Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 8, 2011 (Agenda)
Item A1
>> > let's call back to order the voting session.
Travis County court.
first we'll take up a 1.
consider and take appropriate action regarding proposal to purchase certain land near gilleland creek.
we may take the item into executive session under consultation with attorney and the real property exceptions to the open meetings act and we will do that this afternoon as will are legal questions that we need to discuss with our lawyers.
do we know whether geiselman is coming down on this one?
>> I do not, judge.
>> certainly we'll need to check with mr. Nuckols.
did you all give any thought to a good public meeting date?
mr. Mcdonald?
>> the agenda said something about a public hearing.
are you talking about the same thing?
>> it's the same thing.
actually we have a meeting with -- it's a public meeting more than a public hearing.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> can you all just come to the microphone and give us your names and we'll be happy to discuss these items with you.
it will be us laying out an outline of what we have discussed with txi.
and the outline will contain draft terms and we will lay those out and get whatever feedback residents want to give us.
after that we will bring that matter back to Commissioners court later, two, three, four weeks later, depending on how the meeting goes, and based on the meeting also we would determine whether to have a public hearing in this courtroom or whether to post it for consideration and action.
>> I'm suzan in e mcendry.
>> are you talking about having it here or --
>> either at our service center.
one of those meetings was at a church, right?
somewhere out in the neighborhood.
more closer to residents than this courthouse is.
>> and I think, you know, a lot of people work during the day so evening would probably be better.
>> that's what we have in mind.
like a 6:00 meeting.
unless -- unless a Saturday morning meeting would be better.
>> well, that's good for me, but probably not for other people.
>> okay.
>> I guess I would only ask that -- richard mcdonald -- that if you advertise such a meeting or promote it that it be explained what the other issues are because here it sounds like it's a meeting about purchasing land, and I think this whole issue, there's other issues and it even says here, you know, the whole agreement with t.x.i.
I think it's a permitting situation as much as a land acquisition issue.
that's why I just think if you invite people to a meeting that they ought to be able to know what the meeting is about and not just call it a land acquisition meeting because I don't think that's -- I mean, we came to this meeting not knowing what this is about.
there was no backup available.
I just assumed this was about the t.x.i.
agreement and that's what I'm saying is if we do have a public meeting, then I think it ought to be whoever is invited and how they are invited, they ought to be told what it's about.
>> well, on the backup that we will make available as soon as we get the go-ahead, there is reference made to t.x.i., the county and city proposal.
and there is a map.
this got started with basically a land acquisition issue.
and t.x.i.
sort of became part of it once we realized that t.x.i.
either owned or had options to purchase a lot more land for gravel operations.
so the language that is on today is the language we've used the last six months.
but the backup that we have would clearly indicate -- indicates Travis County, city of Austin, t.x.i., open space acquisition and development agreement, basically.
>> so the same backup you have is the same backup I have still?
>> a through j.
>> this is date -- September 1st.
>> right.
>> now, we may revise this in preparation for the -- for the meeting.
but my guess is that the revisions would not be major.
but this says Travis County t.x.i., city of Austin open space acquisition and development agreement.
and the map clearly indicates the many areas that could be impacted.
>> okay.
>> so we are acquiring open space, but it's open space with the intention to provide a greater buffer for as many residents as we can, buffer against the t.x.i.
gravel operations.
>> okay.
so --
>> the money that we use, if any, will be what has been approved for open space land acquisition.
that's I think is why the wording is as it is.
>> does that make it mean that you could make this decision in executive session?
>> by law you can't make any decision in executive session except to come to open court and make one.
we have discussions that we lawyers and real estate people in executive session and this would really involve legal questions as well as real estate questions.
this involves a whole lot of land.
it involves land that will be dedicated, land that will be purchase, it involves the appraised value consistency with the voter approved referendum, other land legal issues basically.
>> as far as the city involvement, who are the -- which offices in the city are involved with this agreement?
>> it would require city council approval as well.
>> ultimately.
but probably city council there are a whole lot of committees this would have to work its way through.
is there a land use staff at the city?
>> yes, you think the staff at the city has been looking at it as the watershed protection division, and I think that the planning and development review is also involved.
so it would be those two -- those two departments at the city.
>> but somewhere along the line it's going to have to come, I guess, up to the city council and also through the city manager's office.
so those are some of the key players that are in that as far as the city is concerned.
>> will they be at the public meeting?
>> I can't speak for the city.
it would be good if they were.
>> yes.
>> but I can't speak for them.
>> so would the county make this agreement and pass it without the city passing it?
I think at the meeting we had in your conference room, but I'm still not sure exactly -- in other words, will this go up before Commissioners court and you say yes, we agree to this, but the city may or may not go along, you can't speak for them?
>> it's true that we cannot speak for them.
>> that's true.
>> and if I were the city and the county had an insurance active, I would want to know that the county had approved it or that the county was standing behind it.
I don't know that I would want to be the first one out there.
this is really primarily driven by the county and t.x.i.
for, in my view, county residents, but we would need the city's agreement because much of this land is in the city's e.t.j.
plus it impacts other city initiatives.
plus, it's good to have them there anyway.
>> they are also partners with us on the monitoring efforts.
so the three-party agreement requires, I believe, city participation.
so it would have to go to city council.
>> so today -- I'm just kind of confused on this as an agenda item today because I guess I thought it wasn't just going to be us up here, that we were going to have something to ask questions to or are we just talking about scheduling this meeting and that's it for today?
>> the most important thing today is schedule that meeting.
but since our last meeting, some legal questions have surfaced as well as the need to clarify some of the real estate issues.
and so that's why I posted that it might be taken into executive session.
but normally I wouldn't just on my own schedule a public meeting.
I mean, I would want the court to participate in that.
plus we would try to get some feedback from residents.
any day but Sunday would be all right with me.
and the east side service center is there, it's a large facility and we own it, but there may be another facility that's large enough that residents would feel more comfortable at and it won't bother me to go there.
we always invite all members of the Commissioners court, but we don't always all attend.
>> can I ask a few questions while I'm here if we have the expertise to answer them in the room?
>> now, we had expertise, mr. Mcdonald, but I don't know -- let's see if they answer your questions.
go ahead.
>> we're trying to understand is I realize what you are at least alleging to do with this is to purchase open space land and real estate that would act as a buffer for the residents.
but what I also see there is what t.x.i.
wants out of it is these permits.
and what I want to know is if this agreement is not made, how would they go about getting a permitted way to transfer their materials to their site that they are trying to transfer them to?
I mean, this permit was passed without a permitted way to use this material.
they dropped the conveyor, they didn't get a permit for it.
they have made this agreement to use the county roads, but they -- according to the permit they have, they have to do roadway improvements and get a permit to do those roads, okay?
my interpretation of this agreement, although you say it's land 5:00 suggest, it looks -- acquisition, looks like it's agreement for t.x.i.
to get their permits without going allow the standard process and I'm wondering what that standard process would be and why do they need to avoid that.
>> the standard process at the county, tom?
>> the county.
I understand the city is citizen board hearings of which they would go before the environmental --
>> let me try to put -- put it in context.
we're viewing it as a land acquisition deal.
t.x.i.'s response to our offer to buy their land is yes, we will let you buy this land, but we are interested no longer in having to transport the materials that we mine over the our plant via the county roads.
and they already have that permit, by the way.
that is their permitted means of conveying that material of where it's excavated to where it's process.
>> the roadway and construction.
>> they have a permit from the county.
the county basically said the condition of that permit is you need to make some road improvements, but that's -- you know, that part is settled.
we can't say no to that anymore.
but as I said, t.x.i.
is saying yes, we will sell you this land for open space, but as part of the been fit we receive, we don't want just money.
they are essentially willing to take less than fair market for that land if they are assured that the city and the county will permit their haul road or their conveyor to make those creek crossings.
that's the regulatory, that's the permit amendment that they need.
and what the county is proposing is that the city and the county do that through a development agreement.
ask a --.
>> a -- a
>> the normal process from getting a variance from the city and/or county.
having a development agreement lets you look at the overall environmental benefit of the deal rather than just putting on your water quality blinders and looking at it from that one perspective.
>> but the question was whether they would probably receive the permit even if we don't go along with this agreement.
>> how would they go about that?
>> again, it goes back to city involvement.
they would have to request a variance from the city and the city would be looking at it only from a water quality perspective.
their regulations for the creek crossing deal with water quality and I don't think the city could take into account, you know, the benefits in terms of not having that many trucks on county and state roads.
so normally it would be a variance request at the city, but because that variance request would focus only on water quality, we're proposing to the city that it be done boy a development agreement so they can take into account things like, you know, trucks not being on the road.
does that help explain?
>> did they do any review of -- in other words, would the city and/or the county review the road, the crossings, the bridges --
>> interior haul road.
>> environmental impact of the road itself would go through a permit.
>> yes.
>> they would have to drop a plan and say this is what we're going to do.
>> yes.
>> but the permit would be guaranteed?
>> no, it would not be guaranteed.
that's the issue.
>> bundle all the issues and balance them against each other in a holistic approach.
which to be perfectly frank has a benefit to t.x.i.
in that they don't have to proceed, go through so many procedures.
>> and face citizen boards where people could stand up and negotiate as far as like hours of operation and things like that?
>> but the -- well, those will still be discussed and negotiated.
>> yes, those will be.
>> as a holistic deal.
but the idea that the benefit we see in it is that it gives us the opportunity to balance some interests against one another so that we get overall approach --
>> but t.x.i.
want to do it, they were given a permit to do that, right?
you all made sure they would do that safely before they were allowed to mine, right?
>> which was the extent of our authority because it was ministerial.
we can't bar them from using the road if they are willing to improve it.
>> where does it leave public input?
it seems like this agreement is kind of cutting out the public more than if they had to go through the regular permitting process.
>> this was a draft deal negotiated between lawyers and staff and the public input process, we meant for residents, a handful of them came and we shared this with them.
>> that was you just giving information.
I don't feel like --
>> I was sharing all the information we have.
>> and we appreciate that.
>> the judge has already sawed if we move forward on this, there will be a public hearing.
I would point out that the permit amendments they need from the county to bill the interior haul road or conveyor belt could be issued without a public hearing.
so actually the judge's proposal is a more public process than what could happen otherwise.
>> that was my question, could they do the creek crossing without a public hearing at the county level.
>> at the county level, yes.
I don't believe so at the city level.
>> and is there in regulation about creek crossing or building in a floodway or anything like that?
>> there is --
>> as far as variances or anything.
>> there is, but at the county it much like the road issue.
if they can engineer it properly, we essentially can't say no to it.
>> okay.
item b on this list talks about the 17 acres of right-of-way from t.x.i.
that you are planning on purchasing for the future extension -- extension of burleson road.
is this road in your opinion other than a campo line on a plan drawing or -- in other words, do you know now whose road this is going to be and who is going to build this road and who is in charge of maintenance?
is this a county road, a state road, a bridge over the colorado river?
>> presumptively a county road because we're anticipating the area will be outside the city limits.
>> but it's not a --
>> of course, it could become that at a all right stage.
roadway planning is sort of like geology.
you look at things on a very long time frame.
so it is in the campo plan, but we're very much looking ahead and trying to preserve the corridor, so to speak, trying to preserve the area where we think there will be a need across the colorado.
so it's looking very -- very far into the future.
by the time that road actually gets built, it may be in the city limits and it would be a city road.
or by the time that road gets built, the state may decide they want to build it, but at this point we're assuming in all likelihood it would be a county road.
but that's as much certainty you can get when you are doing roadway planning that far into the future.
>> and so the purchasing of land for right-of-way, do you not have to have sort of the decision that the roadway will be built and where it's going to be built before you go about purchasing right-of-way?
>> not necessarily.
sometimes it's prudent to -- you know, to buy the right-of-way early on even though you don't know a precise alignment, but that's sort of the precise issue we're dealing with.
we're thinking that it's critical to have a bridge location in that area and you are just in a much better position to do roadway planning if you actually own the location where the bridge is going to be.
>> okay.
and so if the county buys that 17 acres on the east side of gilleland creek and the t.x.i.
donates the open space land on the west side of gilleland -- gilleland creek, then the bridge that's part of the haul road will be on county land.
>> the haul road will cross county land.
the plan is for the haul road to go under the bridge.
or the bridge to go over the haul road, however you want to look at it.
>> but there will be this bridge on county land.
will the county rent that land?
>> we will own that land, but t.x.i.
will essentially have an easement for that haul road.
>> and will that last forever?
>> as long as the plant is in operation.
>> so the open space land that the county is going to get as part of this deal will have a haul road through it.
>> no, no.
the right-of-way land we're acquiring for the bridge will have the haulway allow it.
the howl way does not go through open space land.
>> 123 acres of donated land along gilleland creek on the other side, west --
>> I see what you are saying.
just to the west of the bridge location.
yeah, the same thing.
t.x.i.
would reserve an easement there.
>> so do you think if you bought the whole ricin tract that renting the land giving them the easement of the road through that would cut the cost of that down so you can afford to buy the whole thing?
>> no.
>> on the ricin track, yes, but the ricin tract gives little buffer relief.
>> I'm talking about the part that you originally condemn and started --
>> 200 acres.
>> no, I'm talking about the condemnation procedure that you said was started and then just put on hold.
>> about 200 acres.
right, joe?
>> more than that.
600.
>> 600 acres.
the problem with 600 acres, it's expensive.
it's in a condemnation proceeding, and it doesn't provide much buffer for many residents.
so if you live close to that land, you will have a buffer if the county acquires it.
but if you live in any of the other areas that we show on the map here, you will get no relief from that -- from county acquisition of that land.
>> I'm sorry I have to go.
thank you all.
>> thank you for being here.
>> appreciate it.
>> if you could just let me know when the public meeting is, I can pass that along.
>> you still have those contacts?
we gave several contacts in the meeting that we held.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> you still have the email addresses and stuff.
thanks.
>> thank you.
>> no, thank you.
>> I guess I still -- I mean I was told that, you know, we couldn't afford to buy the whole ricin tract.
the buffer that you are talking about buying as a buffer for deckered creek estates is not part of the ricin tract.
it's more chosen and it's a good piece, but I guess I -- you know, the land that was only the ricin tract is on a piece of land that they don't have a way to mine that land.
you were kind of telling me we couldn't afford it because it was part of their mine and stuff like that.
but the fact is without the -- the agreement or the variances, they don't have a way to get -- to mine that land.
>> but they will get those -- the high probability they would get the variances.
basically we're trying to take advantage of the current hassle factor to t.x.i.
in order to extract the highest public goods for the most people.
the hassle factor won't last forever.
>> well, it would if you bought it.
>> we feel that we get a bigger bang for our buck in purchasing buffers specific to the residents.
>> okay.
>> the bigger bang for the residents.
>> well, I understand your theory.
I talked to both mary ricin, who owns the property north of chapel crossing -- I don't know if you know her -- and vera mecara who owns the land to the west of hornsby bend, both of which these buffers are on that are labeled in yellow.
neither one of those people knew anything about their land not be mined much and that's what I think is the funniest thing about this plan is these buffer zones that t.x.i.
says they are not going the mine as if that's something they are donating to the -- or they are putting in the agreement.
and I know you told us they agreed not to mine that but they may as well agree not to mine zilker park or something as far as that goes.
they have no intention of mining these areas and they never did.
and so why are we trading these variances for those buffers I guess is one of my big questions.
>> well, sellerly it assures that they won't ever change their mind about this.
which absent this agreement they could change their mind and do that.
>> okay.
>> I don't know that every resident that would benefit from this knows about it.
>> the buffers.
>> right.
right here.
>> I don't think anybody knows about it.
>> but if we proceed with condemnation of that 600 acres, all of these residents remain unprotected basically.
and either t.x.i.
owns the land or they have options to purchase and it has been sort of fine by them to be prime gravel operation land.
so that's what we were trying to head off.
that 600-acre condemnation proceeding, by the way, is on hold.
>> right.
>> it's just that in the grand scheme of things, it makes little sense compared to our ability to provide more relief to more people.
>> it might save elm creek from what I think is going to happen to that.
when you mine both sides of the creek and the watershed goes below the level of the creek, and I've talked to john white and he says I have a point here, what's going to happen to this creek when all the watershed of the creek is below the creek and you have a little aqueduct of water running up.
so elm creek -- anyway, I guess this is all going to come out in the meeting.
I have one more question these -- and I asked this at our meeting you held and I still don't quite understand the county and the city I greed to permit additional mining on the webberville site.
why are they being excluded from the regular permitting process in this?
I mean, why is this given to them in this agreement and why don't they have to go through a regular permitting process?
>> they will.
this is essentially puts in place what the standard are going to be.
another issue for t.x.i.
is they are afraid that -- you know, that rules will change in the future.
and so this essentially says those areas will be permitted based on a certain set of standard and removes that element of uncertainty for them.
>> and those standard are just what's written into the agreement, not -- they won't have to go through a permitting process.
>> they will have to submit a set of plans and those plans will be reviewed to make sure that they meet the standards set in the agreement.
so there will be a permitting and review process when it comes time for those areas to be mined.
>> we're calling this an agreement, but actually these are just terms and conditions that would go into an agreement.
>> right.
so at the time of the proposed public meeting, do you think that this will be the information that we're going on?
>> I'd say real close to the final product.
we may change that some.
if so, it will be today.
>> and the last item on this list, t.x.i.
agrees to fence the cemetery, that's really something they are bargaining for, they are going to put up a chain-link fence?
I guess what I'm saying is that is so -- went they do that anyway?
I mean the berms they have to do anyway and that's part of the agreement.
they said they will build a berm.
those berms are built now.
they've been out there with their noisy, squeaky tractors and stuff for the last two weeks and those berms are obama administration.
they have to by law, and the cemetery where james gilleland and his wife are buried, that's all we can get out of them is a fence?
>> I thought residents asked us to insist a fence be --
>> well, I do, but now they've got a big berm so nobody is going to be able to go back there.
I guess it's on their property anyway, nobody can go back there anyway.
>>
>> [inaudible] kind of want it open to the public.
that's what was explained to me about the discretion, especially with the fence around it.
they kind of wanted it off limits and didn't really want the public dealing with.
which is their right.
you know, so that was brought to my attention on that issue when it came to the cemetery.
so it's a -- you know, they didn't want it open to the public.
they kind of wanted it left private and just to their discretion.
>> t.x.i.
you mean or the family?
>> that was explained to me from the folks that that's what the family request was.
>> all right, well --
>> the agreement would be 20, 30 pagees long.
>> the what?
>> the agreement itself.
if we reach an agreement and execute an agreement, it will be much longer than this one page outline.
>> right.
>> these are highlights basically.
>> right.
when you told us about this, it was early October and the date on this was August 17th.
and I have been hesitant to talk to my neighbors about the terms of this agreement because to me it seemed like it was evolving fast and that it might not be the same.
and so I'm trying to get an idea is this what we're going on.
>> I think that's going to be pretty close to the finished product that we've have available for the public meeting.
>> okay.
I guess that's all from me.
>> okay.
>> oh, the other thing, one more thing.
if -- okay, so the permit as it stands now, we had this discussion that there's going to be 250 trucks a day going back and forth between the mine and the site.
and if they are not on the roads, they are going to be on this gravel road.
and Commissioner Huber, when you mentioned that the initial permitting phase you are worried about all the emissions of all these added trucks, are these trucks going to be regulated?
I mean now when a truck is on the county road, I'm assuming it has some emission standards and it has to be covered when it has gravel in it and things like that.
so are they going to be able to put the old used smokey, stinking, rattly, uncovered trucks, 250 trucks a day going back and forth on this road and has anybody ever imagined what an empty gravel truck sound like on a gravel road going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth?
>> I don't think we have --
>> will think be regulated.
will the county have any say on the trucks they use and the standard -- it would be better to have them on the road.
>> the trucks to get there are going to have to cross county and state roads.
>> no.
>> unless they drop them in with a helicopter or something.
>> well, yeah.
>> to get to that site they are going to have to drive on state and county roads and meet all the requirements for a truck or any other vehicle that drives on state and county roads.
>> but once they are to site, they might operate them for another 15 years doing haul road work, right?
>> we don't --
>> that may be a question you need to ask t.x.i.
>> and we can ask that.
we don't know the answer to that.
I think it would be improbable that they would maintain a separate fleet just for the internal hauling, but we could certainly ask.
>> I think that they wouldn't have to.
that this would be their old used trucks.
>> but we also are monitoring particulate matter which would pick up if they were using extraordinarily dirty trucks and resulting in heavy particulate.
so we should be able to pick that up through our already in place joint monitoring efforts.
>> yeah, that hasn't started yet, it's my understanding.
>> we can check on it.
>> okay.
>> so it doesn't really matter as long as we do it three, four weeks from now?
>> sounds good to me.
>> thank you, mr. Mcdonald.
>> thank you.
>> we will take this item into executive session under consultation with attorney exceptions to the open meetings act.
I move we recess the voting commission to take up the corporations, seconded by Commissioner Davis.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote
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.
