Travis County Commissioners Court
January 12, 2010,
Item 13
View captioned video (Prior to Executive Session)
View captioned video (After Executive Session)
Post Executive Session
We posted the key x item and hoped to get to it at 11:00, we missed that target, and for those here what the county judge tries to do is estimate how much time itemswill take, and on every single item today, including no.
1, instead of taking 5 minutes it's taken 30 or 40.
so if we start 13 and go till like 12:30, I doubt that we would finish today.
so the question really is whether we should break for lunch and come back at 1:00.
>> I suggest that we break for lunch, judge, and come back at 1:00.
>> now, residents listening to this, the problem we've got is that we are behind schedule four or five items that we discussed took a lot longer than we thought.
and really, we never know of how many people are coming, give comments or how long they'll take, so we try to accommodate residents.
but we sit here at two minutes to 12 noon about to call up item 13, and it seems to me that we will have to break for lunch anyway at 12:30 if we were to call it up and start it.
rather than doing that and break for lunch at 12:30 and maybe come back at 1:30 or 2:00, it probably makes a lot more sense for us to recess for lunch now and come back at 1:00 with the understanding that we would call up item 13 at 1:00.
now, how many will not be able to come back at 1:00?
I see three people.
our question is not who wants to.
it's really who cannot.
okay.
there's three people.
>> judge, if I may.
>> certainly.
>> I'm sorry to interrupt, but I would like to relay to you or have teresa relay to you a conversation that we had this morning with the permit chief at the corps of engineers in fort worth that may be germane to what you decide you want to do on this.
>> I'll give you an update.
we have had a new development regarding the issue of the corps of engineers permitting.
certainly during the course of this application process we do ask about other permits that are required and we do inquire about -- if there are activities that would require a corps of engineers for a floor permit, and up to this point the applicant has asserted there are nothing in the mining sites that would require a permit --
>> speak a little louder.
for some reason that's not picking up.
>> is this mic not on?
>> get close to it and speak real loud.
>> I did have a conversation this morning with jennifer walker, who is in the fort worth district office of the u.s.
army corps of engineers, and she relayed to me that she has received information regarding the txi mining sites from the community and indicates that it raises questions in her mind whether permits would be required for the east and west mining sites to meet corps of engineers section 404 permitting requirements.
and so I did explain to her that we've reviewed the application, our environmental have reviewed the application.
the applicants asserted that there are no permits needed, and in addition our findings are bolstered by a review from the city of Austin environmental reviewers and other reviewers, there were no outstanding corps of engineers permits, which is the basis for our assertion that no permits are needed.
however, I must relay that jennifer walker relates to me that she has a question about whether or not permits are needed and asked that txi go to the corps of engineers for a jurisdictional determination on the wetlands to confirm if they need permits, but she did explain based on the information she's seen, she believes that permits may, in fact, be required.
>> hmmm.
>> could you repeat that last statement?
she what now?
>> she did relay to me that -- she would like to have txi go to them for a jurisdictional determination about whether waters of the u.s.
are present on the site, but she did explain that based on the information that she's seeing, she believes that permits may be required for the east and west mining sites.
>> so it would be helpful to do that first and then come back to -- that's the process here.
>> from what she said she would like to go to the corps of engineers to confirm whether permits are needed.
>> well, then they should do that.
shouldn't they?
>> what's txi's position on that?
>> okay.
when did that conversation take place?
>> this morning, approximately -- probably about 9:00, earlier today.
>> okay.
>> Commissioners, excuse me, I'm henry gilmore representing txi.
also I have david perkins and someone else.
this is an issue that was brought to our attention about ten minutes after I got here this morning.
as far as we're concerned, it's a false issue.
it's an issue that's been raised by an inquiry probably by one of the citizens.
we had our consultants review the entire site and we used not only the federal standards, we used the city of Austin's critical environmental features standards, and we determined that there were no jurisdictional areas within our mining site.
now, there may be some in connection with the roadway, but that is a premature issue.
we can't -- first of all, we can't mine until we build the road.
we can't build the road until we get all the requisite permits, including any federal permits that are required.
as far as we're concerned, the east and west mine sites and the jurisdictional argument is a false issue, and we are ready -- standing ready and request once again that you approve our permit.
if there is a concern that there is a federal permit required, we are not going to begin mining for some years now, and we will commit to the court that we will obtain any and all federal permits, which is what we're required to do anyway, before we begin mining.
but to the best of our knowledge those are not jurisdictional areas.
>> okay.
did you-all discuss this with legal?
>> not yet, but we require all the permits before we issue our permit, including corps of engineers permits.
>> judge, there was -- and I don't want to go into it, but there were several emails that came in from several residents in the community, farmer, carol farmin -- car lynn farmin, douglas edgar, don and julie holden, emails that I feel need some attention, so I forwarded those -- and also with ryan mets, who actually did send something regarding on the core of engineering, the tributaries, of the location beside itself beyond the little tributaries that feed into elm creek.
the prior three notifications of letting the corps of engineers know about the location.
so a lot of emails that have come to that effect I think that raise a lot of questions, but at the end of the day, looking at all these emails and even kenneth coin who sent something here recently about the historic situation, so health -- public health and safety being some of the jump-off points on some of these things.
so of course I forwarded all the emails that I possibly could to the county attorney to look at some of the concerns that the citizens have brought up that varies from noise, wall installation, pollution to the distance from -- john and judy holden said the distance from the site itself within a mile radius of the site itself, what kind of impact would that have, especially if it comes up under the purview of residential utility buildings and recreational youth areas.
so it's just a lot that I have asked the county attorney to review pending on the emails that we received, because the constituents need an answer, I think, to those emails that they have sent here, and of course I have not yet gotten all the answers from staff, and of course some of them are even dealing with the impacts, fees that may be assessed, and I don't know if that's a bracketing situation or not, but it may just be.
but it's just -- it's just a lot of loose ends that are still out as far as some of those emails that originally came in.
>>
>> [inaudible] for us to hear about.
the other thing, though, is this process issue about what permits -- and that needs to be resolved.
what comes first and then can we proceed this afternoon or not, judge?
and that's where I kind of feel like I need to get some answers.
>> yeah, I understand.
>> well, I think if nothing else we need to chat with legal about it first thing this afternoon, and, julie, you'd be the one we would chat with, you and others.
I guess you need to touch base with tnr and make sure you understand what that communication was.
but in my view -- in view of total circumstances at this point, it makes sense for us to recess until 1:15, which will give us about an hour for lunch, and indicate our intention at 1:15 to go into executive session with our lawyers, hopefully and be there about 15 minutes.
so -- and when we come back at 1:30 just receive comments from whoever is here to give comments and we can act on legal advice that we receive and proceed accordingly this afternoon.
so my motion is for the court to recess until 1:15, indicate to residents who want to give comments that if they're back at 1:30 we should be out of executive session, but -- and we would take whatever comments and have whatever discussions we need to take today at that time.
>> may I ask a -- for clarification?
>> okay.
>> is it -- is it procedurally permissible for those who can't stay but do want to give comments, to put their comments in writing and give to the clerk for the record?
>> that's fine with me.
>> I'm just concerned about those who simply can't come back.
>> good point, Commissioner.
good point.
>> that will work for me.
>> good point.
>> yes, sir?
>> judge, just quickly before the recess begins, I wanted to also relay that we have been --
>> state your name for the record.
>> I'm sorry, david perkins, with txi.
we did have contact with the corps of engineers office, ms. Walker this morning, after we spoke with star regarding staff regarding this issue, and she said there was a concerned citizen that indicated there was some question about our property, which was delineated during our due diligence process.
the second conversation we had with her was that she would simply like to have a review to basically just evaluate the site.
as mr. Gilmore said, we feel very confident that the review that our consultants did during the due diligence process was very thorough and did a very extensive job of looking for any wetland areas that could potentially be subject to the section 404 requirements, and they did not feel that that was the case, and we also, again, want to reflect that, and our conversation with the corps this morning is just an opportunity for us to sit down and have them take a look at the information that we have.
I just wanted to make sure that you had that before you went into recess this afternoon.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I would also like to add a final comment before we go to recess.
first and for most, it's the corps's decision on what's jurisdictional and what's not.
it's not up to txi or their consultants.
we have no issue with wetlands.
I don't know where this issue came up from.
the issue at hand, specifically it is a small tributary that flows to gilleyland creek that txi's consultants, maps demonstrate is a tributary.
they even call it a tributary on their map and delineate the drainage area.
I have a presentation ready to demonstrate how this small tributary would be jurisdictional.
moreover, the corps of engineers has also stated on record, jennifer walker that everyone keeps talking about, the chief of permitting for the regulatory branch for the fort worth district, has stated that they would, in fact, review the roadway improvements and the mining operations as a single complete project and could potentially lead to a single individual permit application that triggers full nepa review of the whole process, including impact to adjacent neighborhoods.
>> if you are unable to come back at 1:30 this afternoon we would be able to get any written comments that you have.
all in favor of the motion to recess till 1:15 --
>> point of privilege.
point of privilege.
>> no, sir.
>> all in favor of the motion.
>> I made --
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
Shortly before noon we were discussing the txi item number 13, when t.n.r.
staff gave us new information and we indicated our intention to call -- to go into executive session and in the afternoon to get legal advice and 13 is to consider and take appropriation in the following, a applications for site developmentses 13.
consider and take appropriate action on the following: 1.
applications for site development permits for txi hornsby bend east and txi hornsby bend west mining sites (permit application nos.
08-2430 and 08-2431, respectively); and b.
roadway improvement agreement with txi operations, l.p.
we will only announce item 13, it is the only one we will discuss in executive session, we will discuss in executive session but will return in open court before taking any action.
We have returned from executive session, where we discussed the only item that we announced, number 13.
and prior to recessing for lunch this morning we indicated we would give residents an opportunity to give commentses, if they have come here to do so, we did get legal advice on the communication from the corps, --
>>
>> [indiscernible - no mic]
>> media, can you switch on my speaker?
let me hold my head up so I can speak loudly and proudly.
anything before we start taking commentses?
then if you have come to address the court on item number 13, please come forward.
now, we have received commentses three or four times before, and a few hundred e-mailses.
I can assure you that I recall virtually all of that, so if you have something new and different, that ises welcomed a whole lot more than if you are repeating what you had told us before.
mr. Priest.
>> judge Commissioners, is the mic on?
this permit being on the face of the road permit that for -- agreement that I don't believe that txi has to do but they have offered up to do on the county of the face of the program I believe it gives txi to use that to come employ with a hardship variance with tceq and the city and one of the thingses that I have asked the county about and haven't gotten an answer back is I would like to see why the county won't butt put a no through truck sign on dunlap road, I checked with depth and text dot and they are saying -- with dps and txdot and they said it ises rubber star issue, once they get the paperwork they will put a no truck sign on dunlap road which would only apply to txi and also with bruce milton, I know some of you on the campo board have heard his numbers, he is the environmental conscious level engineer, he has done the traffic studieses when they talked about 290 east, these traffic numbers are off of this road and what we have heard from the county staff is that they have txi's number on the traffic count but this traffic count is so far off, it's more further off than the numbers that is we saw the city take on the wal-mart issue over at north cross mall.
so -- and I know the county also referses to atlantic's numberses and they haven't referred to their own traffic studieses which brings he to an issue that Ron Davis brought up last time we discussed this, he had asked ann bolen, around 2021 that she was to provide public information and put it on this table over here and she has not done that yet and I have not gotten a lot of of responses back from county staff, rt and r and I have talked with the same people, the previous gentleman that spoke right before we went to the break, I talked with nepa, safety lu, united fund transportation, the army corps of engineers and earlier Ron Davis alluded to a question, has the army corps of engineers ever shot down one of these small projectses like this and I know that sarah Eckhardt remembers when bill bunch brought this up back when jennifer kim was on the campo board and this same issue has come back and the answer is yes, these have been shot down on even small roads like this, which that one was, but bob Davis response was that it was just to get plugged for more donations, but I will not take any more time other than the fact that I do feel that the county is being comlusive with allowing txi to have hardship variance by entering into a road agreement.
I believes thes a cart before the horse issue, the only safeguards that the community has on this road agreement that it's going to be one or the other and all of the agencieses that I have talked to, also it is fish, parkses wildlife, army corps of engineerses, they say it is really a cart before the horse scenario, that the county shouldn't be entering into any permit agreement until it has been cleared through them and I think that's where the big crux of the issue is, that this whole process has become so convoluted now with monitoring, separating this item on the agenda from the permit to the road agreement, now another amendment with monitoring, that this process has become too convoluted for the court to -- to make a decision with all of the information that I still have coming in and other information that other people still have coming in, this really is an issue that these questions are to be answered first, before the county makeses their decision because it's -- it's a subject matter jurisdiction and I think the county should just stay focused clearly on just that -- that -- their aspect of the watershed, you know, protection agency, the drainage issueses, and I don't think that the county should be having a role at this point in time until the agencieses do their job.
thanks.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I am jew diss holden and I will be -- I am jew diss holden and I will be repeating myself a little bit but I will try to be brief.
colorado river a few yearses ago was a beautiful river with beautiful bends on it and now txi is systematically turning those bends into the river into gravel heapses, it is their job, they do gravel.
that is what they do for a living.
hunters bend is a very historic bend of the river, jameses ghillie land chose his place right there.
he moved his family there.
he was killed in an indian raid when he was about 32 but his wife stayed there and farmed the land for 20 or 30 more yearses.
during that time, among other thingses, we found evidence in the cemetery that keeling land cemetery that his daughter, rebecca had a boy christmas day one year, she died 8 yearses later, the little boy died in August of the next year,s and you can just figure out what happened, obviously it was a difficult delivery, and then on william dunlap hunter moved out there and bought that land from mrs.
ghillieland and built that big plantation houses and he farmed for cotton.
I am concerned because I know that that little bitty ghillie land cemetery was once surrounded by a chain-link fence further out with lotses of graveses in it.
the grave markerses are no longer there,s it is being used to grow miloh and corn but there will be coffinses and bodies underneath there and I want to know, hopefully we can monitor txi so that if we see any boneses being dug up, we can tell them to stop because that's what they are supposed to do, if they dig up boneses of human remains,s they are supposed to stop immediately and notify somebody.
there could be graveses all over there, I don't know, but I know there are some around the ghillie land family cemetery, I was told by a woman around my age and she grew up there and we want to monitor that if we can.
>> ms. Holden, I received an e-mail from ms. Mckendry, I think it is something we need to look into with regard to the historic commission and our local historical commission as well and add that to a list because I agree with you, and there are some regulatory issueses with that.
>> good.
>> so I think we should explore that.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> I think the whole court agrees with that.
>> thank you.
>> I am kent cowen psychotherapist, retired military research scientists, and an advocate for the guadalupe hidalgo treaty and those freedoms that it is concerned with, I do run the indigenous r and d institute in the school for sacred beliefses and practices, it is part of the american international university.
very small, nonaccredited school.
we are not here to defend accreditation, we are here to present information and the fact that there are post okayses deogma, naturally open holeses in the area, natural open holeses in the area, and this unnamed creek is one of those places where a postal deagu arch can be found, now, it may be last lost due to cultivation, but there are others in the area that have gone dry and, one that has managed to, in 2009, during the drought, when -- when the hill country lakes nearly went dry, it provided water, enough for a family to live on, enough for the wildlife and the family animalses to survive.
we found this information and I am going to leave this -- that part of the testimony to a descendent of american indians, chris, who is to my left, but I want to cover the fact on January 5th, the Commissioner's court, each of you received a copy of my request.
the first was printed by chris.
a specialists with mr. Davis.
that was presented to you in error.
the actual copieses that went to the u.s.es corps of engineerses went on January 5th.
one of the specialists that will testify contacted them later on January 8th, but that five-page document is from the dialogue-producing consortium, a nonprofit that was started in 501 c3,s that was started in 1967.
, it has been something that I have had my heart in and the other day, when mr. Gill more, sitting in the audience, attorney for txi received my card, I asked, are you interested in mediation?
I will present it to my -- to the owner of the company, stefan and others, and they have not contacted kenneth cowen,s so the gloves are off and I will fight -- I will fight this, if the -- if you put a stamp of approval, I will fight you -- each one of you.
I am here to say that I have been in federal court, I took on bexar county professional state judgeses and I am prepared -- the -- the gloves are off and I am after you.
anyone that makes a decision, and I am after mr. Gilmore and his troops.
that is -- that is it.
we have a problem that, in places where open holes have been naturally put there and provided water for american indians and then they put a gravel pit next to it.
it went dry.
we have testimony in the community, and our band is no less than 300 right now.
that will come up in the next person's testimony.
I have something in this bag that has -- that has the next testimony, if it's permissible, I will take it out and put a mokahepay,s in front of you, and this is the kind of things that are in the 2000-acres that you have coming before you.
thank you.
>> thank you.
there are three seatses available to those which to give comments today.
>> hello.
my name is christina nava, you asked if there was anyone from the neighborhood that would like to speak.
I am from the neighborhood and yes, I would like to speak.
as -- I have evidence here, if I may, and kennith will help me.
so you can see what it is that I do -- I am bringing.
and these are found through families who live in the area after they have -- they also
>> [indiscernible], they turn to soil, and they have seen -- have these in their -- on their land, and I have been over 300 people, and I have spoken with them.
and these people -- some of them have been there for four generations or more.
this txi rattle pit will be hurting them, their familieses, their future.
are we not always saying that our children are our future?
this will not be a good thing for the children.
thanks.
as an american indian -- I am a descendent of the american indian, I do not wish for any --
>> we may need you to speak into into that mic.
>> sorry.
I do not wish for any of our native history to be lost.
I thank you for your time and your patience, but please consider that we need our history in order to know where we have been, where we are going to, so we will not make the same mistakes again.
I thank you.
>> could we get information on where these items were recovered?
>> these items were recovered on or about -- I am not at liberty to say exactly the address, around the dunlap area.
>> okay.
>> so -- so on property near the site proposed by txi?
>> yes, sir.
yes, sir.
now, they -- these -- these families have the natural water holes.
and there are more artifacts here and this mokahepa one one of the things as they were telling the soil, half of it was still under ground and the other half was sticking up.
they dug it out ands thises what they found, so I am more than sure that there is more artifacts so please help uses, don't destroy our history, please.
>> and are these like sinkholes like sonatas or water holes along tributaries.
>> no, these are natural water holes, they look like what we would call a pond.
>> okay.
>> okay.
it's natural.
it's not something that you have big, and put water in.
no, this is something natural.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
for.
>> hi, my name is lorena cruz, I can speak spanish for you, I am asking, if that is okay with you.
>> okay.
>> [speaking spanish]
>> I December we don't have an
>> I guess e we don't have an interpreter --
>> I can speak englishish 23 you don't understand, but it is more comfortable to speak in spanish.
>> well you can say it but we can understand it.
I speak spanish but I don't know about the others on the courtch.
do we have an interpreter nearby?
can somebody in my office assist us?
>> we have people in my office if you want to delay her testimony for a few minutes to get somebody down.
>> I wasn't joking when I said somebody in my office.
let's come back to you, okay, so -- but we want to hear what you say and understand it.
yes, sir.
>> good afternoon, I am ryan ma Texass, resident of Austin colony.
judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you again, my friends and neighbors and I are here to request once more our county representatives require txi to apply for one single permit applying for construction activities associated with these sand and gravel mines,s including roadway improvementses to accommodate the additional truck traffic to proposed mining siteses to txi weber ville processing plant.
at this time we are here from the support from united states army corps of engineerses.
at procedures you hearings we raised concerns about the county's transportation and natural resources department, supporting approval of txi's application of permit while chapter 64 of the Travis County code says all applicable will be in hand prior to approval and issuance of the permit.
it is clear that permitses to immove the roadwayses are not in txi's hands, nor approval from the core for the mining operation which it turns out they will need.
at previous meetings we were told of concessions being made by txi.
we were told by t.n.r.
that txi had met all of the county requirements and did not need further approval from other agencies, told roadwayism proves would require coordination from txdot and the core of engineers but these would have no jurisdiction over or interest in proposed mining siteses, we were told by county attorneys that is the permits of the roadway would not be granted with the mining site permits first, Commissioners we were told wrong, if media can start the slide show, I would like to provide a little bit of demonstration on some of the fallacies that were within the information we were provided at these previous meetings.
I realize it is a little bit difficult to read the actual text from the letter that the company here, buts thes -- to let you know, this was obtained from the city of Austin permit review master comment report for the txi hornses bibend east application, specifically brad jackson, environmental reviewer from the city of Austin comments here, it's listed as eb15 and reads, upon closer study of the site it appearses from g irk s that there is a small tributary connecting to ghillieland creek that may have a drainage area large enough to make it a classified water way and classified water way in Austin has to have drainage area of 320-acreses or greater.
this tributary is located halfway between elm creek and colorado river, parallel to elm creek, if this tributary is classified it needs to be shown and any crossing of critical water zone need to be included in variance request letter and preparation, please provide drainage area calculations for the tributary.
so I like to explain briefly what this means.
if you can see the highlighted blue line there, towards the east of the site, you will -- that is the small tributary for which the city of Austin was requesting more information.
you will notice it is smack dab in the middle of the largests area proposed for mining within the entire east and west sites.
>> do you have any documentation regarding city of Austin having received the additional requested information and what they -- what their determine neigh was?
>> if I may, I will continue.
>> sorry.
>> no worrieses.
txi responded, saying attached exhibit delineating drainage boundary for area in question, as noted in the exhibit, total area is 242-acres, additional elevation callouts are provided on the exhibit to aid in boundary delineation, so what txi is saying and provided demonstration to support that this tributary has drainage area less than 328-acreses, thereby not be classified as water way per city of Austin regulationses.
here is the actual map they submitted to demonstrate that.
it shows the 242-acres that are delineated that provide drainage to the tributary and take note to the title of the map.
txi hornsby east tributary, this map was put together by txi consultants, they call it tributary.
what about the core restrictions, I have a diagram from the excerpt from this book which is showed lower left-hand side of the slide, it is u.s.
army of corps, u.s.es jurisdictional form and instructional guidebook.
>> you see the arrow that points to the scenario that is most closely related to the subject tributary at hand.
so it points to this small, nonnavigable, not relevant tributary which connects to a nonnavigle, relatively tributary which connects to a traditional navigable water and here we have small nonnavigle tributary which flows to a water which flows to traditional, water, that being the colorado river.
again, this tributary is smack dab in the middle in the largest area proposed for mining at the site.
there is a nationwide permit that allowses applicants to conduct mining operations from the corps of engineer, nationwide permit 44.
it states mining activitieses, discharge of dredge or fill material in the nontitle waters of the united states for mining activities, except coal might being activities,s discharge must not cost of less than one half acre of the united states and this does not authorize discharges into nonentitle wetlands adjacent to title waters.
notification, the permit tee must submit a preconstruction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity, if reclamations required by oh statutes then a copy of the reclamation plan must be added.
one thing to note as all nationwide permitses through the corps of engineers, applicants are required to coordinate with other state and federal agencieses such as Texas historical commission who would be very interested in the artifacts presented today, as well as the other historic nature of adjacent sites.
as y'all were made aware this morning, I redirectly had contact with jennifer walker, chief of regulatory bran p for the united states army corps of engineers fort worth district, fort worth district is the district that has jurisdiction over Travis County.
in addition to requiring a nationwide permit for the loss of the small tributary, ms. Walker stated that the corps would review the entire proposed mining operationses, including roadway improvements for potential impactses to waters of the united states.
she went on to say that the corps would most certainly review the roadway improvements and mining operations site development as a single complete project that do not have independent utility.
and as such, may require a standard individual permit which carries a full and complete nepa review.
here is an excerpt from the e-mail documentation that she sent to me, basically answering my four simple questions, her direct quotes are in blue.
I believe I sent a copy of this e-mail to each one of you this morning, number 1, based on regulation set forth by section 44 of the clone water act would txi be required to notify 2 core prior to excavating small tricktory to ghillie land creek as demonstrated by the attached figureses which were generated by txi's consultants, jennifer walker response.
at minimum the applicant would be required to submit a precaulktion application in compliance with permit number 44.
number 2 has the corps received anything with regard to txi's relative activities.
jennifer walk's answers, none to date.
question 3, would the court review the roadway improvements and mining operations to have independent utility even though the mining activities would not be feasible as proposed without the roadway improvements?
ms. Walker's answer, all elements including any roadway improvements necessary to accomplish the project would be evaluated as one single and complete project and would, therefore, need to be told relativel to permit thresholds.
we do not piece mill projects so that apcontacts to inappropriately stack nationwide permits.
question 4, if these projects are viewed by the corps as dependent upon each other, would txi be required to submit one comprehensive pcn for all applicable nationwide permits or perhaps a standard individual permit application?
ms. Walker's answer, at minimum, a pcn or perhaps an individual permit if thresholdses for all elements of the prompt exceed nationwide permit requirements.
this means the corps will not issue a permit until design plans are prepared and submitted for the roadway improvement.
regardless of the extent to which you say is permits will be required, we know now that txi will not have corps approval for quite some time.
chapter ter 64.066 of the Travis County state, states state and federal permits for proposed development within the please hazard area, the applicant or its agent shall verify all necessary reviews and permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by federal or state law.
not assert that these permits are in hand or that are not needed, verify.
please require documentation that proves txi's in compliance with all state and federal regulations prior to granting a county permit.
their word is no longer dependable.
please do not authorize txi to separate their big project into smaller projects, allowing them to streamline permit review and sweep ignored regulation under the rug.
we ask you deny permit regulations and send txi back to drawing board and require them to re-submit when they make concession to apply with appropriate regulations.
txi claims there are no streams to be impacted as a result of the mining operations, despite the clear evidence otherwise.
nevermind the fact that the chief of the permit -- chief of permitting saysive txi needs a course permit, not one permit but permit review for all improvements associated with the project, per code of federal regulations and clean water act, corps of engineer has final word on jurisdictions and determinations for waters of the united states, not Travis County, not txi, and not txi's consultants.
are we'rously considering taking txi's point of view over the corps?
the regulator, backed by federal law, has spoken, end of discussion.
if txi was so confident on their consul at that point's assessment, then why didn't they seek corps concurrence, due diligence is not include something like this in projects of this magnitude.
I hope the county attorney also form the opinion that you, judge Biscoe and each Commissioner here today do, in fact, have the authority you have desperately been seeking to deny these permit applications.
please use the authority, follow the federal lead and require one permit application for all related activities with one comprehensive review by all applicable agencies.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Much.
mitch.
>> [applause]
>> and mr. Mitch, as I stated earlier in this, before we started taking comments, I wanted to make sure that all of the e-mailses that are received did get to the proper channels, and of course yours was one of them, which -- that dealt with army corps of engineers and of course several folks, ms. Foreman, several here have done, judy holden, their particular e-mails, so so all of the e-mails you sent, I don't want anybody to think they sit idolly by as far as getting answers to those e-mails, so if you are still looking for answers on a lot of these things, well, they were sent to the proper person to receive answers, so I wanted to make sure that they got the proper exposure to get some attention.
thank you.
>> we have an interpreter for you.
>> gracias.
>> [speaking spanish] lorena cruzand she is here to re people of the santa barbara church.
she 255 members who live surrounding the church area.
and the church is next to the school, harvey vin.
>> we are here -- she is here to represent the people of her community.
they are the majority of them only speak 20, 30, maybe even 50% just like she does of english and they just found out about this and they are very concerned about what is going on in their neighborhood.
>> with the new construction of the middle school, there is already a lot of traffic and a lot of concerns that with that, it's going to make traffic even more so heavier.
there has already been accidents that have occurred this location and they are feared that is also going to cause more traffic and accidents.
>> there are a lot of children who are affected by the asthma -- that already have asthma that, with this, it is going to cause more problems for them, and that, you know, there is a lot of people that she's already asked, why don't you call the Commissioners and ask them -- and let them hear and voice your opinions and she says that -- that they are telling her that there is not anybody that can represent -- or understand their -- understand -- that y'all don't understand them because y'all don't speak spanish, and that's her concerns and she's here to say that she's speaking on their behalf.
>> there are five other people, family members of families who are here --
>>
>> [indiscernible - no mic]
>> these are the people who are here, who unfortunately don't understand what is going on in their community and they are concerned that with this happening, that they are not -- their voices will not be heard.
>> if you are not hearing from us, it's not because we are not concerned.
it's because we -- by the time the news hits to our -- to our community, it comes in english and then we have no way of voicing back to y'all our concerns.
thank you for hearing me.
thank you for allowing me to have an interpreter and also, thank you for hearing -- and being concerned.
I want to express that I also am concerned about the traffic because we don't want the traffic.
we don't want any more problems in our area.
>> and illness.
>> and illness.
>> how close is the church to the harvey bend elementary school?
how close is that?
>> across the school.
>> right next to each other.
>> right next to each other.
>> yes.
>> so you have a situation, I guess, whereby as far as the children and all of the other things in that area, I can see definitely where your concern is, so let her know that.
>> this is just a comment I want to make and just put this in your mind, is that there has been a lot of accidents where people have lost their -- their lives, by 18 wheelers and she can't even fathom the thought of there being an 18 wheeler involved with a school bus, now that there is going to be a new school added, and she just can't imagine what type of accident could possibly come from this, so she just wants to throw that and have that kind of -- put it in the back of your mind so that y'all are aware.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> gracias.
>> thank you.
>> [applause]
>> gracias.
>> [applause]
>> I am
>> [indiscernible - no mic] from
>> [indiscernible - no mic] and the last time I was here it was questioned whether or not I would want monitoring of the water and the air quality and at the time -- and of course I would but the more and more I thought about it, the less secure that suggestion even made me, because who is going to be doing the monitoring?
is it txi doing the monitoring?
what's the repercussions if the water quality diminishes and our air quality diminishes?
do they have to stop their project?
I don't think so.
is there going to be fines, I think, for the company that has the largest lobby, and all of Texas, a fine probably is going to do a whole lot and it seems to me even if we are keeping an eye on the air quality and the water quality, that they will just continue to pay the fines and we will continue to have dust and -- if this was your neighborhood, Commissioner, Eckhardt and judge Biscoe, and Commissioner Gomez, you would have voted with Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Davis to deny this permit last time, but because we are not your neighborses and because we don't fit in a certain economic bracket, it is okay to poison our water and destroy our lungs and devalue our property, and I heard you say earlier, Commissioner Gomez in another discussion that you believe the Commissionerses are here to come to the aid of the citizenses of Travis County and these are citizenses of Travis County that need your aid right now and unfortunately it seemses that the majority of you have stopped working for the citizens of Travis County and started working on the benefit of txi and I would just ask that you not do that because if it were your neighborhood and it was your livelihood, you would find the regulatory authority to deny these permits, so please deny these permits.
>> I want to speak to what you asked at the beginning of your statements.
the -- there is a separate agenda item to contemplate -- for this court to contemplate Travis County entering into monitoring -- doing monitoring, not txi, for Travis County to develop the scope in collaboration with the city of Austin and other governmental agencies for monitoring, and additionally, if there were -- if there does come to light through monitoring evidence of pointses where discharge in water and air, there is injunctive relief contemplated by statute.
injunctive relief, meaning they would have to stop.
that is the point and the point is to enter into monitoring so that there would be a body of evidence to make them stop.
that is coming to the aid of the residentses, if the mine goes in, a monitoring regimen would be the kind of aid the residents would really need because that kind of monitoring is outside the financial wherewithal of most individuals.
>> right.
>> and that's the point.
>> I was not aware of that.
the lasts communication I had seen regarding the monitoring was a letter that txi had sent each of you and they had in the letter mentioned monitoring and it just seems -- there has been so much said by txi and so much misleading information, etch when they discuss the health effects of it and refer to mshut, saying there are no health effects we are monitored by mshub but leave out the details of what keeps the employeeses safe and those things aren't going to keep uses safe and of course my biggest concern is the health impact but we bought our house back in February, my husband is a grad student at ut, and our intention was to sell it in five years so that he could go work on his post doc and we aren't going to be able to do that and we are going to be saddled with a home we can't sell because their txi and their interests and the money they have is more important than the families that live there and the interests that those families have, and I understand where you are coming from and saying you are coming to the aid of the residentses, but monitoring after the fact is not what we need.
we need it stopped all together.
we need it not to go forward and if it -- again, if it were your neighborhood, you wouldn't say, well, we will make sure everything is monitored.
you would say let's find what regulatory authority we have to stop this.
and that's all I am asking you to do, for me and for mira and for everyone who lives in that community and thank you.
>> yes.
>> I have one more thing to say.
>> let her go first.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioner, my name is vera representing qulico aclp, owner of the chaparral crossing and subdivision, I will make this real short and brief, not the last meeting but the meeting before that, I suggested to the court that this item actually be postponed, in order for the neighborhood and city -- I mean county staff to work together with txi to come up with a phasing agreement.
I have been corrected, a theying agreement apparently does not apply to site plans.
however, I think a development agreement would certainly be something that should be seriously considered.
a few minutes ago, we had talked -- you know, this wonderful woman gave this eloquent speech about traffic.
there is nothing in any of these agreements, whether it is air, quality, the dealses with no -- truck traffic along dunlap -- sorry, hunter's bend, Austin's colony boulevard, just there -- that place gets jammed up.
yes, there is a brand new middle school under construction, I think that traffic will only increase.
it's not part of the site plan notes.
it's not part of anything today so my recommendation, obviously for your consideration would be twofold.
number one is to postpone, enter into a development agreement with the applicants, and in addition to that, however the court decides to vote this afternoon, that some consideration should be given to possibly entering into some sort of mediation between all of us, you all, and the applicant, I think -- I don't see this thing going anywhere, unless somebody is brought to the table with a third party, an uninterested party sort of mediating everybody, because I think the emotions are extremely high.
and I -- I think my recommendation is that is the only way it's ever going to get figured out so your consideration of that would be very much appreciated.
thank you.
>> ms. Masaro, I also received testimony earlier this morning from hank smith from the hpa, and we had discussed that some, too.
>> right.
>> he had given testimony this morning on another item regarding buffer legislation in the Texas legislature for industrial users coming into pre-existing residential areas and how the home builders association of which I believe you are a member.
>> I am.
>> is very much in favor of that kind of legislation and it was -- it was rejected by the legislature last session but we will come back and with your help, the hpa's help, push that legislation again.
>> sure, we will be happy to help.
>> so we could require the kind of buffering that would have a measurable affect.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Holden.
>> you were concerned this morning about reducing the pollution in the skies overaustin.
the prevailing winds where we live are from the southeast to the northwest, any dust generated by txi will go right over the city of Austin and add to the pollution.
that's all.
>> okay.
>> mr. Mcdonald?
>> just to add what she said, more directly, the prevailing winds will go directly at the playgrounds in Austin colony and the elementary school and the new middle school, but I want to -- I was one of those folk who is had sent a lengthy e-mail to you all and to Commissioner Davis and I didn't get a response and I know you each got a million of them -- you've got a million of them and have probably heard them all but I wanted to reiterate a few things I had to say about the fact if you approve this permit without improve approving the roadway improvementses agreement, there will be no agreement at all for whatever mode of transportation at all for the materials they are mining.
in the early on comments by teresa kawkin, she said update as the conveyor is said to be the sole mode of transport for the materials, please provide transportation for the conveyer based construction so when it was the conveyor, it was included in the permit, that is one point, txi in their letter to the council, Commissioner's court a few weeks ago said constraints immosted by the city of Austin permit process prompted txi to have to modify its permit application in order to complete the process within the city's imposed permit application time line and I sort of speculated here before of what their motives were for dropping the permit and know I sent you an e-mail forwarded from george from the city of Austin who said that the txi had told -- this is hearsay, I guess, maybe not court approved testimony -- but txi, according to the city of Austin as far as variance or any of that with conveyor options so they didn't go with the conveyor optionses but the roadway options but they are asking for the court to help them get back to conveyor in some kind of support and I am asking what kind of support are they asking for, because it seems like they are asking for you to ignore the fact that there is no method to transfer material transporting to their site.
they said over and over there won't be processing of materials on this site.
they have to get it across ghillieland creek and get it over the roads and do it and they need to figure out a way to do it that is part of a permit to do this.
otherwise it ises a slide of it is a slide ofhand -- what isd switch kind of thing where we don't see that they don't have a permit to do this.
>> now, the proper personses on that, a lot of e-mailses came out at the last minute so a lot of the requests that were being made with all of the e-mail that is have come to the office, some of them were -- had similar subject matter of public health, on -- there is one of them that you mentioned but also with this particular late entry as far as what you are saying here today about the conveyor belt and I don't know where you get that information that you just stated and I don't know if I was I or staff have heard the same thing as you heard.
>> about what?
>> as far as some of the can say your belt issueses --
>> -- conveyor belt issues.
>> well, the t.n.r.'s comments were if they were going to with the conveyor, they had to make the planses made an that was not done and txi said they dropped it because of restraints of the city permitting process department give them enough time to prepare their -- didn't give them enough time to prepare the documentation at the conveyor, they got a six month extension and then it was extended another six weeks and so basically what I am trying to get the point across is if -- if this permit is approved without -- if this -- without permitting the conveyance method, why is it -- my question is why is the truck meth not being included justs like the conveyor method was being?
I don't understand because it is not on the property, according to metsa's -- the corps of engineer would put them together.
>> perhaps we can have staff address that, can somebody from t.n.r.
address that?
because I believe the answer would be that the conveyor belt would be included because it ises on the property, it was there for development on the floodplain, whereas road agreement is separate under -- because the authority that we have --
>> but they have to get the permit from the roadway proven before they do -- approved before they do mining.
>> right, but the authority we have is regard to floodplain.
all right.
we have made the floodplain contingent on them getting necessary permits on the roadway.
>> it takes the right person to ask staff to come to the table.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> it could be a separate permit, and you have told us that the Commissioners court has the authority to request that the permits be combined.
so what I'm saying, because txi sat up here right before lunch and said that you know, even if there is a corps of engineering's review, they still have to get all these permits before they do any kind of mining.
so what do you understand why aren't they going to do this before they get their mining permit?
and what I'm asking is a motion be put forth to combine these permits and to hold off until they have decided an advanced method they are going to go with and are committed enough to get the desired and required permits, because they've been wavering back and forth, and I think if they are pushed to make up their mind by requiring them to have a permit, that that's what should be done, and that's the motion that I'm requesting.
>> thank you, mr. Mcdonald.
>> thank you.
>> now, anybody -- actually the two of you-all, but anybody who has not spoken today who plans to speak?
if so, please come forward at this time.
then our last two speakers will be repeat performances by mr. Priest and mr. Mcdonald, and mr. Cohen.
>> kenneth, yeah.
I did ask the staff and I left this out earlier, the insufficient road agreement that I thought was going to be on the permit, and I wondered if you had discussed in executive session, since txi has entered into this insufficient road agreement with the county on the face of the permit, would the county be liable -- or could this be a legal issue for the county in relationship to the cost, because txi and the county have already discussed the footprint of this road, which is going to be insufficient with txdot, documented, confirmed, no questions in facts.
going to be to have a traffic light, turn lane, which requires a study.
so is the county entering into an agreement that will not only potentially put it in a legal situation?
is the contract written well enough that the county may actually be out the cost of us as taxpayers having to pay it, and in relationship to that, that's what I was talking about subject matter jurisdictions, the decision that the county makes at this time is going to give the county immunity from the citizens but it's also going to affect the citizen standing on issues that janette kincaid and others have talked about, it's going to sabotage our legal standing in the evident of future lawsuits and without having information back from the title 6 complaint that was filed with the 290 east project, you know, that save our springs and naacp and I believe other people joined in, we haven't even gotten that information back and that's why I'm saying this decision is being made way too prematurely and the cart before the horse.
is the county going to be liable for that cost difference if it comes in as a larger footprint than what -- than what they're saying that they're --
>> do you understand the question?
>> do you understand the question?
>> I believe I do.
one thing that's also included in the roadway agreement is that the applicant would be obligated to -- to cover the cost of the roadway improvements, and those would be costs that be would be based on the actual design of the roadway.
so the actual cost to construct is included in that agreement to be paid by txi.
>> and when the fish and wildlife department talks about things that we're creating an entirely new ecosystem in Travis County, this being a wetland, they're creating a wetland, and the homeowners are having a valid petition for the court for relief, you're saying that you don't think that this is going to be an issue that's going to affect the standing of citizens and sabotage their legal recourse with txi?
is that going to be a part of this road agreement?
>> I don't believe that our road agreement speaks to that specifically.
certainly that's something that we could look at it with our attorneys on.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Cohen?
>> yes, riverside county, california, the pajunga of the lucy tribe has somehow demanded 7,500 pages of reports from the county.
the citizens in that county have not gotten practically 100 pages of information.
we'd like -- we'd like a full study, a serious study, something that really deals with -- like charlie, the self-designated -- charlie is the -- known as the mayor of el chaperral.
he has cancer.
charlie in the wheelchair, yes.
he takes his wheelchair and goes three-quarter mile because he cannot get public transportation in the community.
we have a company, txi, from 1996 to 2009, sent $223 million of bribed money.
I call it bribed money.
it's pac money or it's political action commitments for the city of san antonio?
no, for the city of Austin, for the disposal system, some kind of disposal system, txi, said we'll donate that to the committee.
well, that's sort of nice.
but there was a federal congressman just recently that was put out of office, a gentleman from louisiana.
my mother is from louisiana, and I tell you what, it concerns me that bribe money can be used in africa by a united states federal congressman, not my race, but he gets thrown out of office.
bribe money gets used in Austin, $25 million hush money, and we can't stand any more hush money.
the effects are something like anchorage, alaska.
anchorage, alaska 42 years ago began a gravel pit.
they said -- 25 years past.
I mean, it took 25 years of selling to level that area a little bit.
they did reclaim it.
but that aquifer under anchorage in this 700 home area is now, as a result of the lake that was created by the gravel pit, acreage -- you can -- anchorage -- you can read it, right there, google it, and read about the problems that that community has created, and hush money, we'll give you 15 acres for the school to have all the big school and everything they need in it.
the hush money.
it works.
it works anywhere and everywhere, and we're in the united states.
we had a federal congressman ha lost his office because he -- he lost his office because he gave just a few hundred thousand.
now, in this community $25 million, $25 million for disposal so that people at the Austin city council cooperated.
well, I think that it's time that it's over with, and I'm here to say that me as a citizen, and every person I can wrote -- I wrote the national
>> [indiscernible] against crime and violence for mexico, passed it under the table and I didn't get paid yet, not one cent, but mexico in 1997 and 1998 ratified that in 16 out of 31 states.
now, if one senate -- one retired individual can do that for a north american country, he can stop txi, and I'm here to stop txi, and I don't want to hear of a monitoring system that the county will put in place and mediation will be offered.
it's not logical.
I don't accept that as creative thinking.
we are creative people, and we can create a way to get something instead of gravel and sand that includes artifacts that are being distributed and put inside buildings, inside bridges, inside other -- I understand, your honor, but it's time this community --we don't need mediation for how we're going to work out an agreement for this to ham.
gravel and sand are not the only construction material that's available and they don't have to come from the gilliland states.
they don't have to come from that.
there are holes -- natural holes that are going to be sealed and the water is going to be lost.
we have a water shortage.
>> thank you very much.
>> we have a water shortage and we've experienced it in this past year.
we can't afford more of that.
take the water from under the ground.
it's gone forever.
>> thank you very much.
>> I'm sorry to be abusive.
>> that's all right.
I do have two questions for txi, and by the way, I thank residents for coming down and providing input.
the first question is if this -- we got a copy of the letter that ms. Clark -- jennifer walker, rather, shared, and she says that txi will meet with her office within the next few weeks.
so precisely is that?
>> okay.
henry gilmore again.
when we heard this issue this morning we went ahead and contacted her and requested a meeting as quickly as possible, and I think she indicated that the week of the 25th was when she was available.
we will try and get a meeting sooner than that.
again, we dispute that they are jurisdictional waters that are being alleged here.
we are very comfortable with our position on that.
if there is a permit that is required, you know, by law, we have to get it before we commence mining activities, so ets not like we're going to -- it's not like we're somehow going to get out from under getting a permit.
we've had the issue looked at.
this application has been reviewed for 12 months, 15 months.
it's also been reviewed by the city of Austin.
the city of Austin has already indicated that it meets all their requirements.
>> is the city of Austin aware of what is contained in this letter from ms. Walker dealing with the army corps of engineers, who actually is the --
>> I don't know --
>> hold on -- who is actually the chief of the permitting section, permitting section of the army corps of engineers.
so that's up in fort worth.
and my question is, have they seen this letter?
because today's date is on this letter as far as email is concern.
>> I don't know, Commissioner.
>> well, when you're making testimony about the city of Austin, the city of Austin may not -- I don't know what they'd say after they see this letter.
so even though I hear you making comments about it, I still feel that -- very strongly that you-all need to make that visit up to ms. Walker and see what's going on up there as far as the army corps of engineers, what they're saying.
>> yes, sir.
>> so did ms. Walker indicate how soon after the meeting the corps would make its decision as to whether a permit must be obtained from them?
>> I wasn't party to that conversation and I don't know whether --
>> to my knowledge not at this time they have given us a deadline other than just the commitment for us to meet with them.
>> okay.
>> we can get some additional clarification on that.
>> no, judge, we don't have a particular date with regard to that.
when I spoke with jennifer walker about these items today, I explained that we had the site reviewed by swca, local authorities on these matters, and we didn't feel like we had anything jurisdictional, and as has been mentioned before, other people have reviewed it as well.
but because there's a concern, we will gladly take it up with ms. Walker and review.
>> okay.
>> at this time we don't -- we don't know that any permit will be required.
>> how soon after approval does an operation -- does a gravel operation actually start?
>> in this case, your honor, we are going to -- it will be sometime before we actually commence operations.
obviously there will be many things that will be required to take place before we do so.
we've got the road improvement agreement that has to be complied with before we proceed with mining operations as well, so there will be quite some time before anything actually is done after this step in the process takes place.
>> the scheduled commencement of site development wasn't until after 2012, so we have a substantial amount of time between now and --
>> okay.
those are all the questions I have.
any other questions for txi?
>> just one.
I think mr. Gilmore goes indicated that they agreed upon the 27th, and of course I don't know if that's something edged in stone, but it would be good since we have other
>> [indiscernible] in this thing, other than Travis County Commissioners court, especially with the city of Austin, to have this same information that has been shared with us, as far as this letter from the army corps of engineers.
I really think that that's something that you need to look into along with the road work planned and everything else.
I think they need to review the whole thing, in my opinion.
>> Commissioner Davis, we will certainly make sure we comply with all the requirements the city has and any notifications that are required to be made to them.
we are certainly going to do that.
>> well, just to elaborate on that, the city of Austin's critical environmental features is a higher level of concern, even than the corps of engineers, and that was the basis that we did the reviews with, okay?
so we will definitely stay in close contact with the city --
>> well, again, I don't know -- I guess if we're responsible, I guess, staff, if we're responsible for making sure that the proper -- the proper persons or the nexus between Travis County and the city of Austin is -- as far as this particular issue is concerned, I want to make sure they get this email here from ms. Walker with the army corps of engineers, the chief permit person for that section.
so I want to make sure they actually have that in their hand.
so they will also have a chance to look and see and see what's going on here.
>> what's staff's position relative to the email from ms. Walker?
>> before we issue the permit, I'd like to hear from ms. Walker whether or not she believes a corps permit is required.
>> could you repeat that, please?
>> before we were to issue this permit, I would be more comfortable if we knew what the disposition of her review, to see if a core permit would be required?
>> okay.
>> when I walked -- I walked in this morning ready to make a decision, but the letter -- the email does muddle things for us.
now, I don't know if this decision gets any easier, but it does seem to me that in view of this letter we ought to await the outcome of your visit with her, and historically I'm advised that they have not welcomed a whole lot of inquiries from us.
basically it's contact us if you absolutely positively have to.
otherwise don't.
and I have to say I assume that the corps, ms. Walker would be willing to chat with us after the meeting, and I certainly think we ought to pursue that.
any motion from the court?
>> move approval of the army corps -- well, that the -- let the txi go forward and meet with jennifer walker, who is the chief of permit section with the army corps of engineers for full review, and we -- Travis County await that outcome of that review before anything takes place here, as far as the court is concerned.
no second?
>> so basically the motion is for us to delay action until we have given txi an opportunity to meet with the corps.
>> exactly.
>> and then we would communicate with, I guess, txi as well as corps representative ap I guess specifically -- and I guess specifically ms. Walker after that meeting and see what the outcome is.
>> because there's been a lot of things brought up -- yes, judge, that's the motion.
>> then I second the motion.
>> all right.
thank you.
>> any more discussion?
>> just as a -- germane to the motion, we have in the past sent applications to the corps of engineers and have received response back that they really don't want to see our permit; is that correct?
>> that's my understanding.
that being said, if there's something that needs to be reviewed and is in their purview, I believe they would want to see that.
>> that's not to say I'm not delighted by the corps's interest in this.
I just wanted to get that on the record, that we have in the past attempted to get the corps's attention on these things.
so perhaps this is a seat change in the corps, that one could speculate as to what the difference is.
>> any discussion or motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
in view of that action I'm not sure we need to take up 13 b specifically or 14.
>> I agree.
>> then we'll have those all back on together.
>> excuse me, judge.
before you decide not to take up 14, may I consult with Commissioner Eckhardt, just withhold that decision not to take up item 14 --
>> do you want to just take it to executive session for legal advice?
>> if you take it up, it will need an executive session discussion and perhaps an open session discussion, but I would like to consult with Commissioner Eckhardt.
there may be reasons why she would want to take it up today, even though you're not acting on item 13 a.
>> we will call --
>> is there a possible for -- after executive session?
>> we'll call up 14 later.
how's that?
>> yes, sir.
thank you.
>> thank you all.
thank you all for your participation.
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 12, 2010 5:50 PM
