Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 3, 2010,
Item 8
Joe, you are here on number 8. Let's call it up. 8. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, an interlocal agreement with the city of austin and the lower colorado river authority to conduct a colorado river corridor study, which includes several tracts currently targeted for sand and gravel mining; b. Approve order exempting the purchase of professional land planning services from bosse and pharis associates, inc. From the competitive procurement process pursuant to section 262.024 (a)(4) of the county purchasing act; and c, approve order exempting the purchase of professional environmental monitoring services from thornhill group, inc. From the competitive procurement process pursuant to section 262.024 (a)(4) of the county purchasing act. Good morning.
>> good morning. Joe gieselman with the trrption natural resources -- transportation natural resources department. First, let me preface the agenda item. I'm not asking the court to vote today on any of the items. This is also posted on the city council agenda on thursday to authorize staff to negotiate the agreement. Whereas they reviewed the draft, they want to leave open the option that any changes may be made. So before -- before the county adopting it and then having to go back and change because of something subsequent done by the city. I thought we ought to just postpone until next week to find out if they have any last-minute changes. Today what i would like to do is just kind of lay out the intent of the interlocal agreement. And what we hope to accomplish with it. Let me just give you a little bit of context, first of all. The colorado river corridor, as we have defined it, is the city of austin or basically 183, f.m. 969 on the north side, then the bastrop travis county line on the east side, and then state highway 71 on the south side. So generally, it's this area through here. East of the austin area and eastern travis county.
>> joe, is the corridor defined as a certain distance from the colorado river?
>> no, it's really -- we just took known boundaries like the state highways because it captured some of the issues that we think that we need to focus on during the study. And then that was the purpose of the corridor. Also, totally within travis county. Instead of multiple counties. But -- but what's important here is -- is this yellow area, is what we call the alluvial plain. As you know the colorado river over millenniums has migrated back and forth in this area and in the process leaving deposits of sand and gravel. In this wide, wide floodplain of the colorado river. Now, what you see out there today may be farmed area, pasture land. But underneath that pasture, maybe 10 feet below the surface is sand and gravel. The -- we look at this from our set of eyes, and it represents an opportunity for conservation. When -- when the trust for public land in travis county did a study of high priority lands for conservation in the county, we looked at various factors. But in the end we boiled all of those factors down to a set of factors that determined what was high priority. Is this map is a composite of the priorities. The dark purple is the highest priority. The -- the red is the next priority and then the -- the -- then the white is not -- not a high priority. What it shows you is along the contribute tears, tributaries, gillian creek, the floodplain where you have the growth of trees, a lot of natural life because of the availability of water, and so we look at those as areas that we would as a community want to set aside for parks and open spaces and green ways. In fact using the green print in part, we have developed a plan for a greenway along onion creek and have acquired -- not only have we acquired parkland in that area, we have also acquired some open spaces for entire corridor, linking the colorado river with i-35. And we are in the process of now developing that into a greenway, including a hike and bike trail, linking parks together. We are well underway on developing our greenway along onion creek. We had a similar vision, by the way the voters authorize the use of $8.4 million to do this. The 2005 bond election, so we are actually carrying out that bond election by making those acquisitions and developing the onion creek greenway. The voters also authorized money for basically the same thing in eastern travis county without designating any particular corridor. When we looked at the priorities, we understood that the colorado river was a priority as was gilleland creek. Gilleland in particular because it's in the -- in the tier of land that's -- that's likely to be urbanized in the next 20 years. As you know, cities grow out. At least the urbanized portion. That's the portion that has a certain population density. Cities tend to grow out. So the next band of development we would expect adjacent to what you already have as an urbanized area. Both onion and gilleland are in that band that we would expect, we would anticipate a normal course of action, would develop next and become urbanized. So it's important to us to get ahead of that and develop a greenway along gilleland, along onion that can --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> some way pull development into a common thread. We would like to develop the gilleland creek corridor just like we have our envision for onion. But we also looked at that same opportunity along the colorado river. Because of the number of high priority areas in the colorado river corridor.
>> [microphone cutting out ] we're not the only -- entities that have interest in that same property. This is a map which shows the hatch marks in dark. These are properties that are already owned by one mining company or another. Again, what's going on, you have the sand and gravel deposits that are in the flood way here. They are approximate to the market that creates the demand for sand and gravel, which is typically development, maybe a highway, maybe condominiums, maybe anything that uses gravel and concrete. Pretty near all development falls in that category. So what you see is the mining companies there, they are mining this area in part because that's where the deposits are. And also as important, the distance to markup -- their main cost of business is not only buying the materials, but hauling them to market. So there's a transportation cost. They want to be close to the market. And this is the closest deposit of sand and gravel to the market, which is our highways or subdivisions, our development. As a result they have purchased 40% of the land in this corridor. They own it. They may not be currently mining it today. But they will at some point. This was somewhat of the outcome, our understanding of the issue when we began this -- to consider the txi permit under hornsby bend east and west site months ago. We were very, very focused on just two of these sites, that is the hornsby bend west site and hornsby bend east site. As you can see that's just a piece of the entire puzzle. When you look at the entire area, most of these are already permitted, either mined or owned by mining companies. So it's a much, much larger issue. And when we go to -- to look at acquisition of greenway, we need to know that we are in competition with those same companies for the very same property. So with that we started looking at a bigger picture. First of all, how does this entire area transition from agricultural and mining uses to a future city, a future urbanized area that's made up of schools and parks and residential areas? And what role do the mining companies have in -- in transitioning their properties into a subsequent use? We understand that mining companies are not only excavating materials for development, they are also land development companies. Because once they have completed mining operations, they typically try to sell those same properties, develop them for a subsequent use. So you might look at these same areas as being potential developers. We have also learned in our -- in our process how limited we are as a county government in regulating land use. We do have authority from the state to -- to regulate how things are done. How roads are constructed. How drainage is taken care of. We have very little to no authority on telling landowners what they can and cannot do with their land. So -- so we're not like cities or corporate areas that have that authority in their -- within their corporate boundaries to have zoning. We don't have zoning and as a result our ability to affect development comes typically in how we can influence rather than dictate. We do have tools. One of our tools is -- is a capital improvements program. We have the power of budget. We can go out and acquire properties, we can build roads, we can do things that incent development to occur in a certain way and not in another. We also have development regulations. When a developer comes in, we can comment on how they develop their site with what type of roads and what type of infrastructure and stuff. But it comes to a point in time when they fulfill their obligation, there are regulations. We're -- we're mandated to approve the development. So even those are limited. What the effort is trying to do here, what the point of all of this, is to first of all plan out this area. Much like you would in a larger city in a comprehensive plan. To go look, plan out this area for the next 20 to 30 years. What do we as a community want this to look like in 30 years? And then how do we work to get there? Some of it is through the role of government. Some of it is the role of the private sector. But in working toward a common vision, we might just get there faster. And so -- so the planning process has -- has the city of austin, the lcra, and travis county entering into an interlocal agreement to do a master plan of this corridor. The master plan will include all of the issues, land uses, transportation, greenways, parks, how do you pull all of these factors into a vision for the area. A subset of that will be txi will be looking at the properties that they own within this corridor. And they will be doing land plans to determine what they would do with their properties as a subsequent use. Once these properties have been mined. So we fold those together, here's what the private sector is saying they want to do with their own property, here's what the public sector is saying they would like to have, how do these things blend together? Are there ways in the post-mining process or in the mining reclaimation have mining companies contour their properties in such a way to enhance them for greenways in the future. Greenways, quite frankly, either they can own or we can own. It doesn't really matter. So but the -- what is important is that these plans are integrated together so that -- owe the vision for how residential areas interface with greenways, what type of transportation system that you need to accommodate that plan, all of those things are looked at in a composite way and not separately. So you have phase 1 comprehensive plan, phase 2, txi's own land planning for their properties, third part is an environmental monitoring program of the hornsby bend east and west sites, conducted by the city of austin, travis county, lcra. The most important piece of that is the monitoring of water, both ground water and surface water. We would set up a monitoring program that would monitor selected well sites prior to mining so we would know what the base condition is. Then we would monitor those same sites during the mining process to determine what effects, if any, the mining may have had on the ground water supply of the area. We would also be monitoring the surface water, that is the rainfall runoff after flood events. We would send out our inspectors to do water samples to find out what is occurring. We would have those water samples both the ground water and the surface water tested by the lower colorado river authority labs, so they actually are certified labs, they would be offering those services as an in-kind service in the contract. Travis county would also hire an environmental consultant to -- to monitor the air quality, particularly particulate matter and the noise levels, prior to enduring mining operations. So we would be monitoring some of the effects of -- of -- of the mining in part to mitigate it, if it happens. And to adjust the plans, it's not a static thing, working with the mining companies to mitigate those impacts if they occur. So it's a three-part study. The city of austin has pledged $60,000 to the effort. And some in-kind services with their staff. I'm proposing that the county put in $64,000 to the effort as well as in-kind services from -- from t.n.r. My in - -- by in-kind services a lot of that is collection of base data. Some of the maps that we collected in our geographic information system would be used as a basis for the comprehensive plan, also doing a good bit of the transportation analysis in-house. Then the lower colorado river authority will be putting in $5,000 worth of cash and in kind services, those being primarily the -- the lab services for testing the -- the water samples.
>> what value have we placed on those in-kind services from lcra?
>> i will get that for you in a minute, in the backup, in the neighborhood of 20 some odd thousand. I'll get that for you. Aside, txi will be putting in $60,000 of its money to do land plans for its own properties. By land plans, these are basically conceptual plans for what their property would become after they have been mined. They are in the process of doing one right now for their
>> [indiscernible] property which is a line post-mining operation on either side of state highway 130. I think in the future, i hope at a future court
>> [indiscernible] they can lay that out and show you what their plans are.
>> [microphone cutting out] i know that they have been working on it. The idea being that the txi is not only a mining company, in this case they mined the green site, but also coming forward with a plan to redevelop the site into a mixed use development on either side of 130. So how we coordinate with that to make the
>> [indiscernible] as a whole is -- is what's at issue.
>> joe, let me ask you this. Before we get too far into this. Middle i know that you have gone and skimmed the top surface of it and you -- now going below the surface on a lot of futuristic situations here dealing with txi. One of my concerns, though, is this, i have many concerns in this issue. But one of them is that the track record of txi is -- as far as reclamation is concerned. Where in the state, anywhere, where they have actually did a reclamation project, dealing with open space or either a mixed use or any other type of situation after the mining operation had ceased and they have of course are returning it back to a useful land -- development or whatever you want to call it. I mean, where -- where is there on the books on the records that that exists? And i really why i ask that is because i like to -- i hear the proposals, but i would like to see a track record of somewhere where this has been done already, if it has been done, by txi. I would like to see that and what it actually went through and all of these other kind of things. Maybe something similar, maybe not similar, i don't really know, but as far as reclaiming because what we're talking about is a vast area that in the future will be -- will be hopefully reclaimed for some type of future land use purpose. Whether it be mixed, commercial, open space, conservation, you know, all of those kind of things all thrown into one bundle, but again i have nothing to go on, nothing to measure with as far as past practices by txi. Is that information readily available anywhere?
>> i know of two sites. I don't know whether they were txi sites or not. But i will give you two examples where reclamation has been a very positive thing. Actually both in san antonio. The site of trinity university is a former
>> [indiscernible] if you ever went to see that campus you would never believe at one time that was a pit. So -- so there's another one around in the north side of the alamo city, a former mining site, gravel mining site, also converted and it's for commercial element. The one property that i have seen of txi's is more in a rural setting. They lease the property from the surrounding agricultural uses. They mine the site and then they restored it to pasture land. So it's contoured at the specifications of the original owner, to have stock ponds and grassland. But again it's not of the nature of being close to the city. So i will have to actually ask txi to bring whatever examples --
>> that would be good. That would be good to see that, especially if their mining operations have taken place in close proximity to an urban area such as this because we're talking about a massive, massive area here and if you can also, joe, before you get too far down the road, you -- you put a map up that showed the -- the mining operations of the potential mining operation sites that exist within this -- within this colorado river corridor study. Boundaries, is there any way to depict the residential areas that may -- that will be impacted by what goes on out there? Is there any way that that could be shown in a map that you have? Available?
>> it is shown on this map.
>> pardon me?
>> it is shown on this map. I believe it's in your backup.
>> but i'm saying for the public. I want to make sure --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> the yellow areas on this map are existing residential areas. It's when it's
>> [indiscernible] austin colony, this is chaparral crossing, this area up here is twin creek meadows, this large area down here is river timber, this is colorado river estates, then over here you have owens acres. I don't remember --
>> right.
>> but those -- probably proximity of these mining operations. So you do have existing residential areas.
>> exactly. I wanted to make sure --
>> proximate to the mining sites.
>> i wanted to make sure that map showed that because you mentioned earlier about the county's lack of authority, which is very true. We have very limited land use authority and folks sometimes move out into the unincorporated areas, sometimes their hands are tied as far as what we can tell people what they can put out there next to residential areas, because we don't have the authority that's been granted to us such as a urban city or something like to that regulate that stuff. Again, i want to make sure that folks understand who are watching this, for those that are potentially wanting to move out there, those that are living out there now, this is what's out there and this is what's going on. So it won't be no surprises that when folks, you know, get this, they see the full amount, see the residential, see the potential of what's going out there, they will understand this is what it is. Okie-doke, thank you.
>> but it's also --
>> try this.
>> joe, while we're doing that, yesterday i sent out -- the backup that we have to ms. Foreman and multiple residents that they had copied with her e-mail. So they have this -- but i guess for those who want a larger map, say that size, do we -- can we generate those in t.n.r. Fairly quickly?
>> i can generate the limited supply, yes.
>> because on this one it's exactly the same as that one, but -- but a lot smaller.
>> uh-huh. Even if they have this, they can see subdivisions here, but in terms of names and stuff like that, they are kind of hard to figure out.
>> sure.
>> okay.
>> thank you, thank you, judge.
>> that's --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> the subject of today's meeting is the interlocal agreement which
>> [indiscernible] the county to receive the funds from the lcra and travis county. And contract with those funds for professional services.
>> let's take questions and comments from the court and then we'll go to the two residents who have joined you. Questions, comments?
>> i have a couple of questions.
>> okay.
>> with regard to -- to first i think that it's a point worth reiterate thank the two txi, hornsby bend sites at the time we were first approached on that permit we really didn't know this was a smaller piece of a much larger puzzle. The first time i saw that map it was rather startling to see how much of -- of the green print is already spoken for by aggregate mines. Aggregate mining interests, i should say. Along with what commissioner davis was asking, although they haven't executed this plan, my understanding is that there is a mixed use plan that txi is working on as a developer for one of its soon to be or already decommissioned mines? Can you -- can you tell us a little more about that?
>> i know just a little bit about that, it is the austin green site, which is the large site that straddles state highway 130 and farm-to-market road 973. They have pretty much completed the mining operations at that site and they are now working to develop a -- a post-mining plan, which would include multiple uses, residential, green space, probably office space, i know they are working on a plan that they will come to the city and county for development.
>> and i can see -- because this is a property rights state and we don't have the authority to stop the mine from going in, the authority that we have is with regard to floodplain and transportation access, which is not -- which is something, but it's not the ability to stop the mining. But i do see is that aggregate interests have a -- have at least some amount of overlapping enters with the county -- interests with the county in the reasonable transition from mining to -- to development. Because of course they are landowners. They will want to have some after value, after mining value in this property. To your knowledge and i -- i'm sorry to ask you to speak for txi, it's unfair, but to your knowledge has txi expressed an ability to transition this -- this property from mining into its after-use as they are mining adjacent pieces? I guess what i'm getting at is we're looking at a 20 to 30 year horizon on just the hornsby bend site which means we are probably looking at that on all of those gray hatched area along the colorado river. I would hate to think that we would have to wait 30 years to make that transition. Are they talking about a rolling transition or are they talking about mining it for 30 years and then moving into this mixed use development?
>> the green site is done. They are now in a very active process of redeveloping the site.
>> [microphone cutting out] but they have multiple properties in the corridor. You will see those multiple properties
>> [indiscernible] over the next 20 to 30 years. The mining will be an ongoing process. I don't really know what their phasing is for that. Part of the study will have some idea what was is going to be an active mine, when it's going to be active, when to expect closures and what's the post mining reclamation process. We hope
>> [indiscernible] in this process. I'm not sure
>> [indiscernible] we hope that when they are through what they leave behind is something that can be integrated into the fabric of a community. From what i know of the austin green site, from what they have told me their vision is, it could very well be our first conservation development in travis county. Over 50% of that property will be in green space. Not necessarily publicly owned green space, but green space along the colorado river and tributaries. So i think they are looking at some of the neo traditional planning ideas that have been discussed in the city for some time and how to apply those to their austin green site. The idea is okay let's take a look at the other properties that you own. And in some part if they become the industry leader in reclamation, hopefully those practices can get migrated to other mining companies, maybe not be so disposed to do so. So there are any number of different post mining uses. It could be urban type of development. It could be a wetlands. It could be greenway. I mean, there are any number of different, could be pasture land or an orchard, whatever it might -- depending on the topography. And the amount of inundation that the land gets, there's all sorts of potential uses, i'm not here to claim that i know what all that is. But what the idea is, that we pull these together and we all have a vision for where this is going to go and at what point in time, you get the orderly development through the process. What role do we have as a local government to facilitate that process. Where do we intervene to purchase property. If we want for it greenways for the green print.
>> i am hartened to hear that, i will say it again, we don't have the authority to dictate what txi does with property they own except with regard to floodplain and its impact on the transportation issues immediately adjacent to the property. But ... If they -- if they create a higher standard, i agree. If we can encourage them to create a higher standard for reclamation in the industry, we will be doing a service not only to the residents along the colorado river alluvial, but to residents in texas anywhere where there's gravel mining. We may not be able to point to a high level reclamation in texas today. But maybe 10 years from now, they will be pointing to travis county for the standard in reclamation. Instead of to canada, which i understand is now the standard. We -- i haven't discovered a standard that you can even point to in the united states with regard to aggregate. It seems the higher standard is in canada. I would like to transition for a moment because i know that the -- that the residents and members of this court, including myself, are very concerned about the appearance or the reality of any kind of -- being in bed with the enemy aspect as it were. So i wanted to move to the environmental monitoring aspect. In my opinion, it's understandable that we would encourage but could not command what occurs on their private property as they redevelop after reclamation. But with regard to environmental monitoring, my understanding is we have tried to keep this a very, very clean phase where txi is not involved in the actual monitoring, although they are giving us access to their property. And we are -- we are keeping them informed but it is -- but it is city of austin, travis county and lcra that is doing the monitoring to establish the baseline so that we can effectively determine what effects, if any, and when those effects occur on water, sound, quality and air quality. Is that correct?
>> that's absolutely correct. We maintain a regulatory role in that regard.
>> and that is where the state has given us some authority beyond the floodplain permitting and our transportation aspect is in the prosecution of environmental degradation cases. And i just wanted to make that abundantly clear. While the phase with regard to any kind of planning for the -- for the after reclamation use of this property is by necessity net squarelywith txi with our participation, hopefully, the monitoring is squarely with governments and not with the privates, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> those were my questions, thank you.
>> judge, i would like to just maybe spin off of what commissioner eckhardt graciously put forth. I think she's done a great job on that. However, let's go into it deeper, especially with the water quality commissioner out there. It's really important. I want folks to really that if there is -- because a lot of folks are on well water. And well water is a precious source out there in this community. Of course we're talking about aquifers that imis out there. A -- that exist out there, a source of livelihood for many, many folks. A lot of folks depend on ccn, whomever that may be, to depend on water if they aren't able to acquire well water. But then my question is this: let's say that the degradation of water, in these wells that folks depend on for their water supply, are to the point where it's degraded and not even you can't drink it. Who at that time, i know the county can do its thing legally, but do -- at that time that that's discovered by the monitors who actually monitor the air, water, a lot of other things, when that's discovered at that time, what happens? Do they have to cease and desees their mining operation -- desist their mining separations at that time once that's discovered or depending on the source of where that degradation comes from? It's a lot of moving parts here. I do not want to see the residents shortchanged if the source is basically -- i am dealing with the operation of a mining, whoever it may be. Of course there's other owners of mines out there, properties of mining other than txi. So my question to you is when would that person have some type of relief as far as their well water supply being -- i guess destroyed for use of their daily needs for that water? What happens, joe?
>> well, in part embedded in your question is a legal issue of enforcement. The role of the county in enforcing --
>> [multiple voices] i believe there's probably a couple of ways of answering that. I would imagine there's some civil claim as well as a regulatory enforcement that can be made, if that occurs. We haven't set up protocols for remedies. I think that probably should be discussed early on. So that there's some progressive way of getting things fixed before you end up in court. But i think that you are -- that your best -- you best address that question to your legal people on what happens in the event that -- is that --
>> well, i have got a legal person sitting right over to my left, joe, i think that he heard every word that i said. So you can, you know --
>> i think to answer your question would take a lot of work. But we can certainly look into that and give you a response.
>> okay.
>> after we have researched it.
>> okay. I think the residents are -- are in jeopardy if the degradation of their water supply is overwhelmed with increased mining operations if the mining operation is the cause of it. It may be other factors. But when you got drinking water and use it for everything else out there, well, my goodness gracious, you are going to want to make sure that you have the best quality of water to serve you. I'm concerned about that because ever the number of residents that are on well water.
>> may i ask, you raise an interesting point, commissioner. May i ask tom as a threshold matter, irrespective of what the menu of options are with regard to remedy under a circumstance where well water has been depleted or the quality of it has been depleted because of the mining operation, no matter what those remedies are, aren't the individuals who are -- who are affected under that scenario, aren't they all better off because the -- because the governmental entity, city of austin, travis county and lcra, would have established a baseline criteria -- a baseline before the mining occurred, which is what phase, what -- this particular phase is about. If we don't establish a baseline, a private entity, whether it's a corporation or an individual, will have one hell of a time proving up that their water has been degraded and who did it. But if we as a governmental entity for which we are not required to do this, this is something that we are not required to do, but under the circumstances, it's certainly the right thing to do, to go out and establish a baseline for what water -- what water is available, what the flow levels are, and what the quality of that flow is. It's -- it's a huge leg up for a private entity if that public information is available. Am i correct about that?
>> that is true. A person with a well who -- if they believe it's affected by the mining operation, to seek their legal remedies the burden of proof would be on them, they would have to establish that first of all the water situation is worse off than it was before and what getting this data in place does is establish the baseline so you know what the water situation is at least today. So sometime in the future if someone believes it's gotten worse. They can go back to the data we collect under this effort and say that's what it was like then, here's what it is now, that's part of their case.
>> one thing that the residents were very, very justifiably concerned about is the resources, personal resources necessary to do that kind of baseline analysis for their own wells was simply beyond their reach. There was no way in god's green earth that they personally had the resources to get that baseline information. Not only for their well, but for the region, which is actually the more compelling piece of evidence. Otherwise, they could be dismissed as just an anomaly. By doing this baseline monitoring, we are laying the groundwork in case there is degradation. Where these citizens would otherwise probably not have the evidentiary basis, even if they had the finances to move forward with the case.
>> of course the flip side is if they believe they are suffering from degradation or reduced supply, this data may indicate they really aren't and give them the peace of mind that things aren't as bad as they thought they were.
>> commissioner davis, did you finish your questions.
>> yes, thank you, judge.
>> commissioner huber?
>> yes, i had several water questions as well. First of all, just by way of suggestion, i do not know the depth to which this has already been considered and not necessarily written up in the backup. But having been through efforts with ground water, private well monitoring, and the western -- in the western part of travis county, or at least consideration of that, i know that -- well, it states in here that -- that part of this process will be to look at the existing wells registered with tceq and then do an outreach effort for additional private wells, which aren't registered. I know from my own experience probably the majority of the private wells in this area are not registered, which means that there will need to be a significant public outreach process. I would like to say that i think a very important part of that effort to talk with those people, get them to agree to participate in the process, from a standpoint of selection for private well monitoring is education to them, of the real purpose for this. Because what we experienced in southwestern travis county is that people are fearful of monitoring and government. And those who have worked right around the -- the current txi site that's been under discussion are probably very aware of the reasoning why, but as this study moves out, down the river and in different directions, the private individuals and residences may not be. So i think an educational component is very important in that outreach effort. Secondly, the backup says that -- that specific wells will be selected for the purpose of the study and monitoring. I would hope that part of that process for those wells that were not selected for the study would be a communication tree that those people can know where they can respond to if they notice significant changes in their well. Even though they may not be a part of the specific monitoring. Because we know that the alluvial aquifer has channels that monitor all over the place. So the wells selected may or may not all be indicative of that monitoring. I just wanted to throw that out from a standpoint of being able to get effective data and process -- in looking for that. Question: on the monitoring, and reporting, i noticed that we're talking about annual reports. It seems to me like on air quality particularly, i wonder if semi annual wouldn't be more appropriate to consider, because if there are problems that come up, we would be waiting a year to really hear about them or maybe there's another avenue for -- for looking at that? I mean --
>> semi annual
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> then i have a question. Is thornhill going to be doing both water quality and the air quality?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> that's not their level of expertise, they subcontract with other company whose expertise is noise and air.
>> on -- but they will be doing the water.
>> they will be doing the water.
>> is thornhill currently working for txi?
>> i don't know.
>> have they work understand the past for txi?
>> yes, they had.
>> i had heard that. I know thornhill is a highly professional organization, but i just question whether there isn't a conflict of interest with them vis-a-vis.
>> thorn hill that also worked for us, water quality monitoring for travis county as well.
>> thornhill does a lot of work for us.
>> in part because they know the area so well. Whenever you ask who knows the area, they have done so much work in eastern travis county they seem to be the resident experts in the aquifer.
>> i would just like to suggest i think there are a lot of good firms out there. At some point i would like to see us share the wealth.
>> we talked about also the possibility of teaming thornhill with some other entity, we have even talked about professor sharp at the university of texas as you know teamed up another effort that seemed to keep things above board. So that may be another alternative. User expertise, we need to have someone also watch over the work.
>> sounds good. Then as it relates to transportation, talking about the long-term quarrying, mining, 20 to 30 years, ones right now that will be launch into for mining in the future, i'm just wondering from our transportation planning purposes, i mean i know a sand and gravel truck can -- can have an impact of the equivalent of 300 vehicles, in and of itself or more. Are we going to look at our own county transportation planning from a standpoint of cost from the wear and tear of the significant private industry that we'll be supporting out there?
>> we certainly can.
>> i think that would an good idea because i mean we're experiencing such exponential wear and tear on these kind of wear and tear and taxpayers are paying for that, so i would like to see that incorporated into the assessment.
>> all right.
>> mr. Priest?
>> thank you, judge, comirks, morris priest -- commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf. I appreciate this study. I know it's a long-term effort. I'm not sure of the answer to the questions, but i want to lay some questions out to think about during this process and one of them is, you know, we've talked so much about air quality. But the county's and i know the statesman had an editorial on the e-coli levels that we are looking at in water quality. I believe we raised those. I'm not sure if we're on the same page with our federal and state government on that issue. If we didn't raise those standards, in effect, in other words, allowing more e coli when the other government entities haven't done that yet. In anticipation that they would do it. But i know that when talking to the city of austin, you know, one thing that would be a good illustration that i don't have but it would be like having a cup and a cup of water, you know, and i pour it out on this table and we see this storm water runoff. Well, if i have the same cup full of water under this table, that water is still there, it's grounds water. And one of the things that i -- when talking with the city of austin, and i did think that it was a difference dealing with the city of austin, you know, not liking specificity, the environmental board of the city of austin, that -- that seemed like there was an understanding that -- that it didn't matter if a hurricane or a tornado or some natural cause of monsoon brought this ground water to surface versus, you know, a backhoe and, you know, digging the ground out and now all of a sudden we have this water, you know. And i think that's something that -- that whether or not the county got that issue or not, there were people that felt like we had better success with the city in discussing these type of things, we didn't have these land use conversations, we just had this -- here we have water on top of the grounds now and it's by a manmade effort. And so -- so i think that -- some of the things that i would like to see and i wanted to point this out, wehave this map here. Really, if you look at this map, i don't know, joe, if you don't mind doing this, if you would show with your pointer where the gilleland head waters and the creek and onion creek. Because i think it's really an important thing to look at. I really would like you to use the map that you had, the gray map, the one that you have, i think that you can see them on there. Where the yellow pink line.
>> right here.
>> it's gilleland.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic] corridor here, onion creek corridor. So when you look at these -- you know, we were discussing -- i appreciate commissioner huber's comments on the transportation road issues, but five subdivisions going up there indian hills, whisper valley, of course the manville water line come through. I think that this -- these contributearies
>> [sic] tributing to the colorado river, it's almost like a line of development that's going right through the middle of that. When i talk to the state, and the interior department and if somebody wants a free map, i think that you will be able to get them from the department of interior. Topo maps, i don't know if txdot has some. Those are pretty good maps. But the situation that i'm talking about is when i talk to state officials and parks and wildlife and this issue came up with that one little area of wetland that they kind of took off the table, the txi took off the table, one of the things that -- that -- i'm not really sure, if i can explain this in a sound bite, but basically there's unintended consequences basically. You know, with -- with, you know -- i'll kind of just wrap it up on this. But there's a lot of issues like you heard some of the people talk about school buses. You know? You have this little bridge that -- that it's, you know, it's not even legal. I'm not talking about doing a boss hogs thing here, it's really not legal to drive these trucks across these bridges when they are bringing in rock crushers and the equipment itself, you know, outweighs the capacity of the bridges. So, you know, i was kind of hoping that we could incorporate in development when we look at these other developments the things that the county can do, because, i mean,, you know, it's just -- it's just -- there's a lot of illegal activity going on with these mines, with these contract drivers driving trucks, school buses on the roads and -- and there's a lot of development issues. So i think there's, you know, when we looked at the situation with hamilton pool being polluted and the county's success on prosecuting that, i think that we need to expand this to the development of -- because face it, i mean they are going to use concrete when they build roads and they build these subdivisions if these houses. I think that we need to expand it to include tceq, and the interior department and these other counties because -- because if we had a silt fence atmosphere the county line it probably would -- at the county line it probably would have health hamilton pool from getting to this place. Before you start seeing this chocolate river i think there are things that we could do. The biggest issue that i was going to bring up, the state of texas and other agencies that i have talked to, say they don't really care what the county's position is on their land use authority. These colorado breaches where you see the river going down, all of a sudden the river is still flowing this way, but then you have the -- like comes back and comes back around to the river, you know. Splitting, that's not a like cause of the terrain. That's because of manmade cause by it. That's one of the big things that the environmental board, the city of austin agreed, maybe talk to them, that -- that the county and the city did have authority and the state -- the state -- the city and county didn't do anything about that occurring, then that was the level of the fence. In other words --
>> thank you, mr. Priest.
>> but --
>> thank you,.
>> i did want to bring that up. It's a very important thing.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, judge, this is about both water and the noise. It's echoing concerns by of course ron davis and personally answered my question for ms. Eckhardt and that is about who decides. That's a key question. Who decides when these noise levels are exceeded and who decides what is done to litigate this -- this potential that might -- issue was -- noise pollution because there's like -- was alluded to earlier, there's potential hours of owe over the trucks, they say that they are going to operate this -- within the schedule and then they go 24/7. Like is there a periodic schedule of -- of public assessment by all of these various governments, do they ever like get together and say okay here's where we are, let's tell the public what's going on or -- we've had so many complaints about noise, is there some level they have got, some schedule or something, if we get five complaints we will look into it. Anything like that included in the plan so that we know about the potential and maybe ongoing problems and their improvements as they are going on and who in government decides how periodic these say noise pollution assessments take place, is there any public review schemes, you know, schedules as they are being implemented is there a baseline level? You were talking about the baseline level of the well water. Well, i'm wondering is there -- now is the time. Here's the time to establish a baseline level of -- of noise pollution. Or non-noise pollution or quiet -- the quietude or whatever being established.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> after the city takes action?
>> that's right.
>> so if the city does not act on thursday, it will be on our agenda, but we won't take action next week?
>> i don't see any need to put it on the agenda until we're ready to act on it.
>> okay. Some residents have phone when had they saw this item and asked about the open space acquisition that we mentioned several months ago and it has not been on our executive session agenda for a few weeks. What's the status of that?
>> ongoing.
>> when do we anticipate that it will be brought back to the court for consideration and action?
>> i don't have a definite time on that. I mean, it's partly -- part of negotiations. If they're successful, we'll have something soon. If not, i don't know what kind of time --
>> so the status is negotiations are ongoing.
>> that's right.
>> all right. Can we commit that whenever the recommendations are brought back to the court, we will give two weeks notice before we take action?
>> sure.
>> so one week for discussion, another week for action? I think their fear is we will put it on the agenda one tuesday and quietly and secretly go ahead and act on it. Our intention is certainly not to do that. Certainly in one week we can take action and the next week will be better. What if txi does not hold up their end of the deal?
>> we proceed on. We can do this deal without them. We can do a comprehensive plan and do the environmental monitoring whether or not txi participates or not.
>> and we recommend one firm in b to be selected without competition. How did we select that firm?
>> that firm -- there's a couple of reasons. One, it's local. It's got some particular expertise in what i would call neo traditional design. Not your typical planning. This particular firm is known for its sensitivity toward innovation in design, particularly when it comes to greenway development. And integrating greenways into land plans. The firm is also used by local developers so they can see both sides of the equation, what does it take to do a land plan for someone who is developing property. They've also done land plans for government entities, so they can see how both operate. And i think that's -- the nature of this is really how do you -- given our lack of land use authority, how do you influence development so that it comes out more toward what we would like to see versus a standard picture. That's in part why we adopted our conservation ordinance. We wanted to provide alternative means to development where we're still a return on investment for the private development, but also what you get out of it is more compatible with what austin would want for its future. So it's --
>> b and c are to start negotiating with two separate firms.
>> there's no need to do b and c until a is done.
>> i understand. My question, though, is will the court be able to review a scope of service for each prior to taking action?
>> it's in your backup. It's the same scope of service that you have as part of your interlocal agreement.
>> so if we want to amend that scope of service, we need to do it.
>> yes, sir. Before you adopt it if you want to amend the scope to change what work is being done, that is the scope of services that is attached to the interlocal agreement, and that also corresponds with the budget so that if there's changes in the scope, there may be changes in the budget as well.
>> if there are recommendations as to the scope, i think we ought to bring it back next week, so if the city does not take action, we can let them know what it is.
>> that's fine.
>> but our deadline for next week's agenda is roughly wednesday or thursday at noon, probably before constituent can take action. So is it fair to say today that we're looking at august 17th at the earliest?
>> that's fine.
>> okay. Anything else on this item? We look forward to another discussion. Thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 2010 12:30 PM
