This is the official website of Travis County, Texas.

On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commssioners Court
January 14, 2003

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.

Item A1

View captioned video.

We indicated that we would call up a 1 after the consent items. A 1 is to discuss contract award for refuse collection, number B030007-OJ and take appropriate action. [papers shuffling - audio interference] we will need to discuss this in executive session. Should we take open court comments before executive session? It would be the advice of counsel -- why don't we do that. If there are comments that we need to hear, this is the time to give them.
>> just give a brief background.
>> we issued an invitation for bid on October the 21st. On November the 12th we opened those bids. We solicited nine vendors, two bidders responded, waste management and [papers shuffling - audio interference] disposal. I briefed the court on staff's recommendation to aboard to lowest bidder waste management. I also at that time brought to the attention of the court that we included the safety questionnaire in the document that would allow the court to consider the safety record of bidders. At the time of court we were not sure that we had all of the information that we needed to look at the low bidder. We received that information last week and have reviewed it. And waste management does indeed have more than the one allowed e.p.a. Violations. In discussions with the county attorney, it is -- it was agreed that the court could use this information to disqualify waste management as a responsible bidder. If you all so choose. Additionally, as bewere going back through -- as we were going back through our documentation, we find an error in the bid tabulation, which did affect the final numbers. As a result of the recalculations, waste management's estimated bid was 104,047. Texas disposals bid was 151,974. Now we have a difference between the two bidders of $47,747.
>> what was the region for the error by waste management?
>> actually, it was my staff -- it was my staff's calculation of the bid. We called both of the bidders for clarification and it had to do with the number of pickups. It appeared that it was -- we just made an error in the bid document. So on clarification, that is the difference now between the two bidders, 47,400 -- 47,447.
>> on January the 10th, we received an update from -- from waste management?
>> yes.
>> on the -- on the number of e.p.a. Violations.
>> yes.
>> and they were disclosed accordingly to the number of violations.
>> correct.
>> there was a total of four it appears.
>> it appeared to me that there was six. There were three letters and a couple of letters had two alleged violations in it, so by my count there was six.
>> for a total of six [inaudible]
>> some of them were in the letters, commissioner, on the -- there were two -- there were places for two separate violations in one alert.
>> okay. Okay for -- okay, all right, I see what you're saying. So you told them -- okay, I see what you're talking about, for a total of six rather than four.
>> refresh my recollection on the one e.p.a. Violation, where does that come from?
>> it comes from what was --what was tnrcc at the time, I don't have it in front of me. Tom might have it. There was the odor issues that the citizens have been complaining about, there was some leachate issues with some liners, there was some testing on the well, there was --
>> you made reference to one e.p.a. Violation, I'm not sure that I understand it. What's the context of it?
>> I think more accurately stated, it's a Texas commission on environmental quality/tnrcc violation. E.p.a. Hasn't cited them for any violations. All of this stuff is municipal solid waste, which is ultimately regulated at the federal level by e.p.a. These particular citations came from the state agencies, to be more precise, it's a tceq slash tnrcc violation.
>> but our policy simply references violations, right?
>> correct.
>> it doesn't say at what level --
>> environmental regulation.
>> environment, right.
>> state, federal or local.
>> state, federal or local.
>> you got that.
>> anybody else to give comments?
>> can I ask a real quick question of sid. Sid, do we have the ability, since this is like a combination of group a, b and c in terms of packages of -- of components, do we have the ability to break that apart or is this one of those altogether kinds of awards.
>> I would have to look specifically at the bid document, but normally we have a claim -- a claimer in there that says we can award by line item if it's in the best interests of the county.
>> I have noticed in terms of certain segments, they are reasonably together where there is really a human among gows difference, that -- humongous difference, a technical term. In the parks group, I'm suspecting because it is so far reaching and the distances.
>> right.
>> if you could just check on that between now and whenever we get to the conclusion.
>> okay. It's all or none?
>> it's all or none, isn't it?
>> all or none, thank you.
>> all or none.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> any other questions of the purchasing director? Good morning.
>> good morning.
>> thank you for allowing us to speak. I wanted to remind the court that several years ago in 1998 and 1999 when the city of Austin was pursuing a garbage contract with wmi, some members of this court wrote letters to the city asking that the city take into consideration the problems at the wmi landfill when considering the issuance of their contract. That was before there were any neighborhood complaints about odors. Tom thing that has changed is that we mow have more documentation that wmi's site has a lot more problems than we knew about even at that time, in addition to the odors. I have heard some representatives of the landfill talk about that they are trying to be responsive to us and open houses and the like that we don't participate in. My personal experience has been about nine days ago, I called the number in the Austin phone book for wmi and was routed to san antonio. I asked for the number of the individual in Austin with whom I needed to speak, was given that number, I called the number and left a message saying that I needed information about contacts and so on. That was nine days ago, I'm still waiting for the return call. So -- so I think the -- the impression that the landfill is giving about being responsive to neighbors is not entirely factual, at least from my standpoint. I would ask you to please take into consideration the fact that their site has a large number of problems that do have a series impact on the neighborhoods. And we think it is not in the county's best interests to do business a company that has such a series impact on the surrounding area. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning. My name is trek english. And I want to thank you for being here. This -- this contract really bothers me in that the -- the safety questionnaire is very clear, as to -- the question about their compliance record with the tnrcc. And if -- if that was omitted or if they lied on it, they should be disqualified, period. Now the e.p.a. Or the tnrcc, the tnrcc only regulates basically federal rules. Exceedianss of leech -- he'dance of liners and leachate are federal rules, clean water act, clean air act. They also have exceedances of methane above -- above the lower exposing levels. We are talking about a level higher than [inaudible] percent which is when they have to notify the agency. In fact they have levels above 10% and at that level they should have notified us. Because at that level the risk of explosion is very imminent. Yet they failed to do so. I'm not talking about 10 years ago, two years ago, I'm talking about a month ago or two months ago or three months ago. Just in the last couple of months, as soon as we get the records from tceq, we will let you know the exact date. We have been trying to get the records together. Unfortunately you have this hearing faster than we could get e records. The problems are still continuing. This problem line that you are looking at, I realize it's a lot of money when you look at it, but I think these rates that they are giving you are just to pay their hauling companies. The disposal rates are not included in that. That's what they have been doing over and over and over is just bidding the contract so low to -- to obtain enough money to pay their hauling company which is longhorn, not actually have enough money to put into the standard operating procedures that they use to -- to dispose of the waste. Maybe it does look very low, but that doesn't include what it costs to take care of this waste that you are giving them. I think you need to look at this very, very carefully. Because if they keep repeating this, with every contract, everybody gives it to them because we are in hard times and they don't get enough money to really -- to really cover their operating costs, then we are suffering greatly because of this. And we are not the only ones anymore. The -- it's -- what started as just a -- just a square mile is now going to what, five, six miles beyond the landfills and you are new working on it almost as much as some of your other projects which you shouldn't have to, the city is working on it, tceq is complaining they are spending too much time on this, nobody wants to look at it realistically because they are not good operators. Unless you give them the message that they are not good operators, things will never get better. This will give them the message. At that point maybe you can start working on other projects much more important. Have them face their own reality, which is they don't really care about their own operation. They are great at giving money to schools and whatever, you know, maybe to buy their -- their silence, I guess. Whatever it is their intention is for giving money. But if they really and truly are serious about their site, they should apply that money to make the site better so that people could co-exist with their operation. So -- so thank you very much.
>> thank you, trek.
>> hello. Melanie macabee. I just want to talk very briefly that in -- I just sent everyone an e-mail regarding the -- the ordinance and contracts. And in -- in so doing, I went over through all of my files of the entire experience in working with the commissioners court, and it really brought home the fact, all of the documents and all the papers that we have brought to you over the last several months, we can't even begin to list all of the violations and concerns that we have brought to you. I would encourage you to go back yourself. And look at all the -- all the injustices that we see that have happened over and over and over again. We could literally bury you in odor complaints. We are not talking about one or two you have received them. It should be very clear to you of the extreme violations and the unbelievable numbers that we are talking about. We need to look very closely at the past year or two and consider all of that. Also it appears to me that -- that the discrepancy in the amount of the two different bids should be a big, red flag. That if there's that much discerebral palsy panes between the two I would think that that is not typical bid procedure that you did coming through this court. That they varied that much. That should tell you that is something that is going on. That should be a big cause of alarm for you that they are that low and that there is that much difference. So I'm not going to address that and talk about that verb -- to not address that and talk about that verbally as to what might be going on, is a disgrace. That should be looked at. And not just -- obviously not for their good operating practices. So -- so I would like to see that addressed.
>> judge, we did -- we -- I did talk toll disposal about the difference in their bid. Of course we cannot verify anything. What they said is that it just costs them more money, that's their cost, Texas disposal's cost of doing business, particularly in going to the far reaches of the county, picking up trash such as at pace bend park, those places, it was an issue that we looked at, we do have wide ranges in bids sometimes. So it's not anything that we can confirm or verify. But we did ask the question and Texas disposal said that's their cost, that's why it was more expensive. To answer commissioner Sonleitner's previous question, we can work this on a group basis if we so chose, we have that right in our bid document, so we could award it by group if the court so chose to do that.
>> these are annual amounts?
>> I'm sorry. The bids that you gave us are annual amounts?
>> yes. It's an annual amount.
>> what was the amount for -- for the year that just -- the year -- the year that expired December 31st? [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> I don't have that in my backup? Anything else? Anything further in open court at this time.
>> I believe waste management has comments. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> and a number of those issues t hauling company, which is a separate operation, has a separate management team, did not, to my knowledge, receive any n.o.v.s last year.
>> did not do what now?
>> did not receive any notices of violations. The one included in the fifth document is actually a storm water violation for the landfill. The attachment is a later which addresses areas of concern. Those were related more to the hauling company operation than the landfill. The actual hauling company operation did not receive a nov last year. Probably looking back, we should have checked no since this is a refuse collection bid and was more of a line collection operation as opposed to the landfill.
>> was the hauling company, hauling division, is that still a part of w.m.i.?
>> it is a part. It is part of waste management of Texas, but as a separating operating management team.
>> but it is part of the w.m.i. --
>> waste management of Texas, yes.
>> right. So they are not separate and distinct. In other words, they are not subcontracting out to anybody, this actually is a part of your company.
>> yes, it is.
>> all right.
>> can I [inaudible]?
>> are you done?
>> yes.
>> I had heard this argument before recently about their hauling company not being under any violation. You notice who is here today, the company itself, not the hauling company. Mr. Joseph, I believe you represent waste management. You don't represent longhorn. You are being paid by waste management. Mr. Jacobs, you work for waste management. When we asked to work with you, you worked with waste management.
>> correct.
>> so I think this is really a sham trying to, you know, put the blame or put the [inaudible] on the hauling company saying they don't have any violations. The hauling company doesn't put garbage in the creek. The hauling company does not create the odors. The hauling company does not create the leachate in the liner. All of these were federal violations. And storm water runoff, all of that is caused by the company. You know, you may award the contract to a hauling company, but I don't think that's really your intent. Somebody has to put the garbage somewhere, and they are the landfill company who ultimately takes the garbage, and I don't think they should be allowed to hide behind their hauling company.
>> anything else? Then let's discuss this matter with council in the executive session. And -- which will be under Texas government code 1.071, which authorizes us to have an executive session discussion and consultation with legal council. We'll have that discussion and return to open court and take some action on this matter. .
>> > we've just returned from executive session where we discussed item a 1 involving refuse collection for the county. We got two bids from vendors for this contract. The only question that we asked was what was the amount of the '02 contract for service, and that answer is --
>> $78,000.
>> $78,000. And we have the bids in the amount of $104,047 and $151,974.
>> I have -- I have 151,794.
>> it's almost 152,000, he's correct.
>> I have 974. 151,974.
>> the purchasing backup says 796. -- 794.
>> 151, 794. Okay. All right. And with that, I would like to make a motion.
>> okay.
>> I move that we disqualify waste management systems as a non-responsible bidder for ibf number 3077-0 j, and that we award the next -- the next lowest bidder this contract, Texas disposal systems, in the amount of $151,794.
>> I second that.
>> any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Show commissioners daugherty and Davis voting in favor. Voting against, show commissioner Gomez and Sonleitner. That motion fails. I move that we award the contract to the low bidder, waste management, subject to a post-award modification that deals with the orders; that we delay execution of the contract for one week to get staff -- to give staff an opportunity to get with waste management and to hopefully agree on contract language dealing with the orders at the -- odors at the facility.
>> second.
>> move that the county judge make himself available on behalf of the commissioners court to help achieve that language, and if we need a meeting, I will make myself available this week. If not, you all just get that to us for review by Friday of this week. Any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? Show commissioners Gomez, Biscoe and son lighteder voting for. Against, commissioner daugherty and Davis. This will be back on the agenda for execution of the contract next week.
>> how much of a window do we still have in terms of the extension?
>> until the end of this month. So we're in good shape.
>> two more meetings. Okay. Thanks.


Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM