that are here now, did they get a chance to see any of this stuff?
>> Commissioner, if I may, anna boli.
, in the only person I e-mailed it to yesterday was mr.
mertz in response to his e-mails.
i did forward this backup last week.
with the anticipation it would be online and available that way.
as is the rest of our e-mail -- or our backups, but I did not e-mail it to the public other than mr.
mertz yesterday.
>> it would be good if they have a copy of this.
this is very specific information that he just revealed and if anybody like I am trying to take notes, sometimes you don't write fast enough.
it would be good, I think, ifwe can get this information shared, put it on the table over there so the public can have an idea what's been stated to us today.
because it does appear there are other players in this other than Travis County.
if even though there is a link between the mining operation and also the roadway situation.
so since there is a link, I just feel that they should be exposed to what -- what the army corps of engineers may have to say about this if the road is expanded.
it's other factors I think that need to be looked at, at least shared with the public that are here.
so I would like for copies of those to be put on that desk right over there where the folks -- citizens communication sign-up sheets are.
i would appreciate that.
thank you.
>> questions from the court?
then let's hear from residents.
we may need one of y'all there just in case we have questions for staff.
ms.
bolin, you will stay?
okay.
good morning.
>> good morning.
my name is tony alexander.
i live in the chap rest crossing subdivision in eastern r I want to thank you for allowing me to address the Commissioners court today on the subject of the t.x.i.
gravel pit near hunters bend in eastern Travis County.
today I would like to convey a few reasons to the county Commissioners court as to why I do not want the t.x.i.
project in my area.
number 1, t.x.i.
has changed its plans for this project so many times it seems the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing in this endeavor.
their representatives seem like programable loop recorders that the owners of t.x.i.
keep changing the tape on to fit the right circumstances.
t.x.i.'s representatives have made a lot of promises to our community and presently we have not seen that they will keep them.
an example, the conveyor belt fiasco.
number 2, the army corps of engineers or any reputable engineering firm has not been involved in the planning process as far as we can tell, therefore, we do not know how low-lying areas such as areas along milam road will flood.
there are creeks in the immediate vicinity.
the low-lying areas around homes might become like rice paddys after a good rain.
number 3, the thud e.p.a.
flooding and the large truck -- the flooding and the large truck issues.
this is probably one reason why the homes could not build their affordable housing as stated by qualico's representative on 12-15-09.
if I was living along milam road and other low-lying areas, I would make sure I have good flood insurance.
i'm going to call my homeowners insurance to find how this project could change my policy and have my insurance company call t.x.i.
and have t.x.i.
try to explain to them how this project will not damage my home.
i advise everyone that owns a home in the immediate area to do the same.
i am sure the insurance companies will ask t.x.i.
for specific details as the insurance companies will have to pay for any flood damage or damage to homes by vibrations from trucks rolling close to our homes every day.
number 4, if t.x.i.
maintains dunlap road, they will own it.
i live on the first row of houses above dunlap road and depend on that road to get to work every morning.
if they repave that road, even if they repave within a matter of months, it will be nothing but potholes and pebbles.
with the amount of truck traffic 250 a day the road may be impassable for smaller vehicles.
there will be only one way in and out for the majority of people living in chapperal crossing and hunters bend road.
how long will it take to repair dunlap road where it intersects 969.
i vote for no remediation talks with t.x.i.
thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns with the t.x.i.
hunters bend project in eastern Travis County.
>> thank you, mr.
alexander.
yes, sir.
>> hey, guys.
ryan mets, the one who received the comments from t.r.n.
i would like to offer a little counter.
i'm in con convince with most things said but there were a few things misunderstood.
i understand the role of the army corps of engineers and the department of transportation in reviewing projects.
i know txdot is limited to reviewing roadway improvements within their right-of-way.
similar to that the corps of engineers' jurisdiction is relative to waters of the united states.
however, when these two agencies have jurisdiction that overlaps, there is a interagency coordination that's involved that also triggers other need for processes such as the required review on impacts to air quality, noise, neighborhoods, et cetera.
you yourself ask the impact -- what would be the effect of the permit approval for the mining operations.
what you're allowing t.x.i.
to do if you authorize their permits for mining operations prior to the roadway improvements is change the thelanguage.
more over, if these things are separated, the noise, air quality and other impacts stemming from mining operations would not be included in the review for the roadway improvements.
only the impacts from the increased truck traffic.
which is also significant but pales in comparison to the overall project.
my biggest question is it's been stated repeatedly that the roadways are necessary prior to mining operations, why are we permitting the mining operations first.
it's putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
we need the roads to get the trucks in to do the mining.
well then we need to see proof that these roadways are capal of being built in a manner that will be approved by txdot, the corps of engineers and the county.
another thing that happens when you get interagency involved it opens up review from other agencies such as the Texas historical commission, united states fish and wildlife service and mentioned by t.n.r.
i would like to address the comments relative to chapter 64 of the county code as well.
the code states clearly that a certificate of compliance with copies of permits, not verbal confirmation, it says copies of permits.
the county does thought have a single permit of the city of Austin in hand.
only verbal communication.
it also -- chapter 64 also requires that all state and federal permits be approved prior to the county issuing the permit.
and it says applicable permits.
in my opinion, the roadway improvements permit is applicable to this permit review for the mining operations.
you can't have one without the other.
this has been stated repeatedly.
chapter 64, section 64, says that all permits shall be acquired prior to issuance of a county permit.
not imminent permits as the county t.n.r.
staff has stated in their memo to me.
chapter 64, section 67, allows the county Commissioners court final review of projects where projects have overlapping work within private property and public profit.
there will be no overlap if these things are permitted separately.
and your authority per se to deny the permit applications is weakened and to address the Texas quarry and pit safety act mentioned by t.n.r., the county says prior to issuance of a permit, not that they will be required to submit it within 60 day, it says prior to issuance of the permit.
the county does not have certificate of compliance.
and finally, I would just like to ask if the court is interested in upholding federal law.
the united states constitution, article 1, section 8, provides protection to interstate commerce from development.
the pecan farms that are located at the very end of dunlap road will be engulfed by this mining operation projects.
these pecans make it arrest far as china.
that is international at a inte.
that is protected by the united states constitution.
thank you.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> consistent with that in this particular case where to comply with state law they are obligated to meet a certain deadline.
we allow them to be in compliance with state law.
but they are obligated as they are to meet decided by any permitting requirements or their activities.
>> I'm going out on a limb here, but otherwise if all regulatory entities were to say we will not issue until all other regulatory entities have signed off, we would have a chicken and an egg circumstance where no permits would ever get approved.
so by being able to approve the contingent upon the approval of the others you were able to -- you were able to do the regulatory work that we're required to do.
>> I believe that's a correct statement.
i mean, I can say furthermore with respect to the city of Austin permit, we do work closely with the city of Austin reviewers on the project.
we're very clear to make sure that they have completed their review.
as would be common in other cases where city of Austin review is occurring.
so that same situation arises where we both have a permit to issue, but we confirm that we're both ready to issue a permit, but with respect to issuing that permit, there is a portion of our process where we sign the cover sheet of an application, the city of Austin also signs a cover sheet of the application.
we do require that the applicants provide us their set of plans that have all of the required signatures prior to us actually handing over the permit documents.
so we do find that built into our process is a system that allows us to obtain those written approvals before the applicant ever receives their document from us.
>> but if the permittee were unable to acquire the necessary permits that this permit would be contingent upon, it would throw the brakes down on the department.
>> we would be unable to actually hand them their permit, that's correct.
>> if we approve 15 a and b, how do we ensure that the road improvements will be made before the mining operation starts?
>> they are legally obligate understand that document to provide those.
if the roadway improvements have not been complete and found acceptable by Travis County.
>> and where is that provided?
where is that requirement set out?
>> that requirement is included in the roadway improvements agreement.
it will also be included on the face of the permit document that we issue.
>> but I guess what the gentleman that spoke before, and I guess we need an answer, if you have an operation such as this, if it appears that if you're going to have -- the roadway is very important.
the roadway is important for many, many reasons because the army corps of engineers have to be involved in that.
not only that, the road is important as far as the operation of the mining itself.
my question is why not look at the roadway improvements because it brings in other things.
we're talking about waterways, we're talking about a whole bunch of different things.
so is it any, I guess, disagreement with applicant that they look at roadway agreements first, especially if it involve the united states army core of engineer that may trigger other things in this particular operation.
i'm concerned we have a whole lot of different pats here and I definitely don't want Travis County to get in a situation whereby other things could have been done and we did something later on and say, hey, by the way, y'all have been overwritten.
i guess my question is has the army corps of engineers ever overwritten a permit that was granted by a county and something happening along the way and where it endangered, whatever and after that endangerment was realized, the army corps of engineers end up revoking any action that a county it taken previously?
what I'm trying to say is again, there is a direct link to the mining operation and the roadway improvements.
there's no doubt about that.
in order for them to be successful they have to have a road to deal with the mining operation, but it also triggers this again, I will say it with the u.s.
army corps of engineers, who has a significant role, I think, in this also.
so my question to staff is has that been looked at or have the applicant been asked that to see if they would like to look at roadway improvements since it does trigger maybe aspects of the army corps of engineers who may have a different view of things when a lot of things are unveiled?
right now we don't know what's behind the veil of a lot of things.
so I'm asking -- I guess I need to ask staff, I can ask you that question, but I guess the applicant would have to give an answer to that question sooner or later.
>> okay.
well, Commissioner, in answer of your question, what I'd like to express is that the staff did review the application carefully against the requirements of our regulation.
during the course of this review of course it became clear to us that there's a component of their process that would have a significant impact on Travis County roadways as well as other roadways, txdot roadways as well.
and we found that it would be appropriate for the applicants to address those impacts and to address those the applicant has entered voluntarily into an agreement to provide the roadway improvements that we find to be necessary and that their traffic consultant found to be necessary.
so to -- in order to address those impacts, we've drafted a proposed roadway improvements agreement.
so from the staff's point of view we've basically done everything that we can do under the requirements of our regulations to address the issues.
>> I guess the question is when will the army corps of engineers visit this thing?
what's the timing?
on that as far as them getting involved?
or will there be any involvement by the army corps of engineers?
>> as tom explained earlier, at this point in time what we expect to be the case is that the activity would be covered under one of these general improvements -- that's what we anticipate.
>> we don't know.
that's my concern.
>> if I may, with these nationwide permits there are certain thresholds within each one.
>> could you state each one again?
>> my name is ryan metz.
>> that's fine.
go ahead.
>> within these nationwide permits there are certain thresholds that are triggered, such as field calculations as the county mentioned that would require notification or wouldn't require notification.
so for instance, if the roadway improvements involved the addition of a culvert -- of a box culvert and it caused fill into the waters of the united states, then it would be a matter of how much fill was involved with this project that would trigger the requirement of notification to the corps of engineers.
however, being that it is going to be required, the coordination go through txdot as well, then the core corps of engineers will automatically be notified by txdot.
within both of these submittals to txdot and the army corps of engineers, the applicant is going to have to complete a purpose and need statement.
this purpose and need statement changes drastically if the mining operations are already approved.
the purpose of the roadway improvements for an existing mining facility is to facilitate the truck traffic.
the purpose for the roadway improvements is to accommodate a proposed mining facility which is completely different from one that is already approved and in operation.
>> one thing I just would want to point out is that because the roadway improvements are required prior to might not being in operation, at the time that those permits would be obtained, it's still a proposed mining facility that is not in operation.
>> I would disagree that in the txi submittals that they would say it's still proposed when they have a permit in hand.
i would say that they say they have approval from all others that they need to commence mining operations.
and that's what their reports are going to state.
>> okay.
yes, sir.
>> good morning.
my name is ralph newman and I'm a homeowner in chaparral crossings which is at the intersection of hunters bend road and done lap road.
there were several things in reading over last week's commission readings and the newspaper articles that came out Saturday, and having driven those roads, there are several things I think that are important.
txdot is proposing to upgrade and improve fm 969.
it's unfunded at this time, unassigned, and it is two years behind schedule.
and it starts at decker creek and ends at the bastrop county line.
now, in that work, looking at the average daily traffic on fm 969, there at the major turn to the east of dunlap road and 969 intersection, the average daily traffic was 2,700 vehicles in 2008.
as you get to webberville it drops to 3,500.
several things come to play at this point.
is that dunnlap road and the right hand turn that t.x.i.
is proposing would need to widen that bridge.
because the distance from dunlap road to the bridge is only sufficient to park one of the multiaxle vehicles.
and without the bridge being widened, there's not enough room for an acceleration or deceleration lane.
another component that has not been addressed by t.x.i.
in their road improvements is a center left-hand turn lane for trucks returning to the mine for traffic to flow at that intersection.
even if they put in a light and everything else, it would impede traffic because of the potential increase in volume from the 250 to 700 trucks or whatever.
so that has not even been addressed in the agreement with the county.
or with txdot as far as I know.
the other thing with the improvements to dunlap road, and the amount of traffic that they're anticipating, like I said earlier, it would become a company road, not available to the average citizen utilizing that to get up to 969.
which in the chaparral crossing subdivision you would have to go up the best way and turn on to hunters bend and follow it up to 969.
and it is not sufficient to handle the increased volume of traffic.
so there is no discussion of increasing our improving hunters bend road.
and at times in the morningings as you leave that area and travel west on hunters bend road and get ready to make the right hand turn up to 969, it backed up all the way to hunters bend road at that intersection.
so those roads need to be upgraded to allow vehicles and residents and everything else in that area to be able to have access to 969.
then -- which limits all this.
so I think that there are issues in the road agreement with txi that have not been I think that needs to be done before any improvement is done.
because their intertwined together.
and if txdot is improving in decker creek on, there are several creeks that they have the have to cross and the nationwide permit may not cover each and every one of them.
because they're looking at the whole aspect of the road improvement, not just at that one location.
so there are things that I think need to be addressed before any further action is taken by the county.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr.
newman.
mr.
priest?
>> I'll make it short and brief, but it is something new and different is the main reason I came up here.
i did talk to andrew hawkins with save our springs alliance and what I recently mentioned about the title 6 complaipt that was filed at the campo board, which does have to do with the situation such as this.
they still got heard.
and what I hear repeatedly from the county is that they don't have the answers, but when they do refer to something they refer to what txi has told them.
and so what I'm basically saying is that -- I don't mean to permanent lies this, but I do -- to personalize this, but I do feel that people and our community have been attacked as we heard on item 13, but I think the major disconnect is not with the citizens in txi.
i do think the major disconnect is with the citizens and this county Commissioners court because other than the four possible votes that this county will give the txi, those are the only four citizens in this county that supports this.
and I find that appalling.
and the reason I bring that up, this is so critical, is because basically when we come up against -- we have this situation and it's not being off record.
this is basically just historical.
we had this situation with our county employees, with ms.
perez and ms.
Moore-smith and we find -- everyone knew that this had been going on for years.
we spent a lot of money on conflict resolution.
we spent a lot of money on attorneys' fees.
these things are still out there.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I am keeping it to t.x.i.
if you would please let me finish.
i'm about to conclude.
but that is basically the -- one of the techniques that our elected officials do use to distract you to try to change your thought, and it did distract me and I did lose my thought.
and it's effective.
but basically, you know, what I'm saying is that I feel like the attorney general's and the county is our our county.
that everything in here is ours, the tables, the chairs, our employees, our lawyers, and I would like the county -- because there is a big disagreement.
there are many people that are far more knowledgeable than the people that we've heard from the county that are relying on t.x.i.
and they do have legitimate things.
and the county Commissioners court is not our district court.
and I think that is what my point that I want to make.
and I think that there's been very valid arguments made that there is law and there is things that the county can do.
and my position basically is as much money as the county has wasted in past lawsuits when they've lost, when they were wrong, why not once represent the citizens of Travis County when there is reason to believe that there's legitimate things that we can debate and argue in court?
because I did -- he truly believe that the only four citizens in this county are probably the four citizens that are on this Commissioners court that's going to vote for this.
>> mr.
mcdonald?
>> I guess I wanted to address two things.
one of them is in --
>> full name, please.
>> richard mcdonald.
and I have in front of me here a letter from t.x.i.
to the Commissioners court response to statements received at Commissioners court.
and one of these items talks about t.x.i.
and traffic conditions.
and what they say is constraints imposed by stint permit utilization of over the road trucks, constraints imposed by the city of Austin permit process prompted t.x.i.
to have to modify its permit application in order to complete the process within the city's imposed permit time line.
basically what they're saying is they drop the conveyor because the time would not allow them to engineer it, I guess, or something like that.
but then they go back to say we're very interested in pursuing an alternative other than trucking for raw material transport to the webberville processing site.
this is a draft of the roadway improvement agreement, and they say this dpreament shall begin when -- this agreement shall begin when we get the permit.
people has right to void this agreement if it maintains moving material from the property utilizing trucks.
my question to the Commissioners court is one, do you believe that t.x.i.
dropped the conveyor because they didn't have the time -- I guess you can't call them liars on their letter here, but do you believe that they couldn't pull off that conveyor because of time constraints or was it because of the -- they didn't want to go before a variance hearing before the zoning and platting commission and environmental board?
is that a statement that you all are comfortable with?
does anybody have a comment?
>> you're asking us to -- you're asking us to speculate on their motives.
>> okay.
have they done any -- I guess the other question is, if they were to somehow go back to getting a conveyor on the permit, would they have to get that permitted before they got their mine and everything like that?
>> if I can provide an answer to that.
they would in fact have to go get a permit revision from Travis County and the modification, whatever they might call it over at the city of Austin to change the way that they're actually transporting the mined materials to the processing facility.
i would also like to point out for clarity after court last week and after hearing the comments made by citizens and the questions about the roadway improvement agreement, we have added additional language that basically clarifies, even though it was true at the time, we just wanted it clear in the agreement that the applicant would be obligated to go to the city of Austin and come back to Travis County to modify the permits, if they proposed to transport materials in any other way.
the roadway improvement agreement would not terminate until Travis County has approved a revision to the permit that provides for an alternative -- a different means of getting their materials there and prohibits the trucking of any mine materials on public rights of way.
>> so if they had a conveyor belt, mr.
mcdonald, would that address your major concerns?
>> no.
no.
i'm really talking about what mr.
metz and everybody has been talking about, is that what they have done is they've separated the means of conveyance from the permit as a whole, and you're going to -- you're in a position here to grant them this permit and all they've done is agreed that we're going to find a way to get that from our mine to the thing.
they haven't gotten a permit to do that.
they haven't gotten a variance from the city to put a conveyor.
they haven't gotten a permit from txdot and the corps of engineers to do the road improvements that are necessary.
so by separating these permits -- I think that's what the issue is is what mr.
metropolitan talked metz tae understand that they've already done everything for the permit as it understands, but since then they've moved to this trucking of the gravel, and there's a -- is my understanding correct that they would have to get a permit to do the roadway improvements separate from the thing?
>> it would require site development permit --
>> and the city of Austin site plan?
>> correct, from both the city of Austin and Travis County.
>> does that include the dunlap roadwork and the intersection work?
>> the intersection work within txdot right-of-way would be under the jurisdiction of txdot.
outside of txdot right-of-way, the jurisdiction is both city of Austin and Travis County.
so they would require permits there all three jurisdictions for portions of the roadway.
>> okay.
my issue isn't so much the conveyor.
my issue is the gotcha thing is what's going on where what they're going to do is they're going to get their permit in hand by making this roadway agreement -- they're not going to get their permit to do the roadway work, they're not going to have to see what -- like tom webber said, they don't even really know until they designed this thing what's going to be entail understand it.
then they're in a position to come back, get their variance for the conveyor without the mining permit being in question.
and I think the way to remedy this by the county is to either connect the two permits and say they have on get their roadway improvement permit before they're issued their mining permit, or if what they keep saying here is if they want the conveyor belt, then -- it's not going to cost them any more with the county, right?
they can just revise their permit now.
we don't have a deadline, we don't have additional -- if they want to go back to the conveyor belt, let them reissue their permit application or whatever they need to do with the county to revise their permit, everything stands still until they either get their permit for could not vair or they get their permit for the roadway improvements.
thank you.
>> thank you.
doctor?
>> good morning.
liz betd johns.
i live in chaparral crossings.
i have some comments and some questions.
i'm still looking at section 64064, all applicable federal, state, county and city requirements and approval should be required prior to the issuance.
and I understand you said based on state law that they have met all the requirements they need to meet at this time.
we would like the citation for that, please, so that we can review that as well, the citation in state law.
and the next thing is will we be able as citizens to also see copies of those as they come in?
i'm very concerned about what happens next if we go here, who is going to monitor it.
we definitely want to be involved in seeing every single one of those as they come in.
the public would like to see those.
now I'd like to go back to the roadway.
the county does have some say over the roadway.
and in particular if you look at section -- the section of Texas local government code, section 233.032 and 025 and 0033, it looks like the county does have jurisdiction over these on roads and can actually talk about wider thoroughfares and wider right-of-ways.
and what has been proposed in the it t.x.i.
proposal are these skinny little lanes and a skinny little shoulder.
and so if this does go forward, I do encourage you to look at those and look at the law in terms of what the minimum should be.
my final is the comment to t.x.i.
i was reading the responses to citizens.
we do have a bit of a lag on reading the feedback and so forth.
and they have a comment on the property values.
and they say that they have mined -- we have excavated next to existing as well as newly built housing additions with no indication from homeowners during that time that there was adverse effect on property value.
we would like from t.x.i.
the names of those communities and the names of those neighborhoods so that we may investigate.
thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> (indiscernible).
>> media, we have an issue here.
>> try one of the other mics.
>> my name is judith holden and I would like to know how the -- how the legislature will give the county more power?
do we have to write them?
>> that's a good question.
let me say this to you: we have worked -- all of us -- every Commissioner, including the judge who represents all of Travis County, have had issues with land use authority, period.
and of course, this last legislative session I guess was house bill 4571, I believe was the bill by belinda bolton.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> right.
they sponsored it.
and it would have given counties a lot more authority than we have now.
and of course, that particular bill died in calendar.
it got to calendar, though.
that was a pretty good -- I don't think we've ever got one that far.
but it died in calendar.
and our intentions were to -- it was the type of bill that was a local bill.
in other words, it only applied to Travis County.
no one else in the state would have to bear this but Travis County.
and of course, hopefully this bill will come back again.
hopefully it will pass the league of women voters.
a whole lot of folks are behind this, including the Commissioners court, to give us more authority.
we do need help.
there's no doubt about it with our legislature because that's where -- that's where the lawmakers are.
we're subject to them.
as the judge stated, we can only do what they allow us to do.
we can't do no more than what they tell us what we can do, which is really -- puts us in a tough situation and have us grasping for straws trying to stop things with not much authority.
>> we would ask you to rally for that bill just like we are now rallying against t.x.i.
>> and ms.
holden, in addition to that, our delegation, we need to give them credit.
they really work with us and they carry the bills, but when it comes up on the vote of the floor,, that's where they've got to get enough votes to get it out of the house and get over to the senate and then enough votes in the senate to get it out of the senate.
and so it's just -- it's not just our delegation who deals with our issues.
they've got to run it by the others.
and that's where some of the issues come in.
and so I guess really to rally with the whole legislature, the whole house and the whole senate and ask them to see that this authority is needed.
>> thank you very much.
also I would like to say that this has been -- although I have not enjoyed coming down here and I do not want the gravel mine, this has been a huge learning experience for me.
i did not know how my county government worked.
(indiscernible).
and now I can.
i wish more people would do that.
it's a good thing.
thank you.
>> we have two more seats available, so if you're here on this item, please come forward.
yes, sir.
>> yes.
i'm kenneth cowen, research scientist, psycho therapist, licensed through the department of health.
i'm concerned with the issue of t.x.i.
not being allowed a permit to do mining on at least two issues.
and that is the closeness of two schools to be opened in 2010 and 2011.
as a provider for Texas education agency, a trainer in 254 counties for school board members, I'm quite concerned when richard franklin came before this and testified, he came in the power of a school board member for del valle school district.
i don't want to see this permit issued and so I -- and I don't know if any of my fellow neighbors have done it, but I do have a written request to the Commissioners court and the u.s.
corps of engineers.
that is what is required for the u.s.
corps of engineers to absolutely be involved in any and all questions before this court before it does take an action.
and if it's necessary I'll escort this to each of you or whatever it takes to make sure that a signed copy is in your hands.
i've not been sure that my testimony in the past has actually got in your hands, and I want that -- I want to be instructed as to how that does come into effect.
the testimony that we've provided in the past, much of it has been verbal.
and we don't have a signature on our verbal testimony except to call for a videotape and to see that that -- that those words are before you and actually written with face to face comments.
i'm concerned with the archaeological history of this area.
the native indians of the community are not being heard here today.
they've not been heard since August when this issue came up.
and they were not represented directly in the hearing that Ron Davis conducted in the east side service center.
we need the vote to be expressed that the american indian is remembered and that nothing is moved by t.x.i.
we have many locations throughout the county where artifacts have been distributed and put into landfills or put into concrete, put into the making of buildings.
we don't know where those artifacts are anymore because they have been hauled away from the location where they were left by american indians.
that is american indians that had freedom to run this land prior to 1836.
it is important that we deal with that question very carefully and that the u.s.
corps of engineers be the ones that pass on the -- and it's in their regulations.
and the other thing is public schools.
there is an e.p.a.
opinion.
i won't try to ride it.
it's in -- I won't try to read it.
it's in writing.
it's been in writing.
but that was in illinois.
it's quite emphatic about not having gravel pits associated with public education.
there needs to be limits as to distance from the gravel pit to the public school.
one conflicts with the other.
>> mr.
cowen, I appreciate these comments and again, I would like to let you know, and I think I may have made comments on this earlier is that during the due diligence in this process allowing and notifying persons in the community about this particular application process from t.x.i., it's one thing I did do among many others was to notify the dunlap elementary school, who is within the del valle independent school district.
and of course I didn't hear anything from the board itself on the position as far as on this t.x.i.
mining operation.
but they were definitely aware of this operation.
it's not that they didn't know.
we notified them.
>> richard franklin I think is still an elected official, a member of that school board.
>> right.
okay.
well, we notified them, we just hadn't heard anything from them.
>> but you had a school board member here and he did testify.
i hugged him while he was here.
>> thank you.
i appreciate your -- I ask that you do not vote in favor of this without the u.s.
army corps of engineers participate in the permitting process.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr.
cowen.
>> if you have extra copies there, we'll take those now.
if you them all to Commissioner Davis, he will put them all down.
mr.
reeferseed?
>> thank you again, judge.
this is ronnie reeferseed talking about peace, freedom, enthusiasm, dr.
paul.
my questions, and they may have been answered, is imho who has the authority about this on -- on this nationwide fast track authority?
is it the unelected corps of engineers and the half acre -- it was asked earlier, does that only refer to that one little bit or all the other times it crosses the river -- the creeks and everything, does all that add up to a half acre and who decides that?
and the other thing is who decides -- who gets to see, is it st available to the public the nep act analysis that was spoken of earlier?
i think we need to look at that.
i remind you all, there was a promise to please include promised mediation, which means more input from citizens, more meetings.
we need to delay this.
i note when had I looked at my notes from last time that there were so many things, quoting the t.x.i.
people was they're ready to go on in a couple of weeks to work out the remaining three issues, oblivious to the many issues already mentioned here.
not only the many adverse impacts on the overall quality of life for everyone, but who lives nearby, the 700 trucks, the ground contamination, the water quality, the air pollution from dust particles, severe.
and soil preservation.
we need to hold on to the sandy loam, which is so available, not to mention of course the noise pollution, bringing down home values.
and we need car safety and the banishment of remaining wildlife and the pollution from the rock, the heavy rock truck traffic.
and I can tell you those things are a nightmare.
they ruin everything, rock trucks.
just for whatever minimal payoffs or whatever for some mining exploiters of resources, let's just forget about giving them a break or finding some reason to not handle this.
find the way.
find wait to show leadership and say no, this is what the citizens want, not these few favor juggling individuals.
we need citizens represented by you.
so that's what I wanted to say.
and peace and freedom and stay out of iran.
>> mr.
carpenter?
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners.
i'm here today representing the ownership probably of the largest amount of property and the most -- probably the most impacted property involved in this discussion.
we own approximately 1100 acres and all of the property that is located to the east side of gilliland creek up to the site owned by t.x.i.
so basically all of the property between the actual quarry site there along dunlap and gilliland creek the property that we own.
we have a different perspective on this.
for more than 28 years our company has specifically worked in eastern Travis County.
we recognize that eastern Travis County was going to be the sanctioned area for economic development in this Austin region.
that it was one of the few areas that represented the absence or major absence of endangered species.
eastern Travis County has some of its problems.
the main one is it's got a whole large tracts of land that have now been fractured up.
and those land tracts for the majority is very low and flat.
so floodplain events are very major events.
our ownership interest have involved thousands of acres of development.
the socioeconomic change in eastern Travis County has been one of our primary goals in what our development is.
i am still one of the owners and principal developer, original developer of the shadow william golf course community there in manor, Texas, which was a major turn jornd project in eastern Travis County.
in doing that project, in our history out here, we have some very firsthand information that I would like to share with the court.
i have to confess that 1982 we began the development of the first commercial supplies or municipal supplies of the aliewfial water supply that today still serves the city of manor.
it took us several years to figure out how to produce the water in municipal quantities, have the quality and the volume necessary.
and we privately developed all those supplies and built an eight and a half mile private pipeline to the city of manor and they still get their potable water -- the first they ever got were from wells directly across the street from Austin's quality.
in 1984 -- in December of '84, we without cost to constituent of manor hooked them up to this first potable supply and provided them that as basically a privately funded public service.
one of the concerns we had in 1984 was t.x.i.
began assembling land what is now what is the sh 130 corridor, down towards the colorado river.
we sought out both federal, state, county and even the city of Austin's assistance in their e.t.j.
to try to stop t.x.i.
from mining that property because we were concerned about the sole supplies of water in eastern Travis County that we had just privately developed.
i have to admit that we had hydrologists and we had opinions, but in the last 25 years, quarter after century, those wells are still producing.
they do have problems.
the problems we had back in 1984 are the same problems that they have today.
and it wasn't actually caused by txi as we suspected.
what we found was that the influence of the adverse water quality issues were caused by nitrates and we had to shut down production of some wells and minimize production and blend it with other wells to achief the acceptable levels of nitrate to still be able to qualify as a state approved supply.
the influence of the nitrates was quite different than what we suspected when we originally opposed t.x.i.
and what we determined was after all of the testing it was all influenced by agricultural uses, it was influenced by basically poor farming practice that used a lot of nitrogen rich fertilizers, a lot of what I would call mishandling of agricultural cattle operations, particularly hogs.
the other thing that we found that was even a more severe influence on our water quality had to do with the discharges by the city of Austin out of their wastewater treatment plants.
we actually did specific testing of the water quality in the river and then what we did is we monitored the production in our wells to determine exactly how long it took from the trace samples of what was discharged out of those wastewater treatment plants upstream to show up in the water supplies.
what we found is that the transitness is very great.
within 24 to 48 hours the samples that we picked up in the colorado river were replicated in the samples that came out of our wells.
we found that to be a greater concern to us than the actual -- the nitrate issue.
so the bottom line is that for more than a quarter of a century, we were concerned about things that have proven not to actually be the issue.
the dangers are really the agricultural use of nitrogen-based fertilizers near the proximity of wells and exactly how fast water does move in that quarter.
aquifer.
as far as the volume issue, when was really my greater concern, what we found is that the mining activities caused a pooling of the groundwater, which actually kept the distance was shorter, rather than relying on that distance to be from the actual colorado river, it was from the areas that now had water in them because the levels had changed.
so the distance from that water was there from the water standpoint.
the other issue that I wanted to mention that I've heard a lot about is the value issue.
and we have quite a bit of firsthand experience dealing with values and lack of values in the northeast Travis County area.
the greatest impact on values that we have found in this area have occurred in the last few years was fema elected to remap the 100 year floodplain on lort portion of gilliland creek.
we were severely impacted on our property.
what we found was when we engaged fema that they were conducting this mapping without any engineered data.
they were making assumptions.
we thought that to be an unacceptable practice because when you have a piece of property that's out of the floodplain and suddenly it's in the floodplain and you have nothing to do about it, you're uncapable of purchasing flood insurance or conducting any kind of development without major remediation, then it becomes an issue for you.
and what we were able to find out on fema is that we offered to provide the -- privately provide the funds necessary and engineering data so that we could determine exactly what the engineering facts were for the changing of the floodplain.
so fema agreed to accept that data and so the lower portion of gilliland creek and all the tributaries that go into it, we actually did privately the engineering work on those creeks.
and so the floodplain maps that have been done have had a -- I would say a very devastating impact on the values of area property owners.
there's many areas of property and homes that are now in an area that cannot purchase flood insurance.
and their developability is subject to the potential for mediation.
the other thing I want to mention is that as a developer and supporting the economic development in this area, one of the things that we've done is we've done dozens of development agreements with Travis County over the years.
all of the development agreements that we've done have always been basically contingent.
in orders, in order for us to move forward and make the financial investment and so forth to accomplish the end result, we need you to know that we have the approval first contingent upon the activities later.
we've been involved in quite a few roadway improvement projects.
utility development projects and so forth in this area.
so this is a standard practice fro a development standpoint, the suggestion that you've got to go do all your improvements first and then talk about a permit is not feasible in today's financial or development environment.
that's just not a realistic approach.
as far as beneficial uses, the mining activities, we attempted to gain both Travis County and the city of Austin's approval for our property to be developed into what was the villa muse project.
as everyone knows, the city of Austin rejected that project and at that time I thought it was interesting, but a lot of landowners in the area called the Commissioners and called the city council members and were opposed to the villa muse project.
this was a project that was going to bring huge economic development to eastern Travis County and areas around this whole central Texas area.
it proposed to bring tens of thousands of new permanent johns, new industries and careers, new educational opportunities, but that was rejected by the city of Austin.
our property is four and a half miles out and Austin's five mile e.t.j.
and they felt like that was something that they wanted to preserve.
we are trying to find alternative uses for our property.
we have successfully achieved both the -- a cloamer that we can modify the floodplain on our property and we have explored the opportunity if there are any other properties in eart that could also be reclaimed.
we found that our engineers determined that most of the other properties in the area, including the property that adjoins us to the east and to the west, could not be remediated.
so the opportunity as far as value enhancement for area property owners I think passed with the villa muse project.
and the owners that could have sold their property then for what I would consider investment and other uses that would generate good values for them, that passed.
and what we predicted at the time was if that passed, then what you would find is the impact of the floodplains and other issues out in that area would lead to a depreciation in property values because they would be rendered for nothing other than for agricultural uses and for mining uses and that's specifically what we proposed to the city of Austin would be the result.
so the irony that had a lot of people calling and complaining about the traffic, the neighbors in the area were complaining about potential traffic, the lights, the noise, we scrapped the amp fa theater concept because of the noise issues which we would not be able to address, although it would be limited events.
so that project has passed and gone away.
the area of mining activities from a development standpoint, that sh 130 corridor is scheduled to be a major development corridor.
that's where the economic development, the jobs creation, the socioeconomic change that we want, is going to come as a result of that private investment in that major roadway project.
the unfortunate thing is that there's not public supplies of water and sewer available along that corridor right now capable of providing the type of economic development and services.
one of the other key components is basically the materials needed for development activities.
having been a developer of subdivisions and hi-rise office buildings and industrial parks and so forth, one of the key components of course is your concrete and your subbase materials.
the distance of those materials and the cost of fuel and trucking and equipment and labor and insurance are all factored into what it takes at a development and an individual location.
we have done what I call destination developments.
and where you're out removed from a lot of things, shopping malls in the valley and so forth like that.
where we had great distances to transport the materials needed to create the economic development and build the project.
so the proximity of the mining materials that god has deposited and where they are, the property owners that own that land have the only redeeming benefit of economic potential for them now that they are floodplain is the ability to obtain their value based on the materials that happen to be deposited on their properties, really is what's left for them as far as the capital system that we have in the u.s.
and I think that prone easy are entitled to those rights.
we're not blessed really with my materials on our property.
we have some sand, but we don't have any materials that we've been able to determine on that provment so we're seeking for economic development and looking for the ability to recover our property out of the floodplain and try to bring an employment center to our property.
area roadway improvements are important to us.
if they're fund bid t.x.i., that's an as sevment I would prefer someone else spend the money for those improvements before we have to do them if we are successful for coming back to you in a project at our location.
soiled ask that -- so I would ask that we support the county staff's recommendation, we support the project that t.x.i.
ask requesting, but we support it with the development agreements and the commitment that the roadway improvements and other things affecting the environmental issues out there as far as the creek and so forth, that those are addressed.
and we have confidence that the Travis County staff will take care of those because I know they certainly have enforced them on me in the past.
thank y'all.
>> I have something for this gentleman.
>> no, ma'am.
>> I am against the t.x.i.
permit.
there's many impacts that I'm sure people have discussed.
one is other roadways will be impacted besides the intersection at dunlap road and fm 969.
i believe that dunlap road will turn into a company road with over 250 trucks everyday.
the homeowners out there will have to come down hunters bend into my neighborhood as a matter of necessity.
and at the intersection of hunters bend road, Austin's colony boulevard and westall, there is currently in the mornings a very major traffic buildup already.
if you don't leave at a certain time you can sit there for up to 30 minutes, especially if there's an accident up on fm 969.
i heard someone say that dunlap -- hornsby bend dunlap elementary could be impacted.
there is also the new middle school there just behind the elementary, a daily middle school that will open next fall.
there's currently -- I believe it's a county built sidewalk going in there at hunters bend road at that four-way intersection.
children going to hornsby bend dunlap elementary and the new middle school will be using the sidewalks at that four-way stop where there will be increased traffic to go to the school.
i believe more children will be walking to school, even though there are buses for all del valle independent school district children to ride.
it will be very convenient for children to use this new sidewalk and walk to the schools.
and I believe they will be in danger with more traffic.
i looked at the new fema floodplain maps that came out, and my home is just one house away from elm creek, and the floodplain on elm creek has increased and is lapping at the backyards of my neighbors already.
i believe elm creek will be adversely affected by any impact to decker creek, gilliland creek.
currently at fm 969 and dunlap road, if we have heavy rains, it already floods there.
i do believe that the t.x.i.
permit will affect our water table.
we've already had our rates increased considerably to pay for our water and we would just as soon not negatively impact our water table.
i don't believe t.x.i.
will be a good neighbor.
i asked questions about -- from t.x.i., what water utility districts their permit areas will be in.
and they said as best they determined it is the hornsby bend company and possibly manville wsc.
they weren't even sure where their water was coming from, so I don't know how they can say they're going to be a good neighbor and not impact our water.
everyone in the neighborhood is against the t.x.i.
permit and I wanted to be here to support my neighbors.
thank you.
>> thank you.
mr.
holden.
>> yes.
i just want to address the issue of whether we have to have gravel pits in the e.t.j.
we hear over and over that we need the gravel and that's where it is.
i just want to give some statistics about the colorado river aluvium.
it is 200 miles long.
it runs from Austin to wharton through five counties, travis, bastrop, fayette, colorado and wharton.
and the mapped area of that thing is 14,500 acres.
now, if you've got 14,500 acres of good gravel aluvium, if that's your intent to dig it up, do you have to pick the 2,000 acres that happens to be in e.t.j.
of Austin?
that's all.
>> mrs.
holden?
>> I had a question for the gentleman who has left.
which was number one, when he talked about not losing the wells, I do not imagine that those wells were only 20 feet deep, like our wells are out there.
and secondly, when he addressed agriculture issues, our neighbors, the wimberleys, harvest over one million pounds of pecans every year.
now, that's a big pay back to them.
so all that land could grow pecan trees.
it doesn't have to have row crops.
so agriculture can be a money-making business.
thank you.
Mr.
gilmore, you had a question?
>> judge, thank you for recognizing me.
for the record, I'm henry gilmore representing txi.
i was raising my hand because I was wondering if you wanted response from us on that previous motion, just to clarify.
>> that will be fine.
what I would like to reiterate is that during this process, obviously, we fulfilled the requirements that have been set for the by the county.
we have gob threw a pretty extensive process in regard to preparing the applications, also with the city, as well as going through the road improvement agreement.
and we feel that woo e have done what we needed to do in order to complete those .
we do have an interest and willingness in working with the staff, county, residents and neighbors in assessing and evaluating, looking at this as evaluation in order to help the process move forward and do the things that we are required to do to make that happen.
>> I would also add first of all that we don't view those, that motion as being tied to the permit.
we feel like the permit applications meet your requirements, and we respectfully request approval.
but if you are asking us if we are willing to work with staff and the neighborhoods to address those monitoring issues, we are.
what we don't know is protocols, costs, what the standards would be that we would be judged against.
until we do, it's difficult to just say yes, we're going to do everything.
but as far as sitting down and visiting and trying to work something out, yes, we're committed to doing that.
>> let's work something out, right?
based on what I'm hearing.
and at the appropriate time, though, I assume there would be some report back to the court.
>> ume sure staff would schedule it.
we'll be here.
>> okay.
anything else?
anybody else?
mr.
rigs by, we'll need you on the mike.
>> okay.
i just wanted to make sure by asking, that I heard them making room for residents and neighbors.
and being a tax paying member of the Travis County community, that includes concerned citizens like myself.
i don't live right next to that potential plan.
but that includes others.
correct?
i'm just assuming that from the wording.
>> no, I contemplated that it would be people who had direct stake in the outcome of the monitoring.
>> and by your determination, that meaning only people who live within--
>> those who would have standing if something were to happen to their health due to the mining operation.
to their health, their safety or their quality of life.
>> and other concerned citizens.
>> no.
>> it would be excluesary.
>> yes.
>> it's my tax dollars, too, it's my property value too.
>> I have answered the question with regard to my motion.
>> yes, judge, Commissioners, mayors speak.
basically, I want to be sure I understand.
there is not going to be anything in this negotiation that has to do with traffic.
and it is absolutely a 100 percent nonbinding resolution.
is my understanding correct?
and I also agree with that that further complicates negotiations and I was wondering if that had been pass ed through legal and if I can get an opinion from county attorney whether it's legal to have something so exclusionary.
a very large part of the county from being involved in this process.
>> would you like to respond, judge?
>> go ahead.
>> the motion does not contemplate that there are going to be public meetings that would be subject to review.
>> sorry, I did not hear a word you were saying with the coughing.
>> the motion does not contemplate public meetings.
these are the kind of negotiations that would occur in any contract negotiations.
it is standard and yes, legal, to exclude those from the meetings that negotiate the contracts until those are brought for the in a public meeting like this one.
>> all right.
thank you, sir.
that is all I had.
>> if you come up with any unique ideas or perspective, if you would share that with the county judge--
>> I have some ideas.
>> I will make sure the committee gets them.
anybody else?
we appreciate your input.
this has been a tough issue.
it has not been put to rest yet.
but it has for the day.
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:
Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:44 PM
