Travis County Commissioners Court
January 31, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 2
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
item number 2 we posted for discussion.
public hearing today at 1:45 and it's that time.
2 is receive public comments and take appropriate action regarding the proposed development agreement with t.x.i.
and the city of Austin regarding the greenprint land along gilleland creek and the colorado river in precinct 1.
move the public hearing be open.
second then.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners.
joe geiselman, our consultant, will address the court with where we are at this point.
>> good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
>> the Commissioners court has a draft agreement, basically just terms and conditions, not a fully development agreement that is correct we released to the public back late last year.
at the direction of the court, the court conducted a public meeting out in the community in December, December 1st, and we received some public testimony at that meeting.
I think many of you and I have received other comments since then and I think what really today is just a public -- formal public hearing on that same agreement.
there has not been a redraft or a new draft because we have had no direction from the court to add or subtract or amend anything that was basically in that draft agreement.
so today is really to receive more public testimony, and what I will do is just really lay out some of the highlights of the comments that have been made since the draft agreement was made public.
steve, at the direction of the court, steve sent a letter to the city of Austin because we realized that to make this agreement work, we would need the city of Austin's participation and that by way of variance that would have to be granted to city's codes to cross gilleland creek.
part of what the agreement calls for is a haul road from the mining operations, t.x.i.'s mining operations, across gilleland creek to its processing plant on this property on the other side of the creek.
rather than going down dunlap road and 969 hauling materials.
to do that, they need a variance from the city to do that.
so steve wrote a letter to city manager mark ott asking them, basically explaining the agreement and asking them if they would formally participate as a signator to the agreement.
yesterday we did receive a letter back from the city manager, actually from greg guernsey, who is now our lead contact for the city, saying that generally they like the agreement, they are not committed to it, I mean they know about it and they know enough about it to say it's worth looking at and we'll continue to work with the county to develop something we believe the city can put a signature to.
I don't want to overstate what staff and council as a whole has not seen the agreement so staff is just looking at it in code and city regulations as well as some of the provisions the county has placed in the agreement.
that letter is part of your backup.
I also have copies in event any of the public want a copy of it.
other than that we have a whole series of comments that have been provided to the court by way of the public meetings and direct communications with the court or the county judge.
the first was a letter that we received from the native Texas nurseries representing the agricultural interests in that area, south of milo and north of the colorado river and east of dunlap road.
their main concern is that they draw water from the -- both the colorado and the aquifer to irrigate their agricultural uses.
there's a fairly large nursery, maybe several nurseries, tree nurseries, and large pecan orchards so they are worried primarily about not only the quantity but quality of ground water and how that might be affect by the mining operations.
>> what's the name of that grape?
>> the native Texas nursery was the author of that letter, but in the first paragraph of the letter he represented that he was speaking for -- on behalf of other agricultural interests in that area.
we also received comments from the Austin colony homeowners association.
at this point I'm going to step up to the map because I think it would be helpful for you to visually see where some of these comments are.
>> do you all have readable maps?
I have some color copies.
I know that what came out in the backup wasn't very clear.
do you all have a color copy?
>> no.
>> do we have enough of those to share with residents?
>> I do.
>> is this on?
should be.
>> testing.
now it is, definitely.
all right.
the representative from the Austin colony pointed out that the agreement called for a thousand-foot buffer between the mining operations and the existing residential subdivisions.
and by subdivisions I mean platted properties, not every single residential unit.
and that was one of our objectives is to try to buffer the existing subdivisions from the mining operations.
Austin colony pointed out that at the lower end of the hornsby bend west area there was a piece that wasn't exactly 1,000 feet from the residences of the southern Austin colony, and they asked that t.x.i.
set aside an additional about 30 acres to supplement what was already being buffered to make it an entire thousand feet.
that is this section right down here below.
the same thing occurred and with a comment that was made by -- I believe it was a resident of chapperal crossing, but may also have been embedded by the comment by Austin colony that the same is true of about a thousand foot buffer south of Austin colony, that it wasn't a true thousand foot.
this would be another nine acres of set-aside or nonmining area just in this area here.
so those two were comments that we received.
Austin colony also wanted some legal restrictions and seat signsthat would restrict traffin hunter road and we believe that's very much a part of the agreement but I think takes it a step further in terms of county regulations and also county signing that would reflect what's in the agreement.
chapperal crossing, the first comment was they prefer not to have any mining at all because they are pretty much surrounded by the mine operations both in this area and this area up here.
so their first concern would be we don't want mining at wonderful.
but they also asked that this -- at all.
they also asked this additional acreage be set aside, there be true thousand foot buffer.
a comment that affects chapperal crossing was the need for some kind of a fence that went along dunlap road on the-along dunlap road and across from chapperal crossing.
that would be in addition to the berm.
in the agreement, i.t.s.
agrees to a four foot firm.
this comment we want a six foot high wood, metal post, capped fence on top of the berm mainly for visual barrier to the mining operations that would be occurring on the other side of the fence.
right along here.
qualco made several comments and they own the property in this area through here as well as the chapperal crossing was one of their developments.
this is a platted property that some of it has been built, have an active residential area and some, a large portion is platted but not built.
and they ask that the thousand foot buffer south of the creek be taken out of the agreement.
that would be this entire yellow area right here, that we not include that buffer in the agreement.
they also asked --
>> that's the land that they own, right?
>> that is the land that they own, that's correct.
what our agreement says that if t.x.i.
purchased that property, they could use it but they can't mine it.
so we would basically handcuff t.x.i.
from mining that thousand foot area if they purchased the land from qualco.
and so that was what we tried to accomplish and how we were accomplishing the buffer.
neither the county nor t.x.i.
currently owns the property.
that was just a point qualco was trying to make, it's not your property.
and our point really was the agreement is between t.x.i.
and Travis County.
we're binding t.x.i., we're not binding qualco and what they can do with the property.
it also asked that in the agreement you have a 114-foot strip of land that we asked t.x.i.
to set aside for a future roadway that would serve this very development.
and be able to get that traffic out to 969.
qualco came back and asked that that be widened from 114-foot to 200 feet just to provide more buffer between the mining operation and the future residential area or whatever use they might put to the property.
and they also mentioned the six foot high fence along dunlap road across from chapperal crossing.
webber's crossing submitted a letter asking that the county reconsider -- and t.x.i.
reconsider its crossing of gilleland creek.
we had negotiated actually three ways with the webber's crossing, t.x.i.
and the county on just where this crossing ought to be.
in the end, we could not come to agreement and we ended up making just a two-party agreement between Travis County and t.x.i.
to cross on t.x.i.
property a lower
>> [inaudible] of gilleland creek.
>>
>> [inaudible] making the crossing higher up away from the colorado river?
>> yes, the crossing would be at approximately this point right here had the three parties stayed together.
>> but that private property owner couldn't -- we couldn't come to agreement with that private property owner.
>> no.
>> whose property is it?
>> it's actually a partnership called webber's crossing.
mr. Carpenter is their representative so probably know him as a person.
other comments made generally, and this doesn't cover all the comments made at the public meeting and there was some -- so I tried to really highlight -- oh, one more important one or major one is the city of -- village of webberville.
when they saw the buffers, they said we would like a thousand foot buffer set aside also in the vicinity of village of webberville so that there be no mining within 1,000 feet of the village.
and that's this piece over here.
so in terms of additional buffer, we're talking about this piece down here south of Austin colony, another piece up here south of chapperal crossing, and then over here at webberville.
that would be in in addition to the land acquisition.
there's three types of buffer.
one is land the county intend to acquire for open spaces and that's this 176 acres.
it is primarily purchased for open spaces because of the nature of this, it's at the confluence of three creeks, it's in the greenprint high priority conservation line, but it also serves as a buffer to the twin creek meadows area.
that's one type of buffer.
the other type of buffer are deed restrictions on t.x.i.'s property itself.
t.x.i.
on its own accord deed restricted this area south of chapperal crossing.
the third type of buffer are these yellow areas and those are areas neither owned by t.x.i.
or proposed for purchase by Travis County, but by which we and t.x.i.
agree that should they buy those properties, t.x.i.
buy them, they would not mine them.
they can buy them and use them for any other purpose, they can put residential development in there, whatever, but not mine it.
and so it doesn't mean that the property owners who own those properties can't sell their property and do whatever they want.
nothing in this agreement binds those property owners to either current use or any future use they want to make of the property.
including selling it to another mining operation and mining it.
the disagreement doesn't bind the property owners at all.
it does bind t.x.i.
and then finally in terms of the miscellaneous category, there was an interest in the hours of operation, the hours be restricted to daytime, the mining operations I'm speaking of, so that basically dawn to dusk and there not be any nighttime mining.
that is currently not in the agreement.
we would also extend the buffer, the agreement not to mine, the no mining buffer to t.x.i.
subsidiary and other mining companies applying to t.x.i.
so that any of these yellow areas, for instance, if they were purchased by another mining operation, they couldn't sell the materials to t.x.i.
to process them, to haul them and process them at their plant.
so one of the kind of loopholes in the agreement right now is
>> [inaudible] unless that provision was added to the agreement.
those are generalizing the comments that we received to date.
today's public hearing is really just to round that out and find out what else folks might be thinking about the agreement.
basically the city of Austin stands ready to discuss this further with the county.
and at the end of the -- this meeting, perhaps sometime in the next couple weeks, I'd like some direction from the court on how to proceed.
>> joe, if there were other alternatives, I guess
>> [inaudible] and in the later discussion, but when we were out in the meeting in December, and the judge I think conducted a very, very eloquent meeting along with staff and along with participants that did come to that meeting, it was very, very informative, and hopefully we can still get some of that input, but there were situation whereby different alternatives as far as options that were placed on the table, in other words, do nothing, per se, condemnation proceedings,
>> [inaudible] but also another one was the agreement.
and, of course, which has different legs as those other two have other legs.
and again, we wanted basically to hear from the community, but I would just maybe want to throw that on the table because there are other -- there may be other options other than just an agreement.
but you need to know what the consequences of those other alternatives really pose.
thank you.
>> I have a couple questions.
I got an email requesting the name of the contact person at the city of Austin.
>> I've got that, judge.
>> okay.
is that greg?
>> no, sir, it's not.
I spoke with greg yesterday.
he would prefer that anybody wants to communicate with the city they go through their environmental officer, chuck lesniak.
highs phone number 974-2699.
email chuck.lesniak at Austin, Texas.governor.
>> we have dealt with some of the city staff.
>> we've met with them, talked over what this is about and they like the concept of reclaiming a mining operation like this, but they -- they don't know enough about it yet to be able to advise us thousand get through their processes just yet and that sort of thing.
>> those communications so far have been informal.
>> correct.
>> in order to formalize them, they want the Commissioners court to make the proposal?
or they want staff to come and formally present it and say what's the city's position?
>> at some point I think they would have us make a presentation to the city council on the agreement as it stands so they can see all the -- what all is being proposed.
we've talked -- they have a copy of the agreement, staff does.
I don't know if the city council has had an opportunity to see it as you have.
>> I would also add in my discussion with greg the other day, he did say that it would be helpful if we were to request a work session at the city to talk about all of these issues.
the so the city has asked that we request a work session because of all the issues here and that's what we would do if the court directs us to do that today.
>> okay.
my reading of this is that without the city's partnering with us, this is dead.
am I overreading it or --
>> yeah, I don't -- I mean at the heart of this is the haul road across gilleland creek which is going to require a variance, so yes, that's true.
>> variance by the city.
>> variance by the city.
it's not a county variance, it's a city variance.
>> okay.
unlike the county, the city has various committees and bureaus, groups that they tend to work through before getting to the council, right?
and would that be before the work session or after the work session if they --
>> I think probably their staff is looking from direction from the council as to what route they will take and probably a work session would precede any -- first of all decide whether they want anything to do with the agreement.
>> but it's difficult to get that feedback without formally proposing, basically.
>> I think so.
I mean, we have formally -- I mean, steve's letter to mark ott was a formal transmittal asking them to participate in the agreement.
so it was a positive response, but I think really get down to brass tacks, you have to have a whole lot more detail and you have attorneys involved and before they go to that level of commitment, I think they want to know from council whether or not this is worthwhile or not.
just like we have here.
we've done a lot of talking before we said should we proceed or not and I think they would like the same opportunity.
>> what did we tell the residential participating in the December public meeting we would do with the information they gave us?
>> bring it to you.
>> the list that you read out a few minutes ago we got from the residents.
>> I laid out several documents, and we all I believe already have all of these documents.
if not I've got copies of them, but all the letters that we received, the testimony at the public meetings and then the individual letters that we received from Texas native nurseries,
>> [inaudible] cross, qualco, you have copies of those because they went to you directly.
but that -- that is basically all I was doing is summarizing things that you got through one channel or another.
>> and finally for me, my reading of this indicates that our next step really should be to find out from the city what the city's position is and whether it's to proceed to look at this further with an eye to taking action at some point in the future or just to categorically reject it.
seems to me we can do all we want to here, but at some point we've got to get with the city, find out what the city's position is, whether the city wants changes, et cetera.
am I reading that correctly?
>> I think a work session would help them get to that point.
>> I'm trying to give residents an indication where we probably are today.
and I guess we can share with the city all the information we have about the draft proposal, including what residents gave us at the public meeting.
and see what the city's position is and try to work through those issues.
at some point you've got three parties that you are really trying to-four I guess if we include residents, but four parties to the formal agreement, that would be the city, the county, t.x.i., and to the extent that we can meeting the concerns, objections, recommendations given us by residents.
ultimately the question really is whether in our view residents are better off with a proposal such as we're looking at or without it.
basically I guess going with the status quo.
what's our response to that?
I mean, if I were a resident of, say, Austin's colony, I would want to know why somebody at the county believes I'm better off with this proposed agreement than without it.
how would we answer that?
>> do you want me to answer that?
>> it's supposed to be a softball, by the way.
>> the -- the first thing I would start off with, the status quo, anywhere we go there's going to be mining in the area.
and I know the overarching sentiments of the community are we don't want the mining, and I understand that.
but that has -- that's passed.
this company now has permit to mine.
they intend to do so.
so with that in place, we're trying to make it as good as we can.
we started off on a multiple prong process, environmental monitoring, we have that in place, we have someone we contract, we're doing baseline monitoring.
so number 1 before any mining starts what are the water quantity and quality baseline so we can determine whether or not anything happens after mining starts.
the other part was realizing that much of this corridor, at least 40% of it, is already in the hands of mining companies and other kind of gets a master plan because otherwise it's just one thing after another and we're just going to be overall chasing our tails wondering what piece of property next is going to be mined.
and how do you put this basically in a larger frame of public policy on this corridor.
how do you want it to look in 40, 50 years, given the fact there are mining deposits out there.
so we launched another effort, offered to do master planning for the corridor.
and specifically we knew we had issues with the hornsby bend east and west mining permits.
as it stands, all those materials will be hauled down dunlap road, 969 to their processing plant.
not a good idea, but can be done.
one of the faults is t.x.i.
proceeds to upgrade those roads as required by our roadway agreement and they proceed to mine the pits hauling the materials on public roadway.
so -- and the county also wanted -- was looking at this area for acquisition of open spaces where the greenprint identified parcels of high value conservation.
that is where we kind of got head to head with t.x.i.
because we were both interested in the same parcel.
unfortunately already had a contract for sale to purchase the property.
so overall we were looking at acquiring properties along gilleland creek and colorado river for parkland open spaces.
so that was still part of our intent.
rather than go head long into condemnation with a hospital style property owner, being t.x.i., and facing the consequences of doing that, which were likely to be very high prices for acquisition and condemnation perhaps meaning damages to the remainder, we those sit down cht down and say can we do something to benefit.
side benefits from the agreement as no truck traffic on dunlap road or milo or hunters bend or 969 in terms of getting raw materials to the processing plant.
the third, another community value are these buffers.
as you know, we try to through legislative process to get new authorities that would allow the counties to regulate adverse uses so that we could formally and in a larger way do land use planning where we can buffer adverse uses against residential areas.
that initiative was not fruitful.
the county did not get that authority.
but somewhat in some way we are doing that very thing with t.x.i.
under this agreement.
we are asking them not to mine within 1,000 feet of these existing residential areas.
that is a benefit of the agreement that we could not have any other way.
it is legally binding on t.x.i.
so what we could not have gotten through the legislative process we have in fact in this agreement.
so that is a benefit of the agreement.
there are other things that -- some of this open space land is being donated by t.x.i.
some of it is being acquired fee simple by Travis County.
but overall we're afiring some 360 acres of open spares at a fairy reasonable price given the fact that some of the properties have aggregate on it.
so it doesn't -- it doesn't solve all the problems. Certainly there are some -- there's some potential for any impacts, particularly in the area of water quality, that are serious.
we don't know for a fact what will happen and that's why we're setting up the monitoring.
that is both in Travis County's interest but also in t.x.i.'s interest because it's not -- it's not good for them to have that liability out there either so they are going to be just as interested in what they might do with regard to water quality and quantity.
I suspect even if the county were not monitoring the water quality, they would be.
so overall the agreement allows us to do some things that will not happen under the default, which is the do nothing.
might not happen if t.x.i.
chooses to just go in and amend its permit to seek a variance independent of the county, just go directly to the city and say, look, we want an amendment to our permit for variance to cross the creek and do that as strictly a regulatory permit, and they can still do.
that but if they do that and they are successful at getting that variance, all these other things we might have accomplished in the agreement are gone, they are dead, they are past.
those are things I view as good public objectives that could be accomplished through the agreement that might not be otherwise accomplished.
>> t.x.i.
has representatives at the December meeting?
>> they did.
>> and the recommendations given us by residents above and beyond the proposed agreement we discussed with t.x.i.
>> they know of them.
they have not agreed to anything.
>> court members, any comments, questions, before we hear from residents?
>> I have a question about revegetation.
it seems that the vulnerability, I think the bone structure of this is very good and that it's worthing of pursuing and continuing negotiation with city of Austin and t.x.i.
as well as continuing participation of the residents.
a couple questions I have, well, one statement about the vulnerability, do have a water quality vulnerability, but we feel that we have -- already have in place our monitoring regime to come up with a baseline and monitor any degradation.
>> we do.
>> that's right.
if you would like an update, I think we have staff in the audience that could give that to you real quick.
>> that would be good to get that update.
then the second vulnerability I remained concerned about is the post-mining reclamation aspect.
I think possibly the city of Austin is the better entity to help address that in negotiations given their staffing levels with regard to water quality, revegetation and whatnot.
but I'm hoping that in moving forward with the city, if they are willing, to work with them on a revegetation plan with t.x.i.
for the properties that the county or the city would not own or have control over post-mining.
it will be 30 feet below grade.
my understanding at least thus far is that it's -- it won't be appropriate area for structural redevelopment, but it could be really quite wonderful area for wetland restoration.
and at least my understanding is that the city staff is -- well, I know the city staff is more rebust than we are in that regard and I always like their input.
>> mr. Webber.
>> for the record, tom webber, environmental quality manager for Travis County.
let me start on the reclamation.
there have been ideas that some of this land could be reused for beneficial purposes like such things as like creating a wetland or some other type of open space.
it's not an easy proposition to create wetland.
from an area that's been degraded.
it can be done, but I would just caution that that takes, you know, quite a bit of analysis, assessment, getting the ingredients right, the ingredients being the right -- the right water inputs, and to get success with what other kind of vegetation you put there.
>> so we will have 20 years of working with t.x.i.
>> and that's -- that's about the time frame you are looking at before you could kind of claim success for something like.
this so there are ideas like that that have been thought of.
obviously we're just looking at this is kind of a blank slate of what these lands would be if they were conveyed to the county.
on the monitoring, I'll get over here to a poster that we have in a moment, but just so far what's been accomplished is we have u.r.s.
corporation, actually a representative, kevin is in the audience today.
they've already completed three ground water sampling events beginning in October through month of January.
there's been two air monitoring event and one noise monitoring event.
we have a fairly simple one-year contract to do this baseline monitoring.
that whole one-year effort will be completed with a public meeting in the community in the early summer.
overall -- so we're halfway done where the baseline.
>> reporter: monitoring, three events, a total of six are going to be accomplished.
in addition to sampling the wells, we are taking water level measurements t we-on air monitoring, we've completed two events out of four and noise one out of two.
so far not a lot of surprises.
we have what's called a transducer on one of the wells and this acts so we can get a continuous reading of water levels.
so it's just logging that data moment after moment all the way through the period of analysis.
so that's being supplemented by manual looking at water level measurements at the other nine wells.
just to the -- just to give you kind of a snapshot of what this looks like, we use these maps at the public hearing, but-but you can see the well locations here, the red -- let's see.
this well right here in blue on t.x.i.'s property, starts out with five eight and the numbers, that's the one with the water level indicator.
and you can see the various wells.
we have one out here, this is actually mansville public drinking water and some wells up here, three of them.
over here and then down here.
so we've kind of got this -- what's been noted so far is that the ground water is flowing generally south and eastwardly.
we kind of expected that.
also one of the trends that's been noticed is that with the increase in rainfall, that we have had water levels gradually increasing.
and the transducer will raise a level up about six inches, for instance.
on water quality we've had similar results from the wells through each of the three sampling collection dates.
and I think some of you have seen emails and we discussed this at the public meeting that four of the ten wells do exceed the drinking water maximum contaminant level for nitrate.
and we have advised citizens of that who have these wells, from the interviews that we actually had our city-county health department discuss this with residents there and they verified that this water is not being used for drinking.
and that's a good thing.
so that's -- that's kind of just sort of the snapshot.
so monitoring will be ongoing and we'll have a report and a meeting on this in early summer.
>> during the public hearing, I remember specifically asking you to help us and give the overview, I'm saying the public hearing on December 1, another good question as far as
>> [inaudible] is concerned.
and reveal exactly what is in that particular well water that you just described.
high concentration of nitrates that are not suitable for drinking, but more than that I think the source of that particular nitrate level in those particular wells, I think basically, if I remember correctly, was basically coming from the agricultural use and from fertilizers and things like that.
>> Commissioner, these -- these ground water conditions aren't unique to these wells.
>> right.
>> this is the general problem.
from horns on bye bend eastward in this alluvial aquifer.
and it has been hypothesized, you know, without actually doing detail assessment, that this is the result of fertilization of agricultural land.
there could be other sources of nitrates as well.
>> and I think, really-.
>> we don't believe
>> [inaudible] mining.
>> yeah.
right.
>> with regard to mining, what do we -- what are we on the lookout for in the air, noise and water monitoring that would have a probability of being related to mining once the mining begins?
>> well, of course noise is just decibel levels.
on -- on air monitoring, we're looking at particulate matter.
you know, particulate matter I think at both the 10-micron and -- 10-microns more course.
it might be associated with dust and things like that could be agitated during mining.
2.5 would relate to diesel emission.
minor particulate.
in terms of the water quality parameters, we're looking at basic water chemistry.
just the basically cations that exist in the water we're looking at total suspended solids, and we're really just looking to see what kind of change we get.
I think total suspended solids would definitely be one that you might relate to mining.
some of the others will just -- we would just really just be looking to see how they changed and see how water levels change and see if there might be some relationships there.
>> thanks.
>>
>> [inaudible] particulate generated by the mining activity, what's tceq's injures ticks.
>> there isn't a quote unquote -- there's no permit limit for particulate.
>> moderate in the air and if it hits a certain level they would take enforcement action.
>> I think it would be the particulate matter upgrade -- or I should say up wind versus downwind from the mine.
if we saw striking differences there, then I think that could be a matter where the tceq could become involved.
>> just out of curiosity, where is the air quality and noise monitoring taking place?
it moving around or --
>> kevin, would you like to answer that.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> would you come up to the mic and identify yourself?
>> you can use the map if you want.
>> hello, kevin pastor knack with usr corporation and we're doing the air monitoring.
there's two air monitoring stations located in the area.
the primary wind direction in the area is from south to north and so it will be up wind location in this vicinity.
and then downwind is in this vicinity by these --
>> [inaudible] wells here.
>> thanks.
>> what about the noise monitoring.
>> there's not like a monitoring stand you set up like for air.
what happens with the noise monitoring, it's a hand-held device and so the noise technician sort of canvasses the area getting a cross-section of different types of noises that exist in the environment naturally.
and at this time, you know, prior to to mining.
>> so would they then in the future, would there be baseline locations established there there's a measure of comparison on a future noise monitoring assessment?
>> yeah, we -- of course, if we -- if we extend this contract and fund it, we can continue beyond the baseline monitoring and I think we would establish the air monitoring in the same location.
>> court members, anything else?
let's hear from the residents then.
that took a little longer than I thought it would.
but there's no certain order so if you would like to give comments, please come forth.
we have -- one of you should stay there.
joe, you stand.
we ought to have about four or five chairs.
come forth and give us your name and we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good afternoon.
patricia alivera.
I have two things I would like to mention.
one is regarding mr. Geiselman's comments.
>> could you state your name.
>> regarding mr. Geiselman's comments that were taken.
patricia alvera, sorry.
mr. Geiselman's comments that he summarized from the meeting back in December.
just one comment that was made during the meeting that he didn't summarize which I understand he can't summarize everything, but I want to make sure this is known.
as a resident of one of the six homes that's on milo road, which is directly across a single dirt road from the mining activity, there is no buffer.
and the residents of south dunlap, there's two homesteads on that road.
there's also no buffer there.
and we asked, you know, at the meeting, hey, how come we can't get a buffer if possibly these other people are getting buffers and we were told there's not enough of us.
it doesn't affect us enough, which really bothers me a lot.
you know, there's eight homesteads there.
I don't know the exact number of people, but probably at least 20, maybe more.
I would like to formally request a buffer being added into this negotiation for the residents of milo who are closer than anybody else to the mining activity.
that's going to be going on by txdot.
the other comment is just regarding the moist monitoring.
I don't understand how you can have a hand-held device monitoring noise.
for how long is that monitored?
how does that work and how often does that happen and what time of day does that happen and that kind of thing?
>> you might ask mr. Pasternak to come back.
>> right, but how it will happen.
and noise.
that's specifically what I'm asking about.
>> I'm not -- let me first off say that I'm not our noise expert.
my area is more in ground water so I can tell you what I do know about what we're doing, but if I don't answer my question fully, I can have our air expert follow up.
the way it works is there's a hand-held decibel meter that is taken around and I believe it's for collection of -- running average of noise over, and you said the time period, and I believe it's over I think up to a four-hour period at a single location.
I might be wrong.
it might be for a longer period of time.
and those locations are set up in the neighborhoods, along the road, in areas where it's anticipated that t.x.i.
might be placing their mining surprises they will have a baseline average for the noise during those times.
and tonight's the way baseline noise or change is conducted throughout various times of the day.
not just early in the morning or light in the evening, it goes through all parts of the day so all time periods should be represented by noise.
>> but somebody actually goes out and holds the strike?
>> yes.
>> for four hours?
>> yes.
>> for how often.
>> twice.
each event the multiple days.
I believe it's -- it might be up to 18 days per event.
I can check my notes on that.
>> I still don't understand.
I'm sorry.
because you said it will be done twice, you said 18 events.
you mean 18 locations?
>> by one event is 18 days long.
>> oh, I'm sorry.
>> so by twice it would be --
>> are these dates, are they announced in advance?
>> they are -- the schedule for the sampling is in our sampling plan which the county has.
>> is that provided to t.x.i.?
>> no.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> would you like the name and phone number of the technician?
>> no, that's -- I have your name.
>> and I can find that -- I can find out the -- if I look in my document, I can find out in fairly short order humid this monitoring is playing place.
>> thank u.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> great.
thank you.
I'll get back to you.
thank you.
>> thank you.
next?
>> maliah o'dell, Austin colony homeowners association.
I would also like a copy of that testing plan because I'm interested in where exactly they are monitoring the noise levels for the baseline.
and also as regards to mr. Geiselman's presentation of the comments from December and how he's added them to this new map, in December, as I remember, the t.x.i.
representative said it's this agreement or no agreement.
so I'm curious if the county Commissioners could sit down with t.x.i.
and see how they feel about this new map and this new agreement because if we can get t.x.i.
to agree to some of the public input on this new map, that's what I would like to present to the city of Austin, not the current disaster.
so I really don't want the city of Austin to see this current draft because it doesn't have any of the public comment on it.
so that's all I have.
thank you.
thank you, yes, sir.
>> joseph bead and I'm here on behalf of webberville.
you mentioned the thousand foot webberville would like because of the detrimental effects on ground water and air.
I want to point out it's not just the lower portion but also the northern portion.
so there's -- there's this that was pointed out earlier, but it's also up here as well.
that would affect the village of webberville.
>> if I'm not mistaken, joe, that is not part of the agreement because it's already their primary processing area.
so we don't have any leverage.
>> okay.
>> to get any agreement with regard to the t.x.i.
webberville property.
>> just the southern part.
>> it's just the -- the western part on the other side of gilleland creek to which they are asking for the variance, and it's the variance that gives us the leverage for the agreement.
am I correct about that?
>> I'm not sure
>> [inaudible].
>> right.
>> I wasn't making value judgment.
if I miss something, circle that area.
>> give your your last night.
>> dean, d-e-e-b.
>> it would be optimal if we could have a thousand foot buffer.
since that portion east of gilleland is not included because we don't have the leverage of the variance.
that's a pre-existing, long pre-existing permit.
>> anything else?
>> east of gilleland.
I'm sorry, I'm not exactly -- I'm looking at the map.
I don't see where gilleland is.
I'm sorry.
>> is it this portion here that you are talking about?
>> right.
and it's just the edge here and the edge here.
>> right.
>> and you are saying that it's not possible?
>> this portion here is -- is under a pre-existing permit that's been in place for a very long time.
>> right.
>> so we don't have any leverage to get them to provide buffer on this portion.
>> okay.
but is it still something we could ask for?
I mean I understand --
>> yeah.
>> make sure joe nods what you understandswhat you are talking.
>> I could be totally wrong, but I think the only area this that portion that they've already mostly mined that area.
the only active portions are interior.
and would be --
>> the red portions.
>> is this the same thing that -- I know the mayor when he attended the meeting that night, he did bring up some of those points and I believe what you are alluding to is something similar he brought up at that meeting but I'm not sure and he's not here.
>> it's the same thing.
>> same thing.
but you are representing him today as far as him bringing across.
we need to make sure staff gets that notated because he did bring that up.
in fact, I think t.x.i.
did say something about that during that night, I just can't recall exactly what the t.x.i.
representative said.
but I believe it was something maybe discussed at that point, but I just can't recall exactly what it was.
but it was good discussion and deep discussion
>> [indiscernible].
what you are doing is just relating some of the same things.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> thank you.
>> no, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Franklin.
>> richard franklin, del valle school board member so I'm not here about what's talking to the kid and basically the future of the hornsby bend area.
I wasn't able to make the meeting in December because I had a conflict.
several brack's in all the cracs of all these cars, I'm concerned about the community that applies to the buffer with zones and the fact we didn't get the plan until what was it yesterday?
>> we got
>> [inaudible].
>> we got the original plan December without our input.
and we were told we were going to get it back with our input involved so we're looking at that.
the real question as far as I'm concerned and should have been asked and continue to be asked is what are the risks to the health levels of people, the residents of hornsby lend as far as the airborne contaminants.
I heard us talk about ground water and noise.
we haven't talked about airborne contaminants.
we talked about this three, four years ago when he talked another landfill and we were talking about the prevailing winds and kids on the playgrounds with dust on the things we never tested.
we don't know if we had contaminants at the time.
I would like to suggest the county do an independent monitoring event so that the county is aware rather than having someone else bring you the numbers much.
you have the numbers yourself.
the reason I say that several residents in the neighborhood have been complaining of breathing problems for years, regardless of what the airborne allergens were, it had nothing to do with reality they were not experiencing cedar mold, they were experiencing problems breathing regardless of those situations.
so it just doesn't make sense for me to talk about the people who are involved.
everybody in bed together at the same time is doing the monitoring and bringing you the numbers.
I would just like to throw that in as a possibility.
of something that should be considered that the county should have its own monitoring for the safety of the residents in that area for health risks for the future of those children.
>> mr. Mcdonald.
>> richard mcdonald.
I have a few things, maybe some clarification.
I think mr. Manila said that the letter from the city was in the backup.
was that in the backup on the website or just given today?
because I didn't see that and I looked at the backup.
>> we only got the letter yesterday.
>> it's dated January 30th.
>> and one of the things that has been my concern all along, and I have to go back just to a little history of my involvement.
I've been involved in this throughout the whole thing, and when this first permit was requested by t.x.i., there was an ongoing city and county permit operation.
and I was in close contact with both the county and the city people.
halfway through that permit operation the residents appealed the extension at the city because the city has a time limit for how long could be in the process of applying.
they get six months and then they can apply for an extension.
and the only time in administrative decision that the residents can appeal the decision is for the extension, and we did that and we went before the planning commission, which is the citizen review board, and there was about 25 of us down there and we had to wait hours and hours at night.
anyway, it almost got voted our side.
there were three votes before they decided to go ahead and give them their extension.
according to the people that I was in contact with at the city of Austin, the reviewers, the next day t.x.i.
came to the city and said -- during that meeting also councilwoman tovo, who was then on the planning and zoning commission, said is this the only time for them to appeal.
because my specific question was can we appeal this decision at the end.
well, no, they can't much she said, well, what is the -- when can this decision be appealed?
do the residents have any opportunity to appeal this decision?
and she was told no, only if there was a variance required.
and it looks like there will be for the conveyor planned on the thing.
well, the next day according to the reviewers at the city that I was in close contact, with they said t.x.i.
was down there saying how can we get out of this variance hearing.
we don't want to go before a variance hearing.
and according to letters and stuff I've seen, that's why the conveyor was dropped and they went to the roadway plan for using the trucks because they didn't want to face the variance hearing because that is when the citizens can go up before the citizen appointed review boards that are part of the city of Austin variance process and say we don't like this, we want bigger buffers, we want the hours of operation to be controlled, we want the dust to be set at a certain level, things like that that are negotiates, and I think that this agreement, one of its main purposes is to evade that variance procedure and I think that's what you were speaking of, judge Biscoe, at the beginning, that the city has different levels of input.
it's not just the council.
and this agreement is denying that process.
during that whole discussion when I was speaking with the -- I mean when we came up to applyfor the extension, I wad nobody has had their extension denied.
they are not going to do it.
what you need to focus on is the variance hearing.
that's when you can get your -- so all along this agreement we're talking about here I think is the county trying to get -- because the variance is the only other path way through this for them as far as I can see.
I don't think there was any intention of doing the roadway improvements.
that's one thing that isn't mentioned is that although they have a permit to mine when they do the roadway agreement, the residents requested that that permit be combined for them to get the roadway improvements and it never was.
just a little more history, before the roadway agreement when they dropped their conveyor from the plan and came with their traffic study, t.n.r.
staff sent back their comments and said, okay, you can do this on the roadway bit will you have to come back with permission from txdot and a plan on how you are going to widen dunlap road and stuff like this.
then all of a sudden there was this roadway agreement and they never had to get that permission.
so it seems really unclear to me do they have a permit to mine this or, you know, they have a permit to mine when they do the roadway agreement, but they still don't have a permit to do the roadway improvements.
I just don't think that's been mentioned much before.
>> procedural you think you are absolutely right, mr. Mcdonald.
procedurely even if it's done as a development agreement, still it must come before a vote at the Commissioners court and for a vote at the city council, correct?
>> absolutely.
and a variance -- if they seek the variance independent of this agreement it would not have to go before Commissioners court or council.
>> it would just go through --
>> zoning and platting.
and on the road issue they have a permit to mine this.
the roadway agreement is in place.
and the roadway agreement basically says t.x.i., if you make these -- once you make these road improvements, you know, you can commence mining in these areas.
so there's not an opportunity at the county to say no to t.x.i.
we have gone down that path and we looked at what standards they have to meet.
and which standards we could say no on, and they met all of those standards.
so there's no next decision down the road for the county where we can say no to their mining activities.
>> unless we have this participation agreement, which is an opportunity for us to exert some leverage based on their request for variance.
you are absolutely right in your analysis of the reason why they are in negotiation with us.
>> do they have the permission originally requested from theresa from txdot to do those roadway improvements?
>> [inaudible].
>> we don't have any jurisdiction over what they do on txdot roads.
we can't -- I'm not sure what theresa at txdot said.
>> that was the comments before the roadway agreement when they dropped the conveyor and they were going to go on the roadway, they turned in a traffic study, what changes we'll need and they were asked you come become with permission from txdot.
>> it's possible they would not get txdot permission but it's highly improbable.
>> the city was asking?
>> no, the county, t.n.r.
comment on November 10, 2009, I think it was.
I don't have the documentation with me.
>> I just know -- the roadway agreement is in place and if they meet the requirements of the roadway agreement, they've -- you know.
they can go ahead and do what they want to do.
>> but remember the residents came here and said combine the permits.
make them get the permit for that.
and it was like no, hannibal lynn said it could be two separate permits.
they don't need to get a permit.
>> but that path was gone down years ago and you may disagree with it, but we can't reopen it at this point.
>> when -- the meeting December 1 one of the last comments mr. Bone from t.x.i.
said -- we kind of took it as a threat, or I think accomplish said she was offended when he said if you don't go along with this agreement there's going to be 300 trucks a day on your neighborhood.
I had always heard 250 trucks.
did the amount change or was that just or the of --
>> it was a fact in disdispute as I recall.
at that time they were low balling the number.
>> I want to make note also that what went by -- pay attention that all throw this agreement if reached will -- if they decide to sell to someone else, they can go in and mine in the buffer zone.
>> is that true?
>> well, the way we'll set it up is that we'll make it a restriction that binds the land where t.x.i.
is operating plant is located, and that operating plant, even if it sold to a future, you know, different company, they can't accept materials from those areas.
so we've addressed that issue.
that's the issue joe had in his memo about binding the successor.
we can accomplish that.
>> with absolute certainty.
>> you know, as certain as any contract that anybody enters into in the united states of america.
>> we believe it would be an a enforceable.
>> you said it wouldn't go before city council, only plat ago and zoning and environmental.
>> they just do a recommendation.
I'm talking about the actual decision.
when it goes before the council, in terms of recommendation to wherever they want it to go, we are not asking the city to do anything differently there than they always do.
how they approach that is totally up to the city and the county has requested absolutely nothing from the city in terms of a change to how they operate.
that is the city's decision and that's one of the things that will be discussed.
>> I mean, I've seen signs where there's signs put up and -- I'm official interested party on the city's list.
you can go to the website, there's 50 of us or something like that that are actually there.
will those people be contacted as if they would number of a variance request and will signs be put up and stuff like that about with the council meeting?
>> that's a city determination so I don't want to speak on behalf of the city on that.
they will have to make --
>> typical process is.
>> typical process for variance?
the city code does contain provisions that require certain adjoining property owners to be notified.
>> I guess one other issue and I know there sounds like a lot of work to be done.
I understand the variances, I drive down dunlap road and turn left on milam to go home every night and what this haul road goes right across them.
what would that situation be assuming this -- is there 300 trucks a day zooming across this crossing dunlap or does that just go from private property on to dunlap as public road and then -- would they still have to fix dunlap road or what is the crossing situation?
in that haul road on the public road and would that have to go through Commissioners court as a separate item?
>> the roadway I believe would have to be strengthened to take that kind of truck traffic.
whether it goes before the court, if it's wrapped up into the development agreement that we're all discussing today, it could be included in there to bring it back to court if you want to.
>> it remind me on lime creek road, they have flag trucks.
>> we can address that as part of the agreement.
>> at a county road we have a lot more authority.
>> pending project on county road would have to come to the court or something like that.
is that true?
>> no, a lot of the administrative stuff can be done by staff, especially if they've got a budget.
the absolute need to come to court is when you don't have any money.
>> so am I wrong in understanding this court is not going to vote?
we're in on this agreement or not at this point?
>> my recommendation to the court would be to vote to direct staff to touch base with the city, try to figure out what process they would go through, give them a status report which means a proposal as well as a list of recommendations from residents and basically work it through the city system.
>> but this hearing was discuss and possible take action.
>> the action in my view should be to direct staff to go to the city and make as farmal presentation to the city as necessary.
I don't see the city council getting directly involved up front unless they want a presentation from Commissioners court in which indicates we would send staff anyway and maybe one or two members of court.
I doubt if they want to see the whole court down there.
determine how to proceed in the city process.
>> is that what you are saying what to do?
>> I'm saying before this meeting is over it will be my motion.
some of my motions are
>> what hours of operation do you have in mind?
>> nine to five.
>> how about 10 to --
>> 10 to 3:00?
I don't know.
>> [ laughter ] you know, I walk out and get the paper at 7:00 in the morning.
>> banker's hours, not miners.
>> I can hear them turning gravel from there processing plant at 6:00 in the morning.
dusk so dawn is what I would imagine.
>> what else would like to give comments today?
this is the time to come forward.
we have five chairs available.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners.
my name is vera with (indiscernible) communities.
I want to point something out and actually get an answer maybe from the court, maybe from joe.
there was a statement made earlier that staff has complied all of the request and recommendations by the landowners and residents out there.
those have been presented to txi, but we really don't know whether any of those recommendations have been accepted or if any of those are possible.
and certainly what I would like to see is before this goes before council that there's an agreement and lease here of this is what the residents want, this is what txi has agreed to, and that's what's going to go.
because I'm concerned that maybe some of these items that are presented today get lost in the shuffle.
so we're fighting the -- the battle is constant all the time with really nothing that's been buttoned down.
so that's the only request that I have.
>> would it be amenable to you -- you're absolutely right, the residents had raised some issues that have not been negotiated to solution with txi, but to be frank, there was a belief that we should bring the city of Austin in sooner rather than later on future negotiations because we could agree to it and then city of Austin didn't or had -- for instance, with regard to revegetation or with regard to a six-foot fence on the berm, they may come in and say do you know what?
it would be better a tree line on that berm.
it seems like we should have that third partner at the table on owe.
>> agreed, but there are certain things about the buffers, I don't think the city of Austin will ever make those buffers smaller.
they might make them bigger and there may be more of them, especially in light of the fact that they're reviewing all of their ordinances, their watershed ordinances in eastern Travis County.
so they're on a mission for head water protection and such.
I think the thousand foot buffers being proposed, they're not going to get smaller, they'll only get bigger.
>> I agree with you.
my hope is that by bringing the city in in advance of negotiating those additional points it will improve the residents' stand.
>> that's fine as long as we know when maybe those meetings are.
I'm going to assume that some of those meetings are actually open, those work sessions.
if the work sessions are simply between staff and staff, then we don't know what's being discussed and we don't know whether the comments that the residents are making have actually been presented.
or presented in the way that we think they should be presented.
>> may I address that?
I think it's relevant.
to answer your question, everything that I presented today has been presented to txi.
txi has agreed to none of them.
let me tell you why, because they understand that this depose to the city next.
so their question to me is what else?
so it's like what's the sum total here when this finally gets to an agreement that we can agree to?
so they're reluctant to be dribbling out one more thing, one more thing, one more thing.
when does it end?
so I think it's not that they have said we won't do any of this, they just want to see what the total picture is before they start saying it's okay, we'll do that, no, we won't do that.
so that's where we're at right now is negotiations.
and they like to see where the waterfront is before they come in and say we can do all of that or no, we can do some of these or whatever.
so I think they understand fully that the city -- we've asked the city to be a partner for this, so what's the city.
at this point we don't have any declaration from the city about what it is they want out of this agreement.
and I think that's why it's important for us to get down there and find out.
then at that point I think we can get something that we can finally get down and get close.
>> that makes absolute sense and my only suggestion and recommendation is that you actually involve the residents out there when those presentations are being made.
I mean, not all of them, joe, but certainly just some of them.
>> my view is that some of these recommendations are really minor in the grand scheme of things.
but at some point you've got to get all of them on the table and figure out what's agreeable, what's not.
and some of the minor ones are not agreed to, then it seems to me that you figure a way to make it happen.
I don't know how important a six-foot fence is, but I know it's affordable.
and so we conclude that in fact it's critical to the agreement, then it seems to me it's easy to figure out a way to make it done.
some of the others, a lot more costly than that would be bigger obstacles.
>> and I can understand too wanting to see the entire laundry list.
I've been there, I understand.
so I can appreciate that.
>> okay.
mr. Owe dell, additional comments?
if not, just make yourself at home.
>> I document processes for a living and you can have versions of a plan.
so I don't understand why we're waiting for the grand plan for everybody to sign off on.
I think the residents' comments could get lost in the shuffle.
I just think the residents' comments should carry some weight and be like a partner in this too.
I know that Travis County Commissioners' court represents us and everything, but I would like to see an updated version presented to the city of Austin.
thank you.
>> mr. Carpenter?
>> thank you, judge.
I'm jim carpenter, managing partner of webers' crossing.
Commissioners.
when this project first came up, we came to the court with some history.
before there was txi on this property, travis aggregates was the prior owner of the processing plant and the land that adjoins us immediately to the east.
and we worked in cooperation with that owner.
they ran the plant operations and the hauling trucks in addition to the mining operations that everyone is focused on and the number of trucks that are there.
they're still a resale/wholesale operation once it's processed.
there's a good bit of traffic and volume of materials and other issues that is part of that business operation.
and we've had experience with both the mining side and the retail traffic side.
quite a bit of dust and contaminants.
they worked hard with water trucks to keep the dust down, but when he times when we had a lot of material where the cattle could not literally eat the grass on the east side of the property because of the fall outyou.
so we're well aware of what's involved here and what the residents' concerns are.
and we spoke in favor of txi's permit because we've been down the road before and we recognize that the county wasn't in a legal position to tell them no.
but better to move it along and try to get some certainty of a process.
and that's what we're looking for as an owner of more than a thousand acres is we want a time frame and we want certainty.
we need to know what we're going to do with our property.
we have residential plans and uses and interested parties for residential use.
we have commercial uses and we have some heavy additional uses.
all of those options are available for us.
we have the need for wastewater service from Austin's colony and we had interest in also bringing back reused water from Austin's colony that they're discharging into the river and we believe we could put it to use again for recreational and other types of uses that are beneficiary.
our property represents a sizeable potential tax paying entity.
another source of taxes, not just for the county, but for other taxing entities out there.
for instance, the del valle school district in particular and the emergency services district.
so so we've got skin in the game, the county and other taxes districts have skin in the game.
txi has a business they want to operate.
they want certainty.
this don't want to know what they can do out until they know what all will be required of them.
they need to know that as well.
we tried to become a party to the tri party agreement with the county and with txi to see if we could move it along and achieve certainty.
the county wanted some of our property for open space.
we weren't being offered as much money as txi or other properties in the area, but we were at the table and we're still listening to that because we still had interest in perhaps easements for the way water and reuse lines and so forth.
and we were looking for some certainty as to what was going to happen and the time frame that it would happen on.
so we stayed at the table on that.
as we moved through the process, a couple of things changed at the end of the tri party agreement.
the critical one was that txi insisted from going from a conveyor option, and that's all we ever supported.
we spoke in favor of their original permit.
it was based on the original press release about txi and their operation, the whole thing was a conveyor option.
and that is what we went into negotiating on the tri party agreement it was a conveyor option.
we found at the end of the hunt was that the conveyor wasn't really on the table.
it was going to get converted into a haul road and bridge crossing over the creek.
we didn't have a problem with the conveyor, but we had a problem with the open dust scenario and hauling trucks out in the open.
the noise and everything that the residents are concerned about, residents on our property will be concerned about that.
a mortgage lender will be concerned about that whether it's a commercial use, industrial use or residential use.
someone will need to give them the 50 year or 100 year answer as to what their expectations for the adjacent uses that will be done out there, particularly with something of a high industrial nature as mining and transporting materials.
so once we realized that the county and txi both were inflexible on the two points, the second point being that county wanted to take control of the land for open space and they wanted to conduct a business with txi.
we could not get comfortable from a legal standpoint on what our representations would be to future owners or mortgage holders on our property.
could we give them absolute certainty that if txi violated the operating restrictions on the easement and conveyor across the webber's crossing property, that we had the ability to terminate.
if we held on to that privately and so that whatever use we provided, whether it's residential, commercial or industrial, we could pass along those assurances that those parties that took that risk, they had the kill switch, if you will, on the operations if they were in violation of what those were established and what our representations to them were.
so that's what we were looking for was continuity and assurance of what the operations would be, whether txi was the operator or they sold it to other entities or super in the future.
that we saw and we didn't think we could accomplish with under exclusive county control 'that's why we wanted to maintain private control of that where we could put those restrictions in and ensure that they were informed.
what we did at the end of the tri party agreement when it became the two-party agreement, is we prepared a proposal.
we sought out people that were expert in the mining areas and tried to find out exactly what could we do to make this financially attractive to txi.
txi has shareholders that they need to report to.
they have operations and performance that they're expected to do.
so they need September as well.
so what we attempted to do was to negotiate with them.
the opportunity where we would build at our expense a 1.3-million-dollar cadillac conveyor system, fully endosed, sound insewell lated for the transfer of materials.
it had vulcanized belts on it.
it's galvanized steel.
it had motors that you could detach the motors and pull them out if you had a rain.
it was designed so that the crossing over gilleland creek was at a higher.in elevation, but it was removed from where the development areas were.
it would be visible, but not terribly visible, but it would not be -- have the noise issue and the contaminant issue.
and so to ensure that a first class facility was built we proposed to pay $1.3 million and deliver a system to txi within a 100-foot easement of whatever length they needed, 25 years, 30 years, whatever the mining expectations were, and txi would have 100% operational control.
we would have restrictions as I mentioned earlier to be sure that it was operated correctly.
one of those restrictions is that there would be no significant haul road or bridges over the creek and transfer and not use the conveyor.
the conveyor would be the means of transporting material.
as was orally appropriated in the newspapers here locally when txi first came into acquiring the land for the options to acquire the land.
so that was the bargain and that's what we attempted to do.
I'm sure the issue of what was the price of the lease.
we sat down and tried to structure a lease price to recover our investment.
we recognized that they will have periods of operation.
but we tried to structure that and the experts we had looked at that time determined that what we were offering was basically less than half of what they could possibly do it for under a trucking operation.
trucking is expensive.
fuel issues, equipment and drivers.
and they use third-parties to do it, so you don't have continuity of the quality of that operation either is another problem with trucking.
so that's what our purpose was and that's what we went out to do.
and so as I sit here today and I'm listening and I see a proposed haul road and bridge now is moved down to the lower location, we thought it was important to get the crossing of the creek above the floodplain level.
even when txi approached and said we want to do a bridge, they had a bridge up in the air to the bridge and trucks would be up over the level of gilleland creek and now we're talking about a low water crossing literally over the mouth of gilleland creek.
literally along the banks of the colorado river.
and because we had worked with the former property owner of travis aggregates we were well aware of what the property was and the viability of them doing it because we had urged them, why don't you do it down there.
and they had determined that it wasn't financially basically or physically or engineering the feasibility of it was highly questionable, very expensive and of course the environmental impact was extreme.
so we had always ruled that out with the prior owners in subsequent discussions with them we've revisited that.
the problem with that is if we go forward here the county goes forward with the agreement with txi to go build, whether they decide to build a haul road down on that narrow strip or they do a conveyor system, I think the chances for it successfully being approve and the time frame for the approval of that process, is going to be extremely extended.
I think that there will be problems with the city.
when they get down there and physically look at what you're talking, but heavily vegetated area that will have to have all the trees cut to have a haul road, then you've removed the potential for both noise and con Texas a&m gnat buffers through vegetation.
that will have to be eliminated.
then have you areas where it's open and mind.
so you have pools of water, wet land and they have been established for decades down there where that area was previously mined.
I've been down there and been on the property and I would encourage y'all to look at it if you haven't.
my point is it's not deprive txi of the opportunity to do it do it on their own land.
if they can do a haul road they can do a conveyor and the conveyor is more viable than the haul road.
you don't have the issues of the noise and contaminants.
so whether they use our site, use their site for a conveyor option, either way we think it's a preferable way to go.
the problem I see is if you're going to go through the process that we believe is going to involve at the minimum the tceq, the corps of engineers, fema, the city of Austin, the county, perhaps the lcra, I'm not sure, but in any event, there's a whole myriad now of other approvals an processes, and this is a long, drawn out time frame.
neighbors don't know what they're going to do.
they don't know do I continue living here, do I try to move?
do I go build a subdivision if I'm a property owner over there?
it's a lot of uncertainty for a lot of people.
this Commissioners' court won't know the answer in its present form, perhaps.
so same thing true with the Austin city councilmembers.
so our goal and the reason I wanted to come here today was to point out to y'all that what we tried to proposal was something that perhaps the county and city could both get to the same page for and that would be a variance at a higher point of the creek that didn't adversely impact or severely adversely impact the value and developability of our property and didn't adversely impact the neighbors and the mining portion of the tract that will be involved in this.
we believe what we put on the table and why we put it on in good faith at a price that was significantly less than what they can do it for in the alternatives, we valued, we had our own people going into an estimated value of the roads and so forth.
we came up with three and a half to five million dollars' worth of road improvements to go with what they've got.
we couldn't put a number on trying to do a bridge number down where it is because we don't think it can be permitted.
we're not sure how it can be designed, but I know it would take years to get it done.
if we're looking for a resolution that can be complete within some kind of reasonable time frame, I think that what we had tried to proposal was to bring September for ourselves so that we know what type of development to pursue because we know exactly what txi is going to do.
I don't see any other way for us to get the certainty we want or the certainty the other area property owners and residents want and businesses, including txi, unless we do with something that's more solid.
and so the proposal for the conveyor is still on the table and negotiable.
the transfer of land to the county for open space is still on the table.
the timing of that the county can have the open space land, but we need to keep control of that easement as I described so that we can keep that certainty of what our representations can be and what the known factor, whether it's txi or another subsequent company, would be for the operations of that mining and hauling of materials.
that's all I have.
questions?
>> any questions?
thank you very much.
last call.
if you would like to give comments, please come forward.
court members, any other input from the court?
>> let me just say, judge, you know, we have struggled with this for a long time.
and of course, I think that each one of us, each one of us, including yourself, you in the county have been put -- all of our precincts.
but each Commissioner here have to deal with struggles.
today it's this struggle that we're dealing with because of incompatible language.
we see situations where in the city's e.t.j., county's e.t.j., we have to deal with a situation like this.
and I guess my question is going to be what's next because I'm quite sure there will be something in the future who would come to one of our precincts in the future that we will have to address because of the lack -- limited authority that the state grant us under land use.
what we did do, though, appeared I'd like to just throw back just a little bit, and not very long ago, because of the state legislature not granting us.
he was speaking about subdivisions and things like that, people moving out in the area.
and that's basically to warn folks because none of you -- you moved out there, you probably didn't envision a lot of these things that are out, and that's the same approach that we looked at as far as incompatible land use that we see in the e.t.j.
now, what we end up doing was something that I think was very significant.
and that was basically to come up with some type of consumer protection notification for those persons that are living -- coming in to a new subdivision by warning them that the county do not have the great land use authority that is granted to the zoning in other areas.
that cities have, certain cities.
so this is what we're confronted with.
and we brought up many issues.
safety, health, compatible land use.
we've heard about particular matters.
in fact, I heard a young man just mention earlier about particular matters about children.
of course, I can recall not too long ago when there was another operation wanting to locate in this same area basically, just not -- just on the other side of big webberville park.
and of course, many of the families and children use that park.
and of course, the admission of that type of activity actually would have emitted dust into the air which would have to be ingested into the lungs by folks in the area.
so yes, there are some safety concerns and there are some health concerns in all of this.
and of course, unfortunately for us, after working hard and working with county staff and also the residents in that area, that particular company -- I won't call their name -- withdrew their operation to locate and operate that activity in that area.
but that was the persistence of what we worked on from this end.
so here we are confronted again, but my whole point, who is going to be next because we don't have that compatible -- because we don't have the -- we have very limited land use authority.
and so the question who's next, especially with the e.t.j.
I want to throw it out as we go through the deliberations.
thank you, judge, for allowing me to say that.
>> no problem.
any other comment?
well, I think the logical next step is for us to touch base with the city staff, therefore I move that we direct staff to deliver the draft proposal, our final version, along with recommendations from residents made at the December public meeting and today.
that we ask city staff to communicate with the Austin city council and if council wants a work session, that we work to make that happen as expeditiously as possible.
that we do what we can to keep residents notified and involved.
that's a long motion.
it was intended to have three parts.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion on motion?
>> can staff ask for clarification?
>> yes, sir.
>> you said work session.
if the city decides it should be a regularly scheduled council meeting, I would assume y'all wouldn't have a problem with that?
I guess that's the question I'm asking?
>> I wouldn't, no.
>> so it's basically authority to go make whatever preparation the city feels they need on this.
>> right.
>> I do believe, though, that if it's a regular work session -- regular session, which we would call a voting session, then we need to put together a strategy to let individual members know.
I guess city staff would do that routinely.
if they're like us they have 56 items on the agenda, this may not receive the attention that it needs for a particular meeting.
>> I think we have 250 items.
>> [ laughter ]
>> but my point is either one is fine with me.
and that we answer whatever questions they have and provide as much information, realizing that at some point they have to decide whether they are inclined to favorably consider it, so additional work is required.
>> yeah.
they may give up.
they say do a work session this week and come back and do a voting session in two weeks.
>> either one is fine.
>> all of the above.
>> right.
with the residential recommendations made today, I think they should be added to our list, and the clarifying information we received.
any more comments, discussion?
staff?
okay.
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioner Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no (indiscernible).
let them know that we need more authority in the unincorporated areas.
>> now, do we formally release joe depose he will man to fully en-- joe gieselman to enjoy retirement at this time?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
he knows the ins and outs of this entire deal.
one more time.
>> I don't believe we have the nerve to turn you down, steve.
>> [ laughter ]
>> yeah, he would.
>> joe, we appreciate you.
>> thank you, joe.
>> anything further?
>> thank y'all for coming down.
>> miss porter, that does it, doesn't it?
move adjournment.
>> second.
>> 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.
Subscribe for updates