Travis County Commissioners Court
February 22, 2005
Item 39
Number 39, consider and take appropriat action on whether to negotiate performance contracts regarding landfill operation standards in northeast Travis County. I put this on the court rs agenda because one of the landfills, specifically b.f.i., Approached me about it and I thought it should be posted on the court's agenda for the court to respond to it. In an e-mail from me dated February 4th, what I indicated was basically what I thought the court's question was and is and that was basically whether we would choose to enter into discussions or negotiations with the landfill operations. Where those negotiations will lead to is another question, but the question for us today is simply whether or not to start negotiations and discussions with them. Prior to the moratorium early last summer, we were trying to negotiate a memorandum of understanding. We have reached agreement on some items. There were some still outstanding. So the question is whether we take those up again. Those who have come to give comments today please come forward at this time. Good morning.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. My name is robin snyder with Texas campaign for the environment. I would encourage you to not start negotiating again, especially if the item is on the agenda that the Commissioners would -- that any agreement would prohibit the Commissioners court from opposing expansions at the problem landfills in northeast Travis County. If that is part of the agreements, you should just walk away from it now. If you want to negotiate with waste management about their planned closure in 2013, which they told the tceq Commissioners they would be doing in order to lower their fines, as long as you are not going to put yourself in a bind with regards to opposing future expansions, that's our key point. I wanted to -- I know that when i've spoken to you before, you've been very pessimistic about the option of joining the neighbors in opposing the expansions when they submit their permit applications. I've been at a number of recent tceq Commissioners meetings and I wanted to tell you that they are rejecting more and more permits, from what I can tell. I was there, I believe it was November or December when the three tceq Commissioners rejected a permit application for a landfill in fort bend county. The fort bend county Commissioners court joined with the residents. They helped finance the case in the contested case hearing process against the landfill there. The administrative law judge suggested or recommended to the Commissioners that they reject the permit, and in fact the Commissioners did reject that permitted. At a more recent tceq Commissioners court meeting, Commissioners meeting in January, the tceq Commissioners rejected a permitted application for a wastewater treatment plant here -- actually it was in western Travis County. At that same meeting they took up a landfill expansion that we were very involved with coming out of parker county. And the Commissioners while they granted that small expansion, they made it very clear that they are aware that there are a lot of problems at landfills around this state. That the mega landfills or super-sized landfills are creating tremendous community burdens in many places, and they are very receptive to hearing from counties and residence groups about these issues and they are rejecting permits that they find do not fit with the local land uses. So I want to encourage you to position yourselves to join the residents of the county, both the neighbors and people who live throughout the county who have expressed a lot of oppositions to ex expansions as of at these problem landfills. That's where I believe the Commissioners court, I hope the Commissioners court positions itself and where it goes.
>> r-b in, what are their suggestions as to where landfills should be located?
>> well, the tceq doesn't have that role. The counties obviously have that role in terms of siting powers. Capco has that role in terms of recommending land use. Unfortunately sometimes the landfills are not giving enough information. For instance, with the Williamson county landfill, land expansion, the waste management did not give the capco solid waste advisory committee to even make a recommendation on whether that expansion would fit with local uses or not.
>> if they gave enough information, you know, to make everything possible to make a good decision, then where do they suggest that landfills be located?
>> well, the county in Williamson county in particular, they have not done a siting ordinance. There are three counties that have done siting ordinance and obviously it depends on the local area. Capco, now capcog, has developed kind of a very detailed g.i.s. Mapping system that they believe shows where recommended areas should be. I personally believe that more counties should take responsibility for their trash and we should avoid and go away from these supper-sized landfills. Then we can reduce trucking costs as well and the pollution that comes from trucking garbage. But the trend has started to turn around. After 19 -- the early 1990s when the new subtitle d restrictions went into place a lot of landfills closed. Now we're seeing more landfills being sited. What we're seeing across the state and especially in Travis County is there is ample capacity right now for our region. And so we luckily are not under the gun in terms of capacity for our region. These waste management and b.f.i. Do not have a right to have landfills in our communities. They have a right to seek a permit, but they do not have the right to have a landfill here. And luckily we have alternative landfills that have been permitted that operate much more soundly. They have not been given numerous violations, and among the highest fines of any landfills was in the case of waste management. So we are not under the gun to site a landfill in Travis County.
>> okay, let's take w.m.i. Off the table and b.f.i. And everybody else. Where is the best place to put landfills? And would we do that regionally or would we do that county by county?
>> well, we don't have a very sophisticated siting process in the state. The cogs are supposed to play a role, but because they are made up of the various cities and counties politically their hands are often tied. We don't have a very good system so now it's up to the counties to have the siting powers that you have. What you can do is to say you can't go in these certain areas relating to watersheds or whatever criteria you wish to pass, and we would encourage you to do a siting ordinance and look at the various degree logical features. Go where there are areas with clay fills. There's lots of variables. Go where there aren't dense population centers. Don't go in floodplains. And unfortunately those landfills in northeast Travis County are in floodplains.
>> so to meet the criteria that you just named, wouldn't that be east of i-35?
>> well, I am not a geologist, but most of the land is east -- most of the land is east of 35. But there are other counties that could be doing their share. We have taken the burden in Travis County for 30 counties relying on us for their trash disposal. I think it's time to work through capcog and other cogs relying on Travis County to take up their portion of it.
>> the other thing I知 interested or concerned about is that the knowledge that, you know, certain people get or, you know, build up about landfills and their effects would not be put to -- could perhaps be put to use in the cog area as well. Because again, I知 concerned if we don't have the landfills within the county where people generate the trash, then what right do we have to go and locate it in another county near a community that can't defend itself?
>> well, luckily we do have -- we are taking more than our share and we do have more capacity than we need in Travis County. And you are right, but those counties should be fully engaged in the process as well. They do have the power to also do siting ordinances, and we would encourage them to do that.
>> and would we also offer support to those counties, those communities so that they aren't saddled with the concerns that y'all have?
>> what happens a lot these days is that siting agreements are negotiated. Fort bend is one county that has reached siting agreements with some of the landfills that come into those communities so they have the funds available to deal with the road problems that landfills can create with the increased truck traffic, and to create amenities for those communities if they are hosting landfills. So I think hosting agreements with a good way to go and siting ordinances, those are the powers that counties have and they should exercise fully. They are not defenseless.
>> and I guess is capco ready to make some kind of recommendation on the siting of landfills?
>> [inaudible].
>> but nothing has been reached.
>> there's an advisory committee in place that the committee believes will receive applications, review those, let the committee meet, take action, then provide tceq some feedback.
>> okay.
>> and folks here and in Williamson county neighbors, we've been at those meetings to help shape those at capco. We realize they play a role and we've been very active in that process.
>> well, it seems like a collaborative strategy ought to be set up so that we don't continue to have these kinds of concerns come up, you know, after a few years of operating a landfill close by and it's nearly impossible sometimes, you know, to react. It would be a lot better to be proactive in this area as well.
>> we agree.
>> my whole opponent though, and -- whole point, though, and thank you for those comments, Commissioner, have been from the outset when we tried to get a landfill ordinance adopted by this court and didn't happen, but to make a long story short, there is thousands and thousands and thousands of acres that's available that these phr-r landfills can relocate. That's been my whole point. Not only to get a solid waste ordinance adopted with the landfills but also help in relocation. Now, those landfills are located in precinct 1. That's the precinct I represent. And I haven't heard anyone on this dais with open arms to say, well, b.f.i. And w.m.i., You can come to my precinct. No, that's not going to happen. We are continually plagued with that, and of course I think the regional [inaudible] we've stated before will be something we need to deal w and, kofbg, I think the research that you have done and there are some bills that are coming up in this legislative session that will help us [inaudible] to dictate some of these things. However, we are at the opponent now where we just appear that we continue to beat on an issue that the neighborhoods continue to oppose. And here we are again with another issue at the request of b.f.i. To look at negotiating a performance contract. Which I think is, in my opinion, and they know where I stand on this, [inaudible]. And expansion is one of the derivatives, well, as I stated, we have four precincts here in Travis County, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and if those particular precincts would suggest, well, you can come to our backyard, more power to them. However, nobody has come up with that particular proposal to relocate the landfills into their particular precinct. So again I think we are still faced with the same old issue, we continue to vote on solid waste [indiscernible] and of course I think the neighborhoods did bring that out. And it's going to come to -- but when you come to landfills, for whatever reason, we have not been consistent harmony in proposing landfills. And especially in the situation that they are in right now. And it's not to say that we aren't trying. I mean we all are. And i've talked with b.f.i. And w.m.i. And everybody else who looks for sightings for them to locate and where do we go from there. It appears we're still at the same point years from the initiation of this particular request. So that's about where we are. And, of course, I知 going to continue to oppose it, the expansion.
>> one more question of robin. I want to take a -- turn to another question that Commissioner Gomez asked. If a mythical site could be found within Travis County, going by exactly with what you just said, there are no flood plain issues triggered, it's not near any densely populated areas, it involves clay soils, not limestone, and i'll even go two steps further, it would only accept trash generated from within this county and they would use best practices on a buffer, kind of be your own buffer, would you all endorse such a site?
>> well, on the only accepting trash within Travis County, unless you own the site, and I don't think you folks are going back into the landfill business any time soon, I could be wrong, that's going to be hard to get that agreement, I think, out of any landfill company.
>> let's say we can. Let's just go with it. Let's say you can restrict it to whatever county within Travis County.
>> I can say that, you know, if it's well run, if the operating hours are not disturbing neighbors, there's, you know, other issues of landfill operations that would need to be addressed. I知 not going to oppose any landfill be sited in Travis County, but I think we also should look beyond the Travis County borders because we do have more than our share of landfills already in the county.
>> thanks.
>> judge, I have said it before and i'll say it one more time, if you can permit something in precinct 3, I will go to precinct 3 and say if you live in precinct 3 and you got garbage in precinct 3, then you put it in precinct 3. If you could do it, I would do that. I don't think it's right to dump it all in one. Unfortunately, I mean my gosh, we all know what would happen if you tried to do one of these things in western Travis County. You know what? That might be the right thing to do. Because I would certainly go to people and say you put your garbage out on Tuesdays and Fridays like I do, it's got to go somewhere, and we need to find a place. That probably is not going to happen, but I want it to be said, and Commissioner Davis, I知 sincere when I say that, I don't think it needs to come east of 35, but unfortunately, I mean watching people kind of permit these things. I have one quick question. Who can verify for me, either john kuhl or somebody from waste, robin said that in front of tceq, waste management said that they would close in 2013. Who can verify? You can't -- I probably need somebody that might be willing to --
>> [inaudible].
>> is there somebody from [inaudible]?
>> mr. Rob o'reilly, john riley. It was a Texas Commissioners hearing. It went on for an hour, and I can get you a transcript.
>> if you will get me a transcript. Because that is really, really going to be important to me. I mean by the time this thing gets done and said with. If you can get that to me.
>> [inaudible].
>> I can see a collaborative effort in trying to settle this kind of issue because it's obvious that you need landfills. Unless we go, you know, to make a real effort to stop taking plastic bags at stores and recycling as much as we can, because ultimately we come down on a site that we think today is perfect, and it's totally removed from anybody living close to it. Well, population -- and you hear it over and over, population grows. More subdivisions get approved. And there's certain pounds per household that is generated of waste by the families who live in those houses. That's not anybody out sighted of this county. -- outside of this county. And so before you know it, subdivisions have sprung up. Around the landfills. Now, what can we do today to prevent this problem from happening in the future? Can we prevent subdivisions from being too close from landfills?
>> well, you can -- as Commissioner Sonleitner suggested is to make sure they have adequate buffers. And the tceq right now is going through a rule-making process on the landfill rules that would require increased buffers depending on the height of the landfill.
>> okay, well, buffers prevent odors?
>> well, they can -- good management practices at the landfill, a small working space working six inches of dirt to cover the waste rather than a tarp, those are the things that can prevent odors. So there are things you can do, absolutely.
>> I think those are the lessons we theodosia to learn today for tomorrow. And otherwise we're going to have families going through this process again.
>> unwittingly.
>> the waste, we generate it every single day.
>> we can do much more with recycling and product design. Design products that are easily recyclable. We believe if you require producers to take back their obsolete products, take back the packaging, that you will have a lot better design, less packaging and better design so it's buy biodegradable. We are not going that direction, but we're starting. Maine has passed that.
>> so we can make a good decision that's lasting.
>> yes.
>> otherwise it's not going to be lasting and so the frustration -- you know, sit here how many years have we sat through this issue? Four years? It seems that way. It seems that way. And I keep hearing the same, you know, frustrations. Believe me, i've heard you. The thing is what can we do realistically to try to take care of this issue. And so --
>> well, the good news is that the tceq Commissioners are more open especially on solid waste issues than they had been in the past to citizen and community including county municipal government concerns about landfill issues. They know that there are a lot of problems out there and they are not just rubber stamping everything that comes before them.
>> it was mentioned buffers, and if you go and review the ordinance that came before this Commissioners court for adoption, that ordinance has, and it still does, buffer restrictions in it as far as where landfills can be located close to. It's not that this rule had not been -- wheel had not been turned. It's been turned several times from schools, churches, neighborhoods, wellness center, all of those things. So those buffers are already ingrained and embedded within the solid waste ordinance that Travis County Commissioners court looked at, of course didn't adopt the landfills. So it's nothing new here that we're talking about. It's been visited before. And, of course, we just haven't done anything about it.
>> my name is [inaudible] you, I live in wall gnat applause. Our executive can e-mailed comments on the health of our neighborhood last week. I want to go over a few of those points. We call for you to vote against entering into contracts with northeast landfills. The landfills would enter into these contracts to clear their way for expansions while such contracts will restrict the court from imposing the regulations before the tceq. Thus Travis County would be relinquishing its charge to protect the health and welfare of the northeast residents. Recently the courts voted unanimously to submit a letter to tceq opposing the current permitting of magna-flow international land application sludge in eastern Travis County. All we are requesting is the same protection and consideration as you gave residents in eastern Travis County. During the magna fill discussion, four points of opposition were brought up by county staff and all four points alie equally to the northeast landfills. They are land use, compliance problems, proximity to hundred-year flood plain and acceptance of waste from outside the county. During the magna-flow discussion, the point was made this should located in a remote setting. Obviously a regional landfill is a much larger operation because of their size, height and lack of adequate buffers, the northeast landfills have much more of an impact on the surrounding area take any sludge farm could ever have. How could you agree to a sludge fill and not a problem landfill. I don't understand how developers and home builders who have anything to do with pioneer crossing, harris branch, colonial place and all s-b divisions in between are not lined up at your door saying don't negotiate expansions with those old landfills. These landfills may have been remote 25 years ago, but they are no longer secluded or isolated. They are in a small donut hole in a rapidly growing area. And by the way, have you considered where sludge ends up? That is, if it's not taken to a sludge farm. Very likely at one of the northeast landfills. So by opposing one and not the other, you are doing double damage to our area. Because we are two large landfills side by side, the damage is more than quadrupled. Compliance problems. Both b.f.i. And waste management had been cited by tceq for numerous violations, including failure to control leachate, failure to operate gas correct systems properly, failure to maintain pollution emission catcher equipment, discharge of air contaminants and discharge of waste into adjacent water and property. B.f.i. Continues to have major problems with storm water runoff as well as accumulations of water in active garbage cells. Waste management still has more than 21,000 barrels of hazardous waste. Past and current operations should be more than enough to disqualify both companies from eligibility for a performance contract. How could you even think about negotiating with these old, badly maintained sites? 100-year flood plain. Not only has b.f.i. Moved the 100-year flood plain to accommodate further expansion, but at least one wetland pond was destroyed in an effort to squeeze more gary gauge into a limited space. Contamination of adjacent property by waste involved more than the 100-year flood plain. The garbage washed into a tributary along that creek. During rain events, the drainage ditch on blue goose road has filled with contaminated water draining off eroded sides of garbage cells. People and cars using blue goose road are still being sprayed with unknown pollutants. Yet the stench along blue goes road in some evenings in our neighborhoods continues unabated. Accepting waste from outside Travis County. We understand that waste comes to the northeast landfills from 32 counties. Does this not bother the court? Magna-flow's records were search to do find out exactly where the sludge comes from. The least you could do is find public record where the waste being brought to a northeast landfill was generated. One final point. There is no short and I think of landfill -- shortage of landfill capacity in Travis County and no reason for the Commissioners court to be stampeded into agreements with problem landfills. The most recent reports to do to the tceq from landfill owners indicate there is a total of 61.1 years of landfill capacity in Travis County. Excuse me. There is an additional 51 years of landfill capacity for construction waste. Surely two companies as large and powerful and prosperous as waste management and b.f.i. Can find remote sao eutsd in which to build new landfills with adequate buffers. We beg you not to enter into a contract with either of the northeast landfills that would allow expansions. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Excuse me. Jeanette klotz. I would echo all the sentiments. I too am opposed to entering into the performance contracts. To me, one of the biggest problems with even something that would remotely come close to an expansion of either of these two landfills is the fact they are problem landfills and those problems I don't think are going away any time soon. It doesn't make -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to simply prolong the problems. The problem became evident again to me Monday morning early, 2:35 a.m. I walked outside. The acrid odor from the land landfills made my nasal passages burn. I stood outside for about three minutes. The wind was from the south to east, directly off of the landfills. I stood outside for about three minutes to make sure that the wind was coming from the landfills. And in those three minutes, that short time, I developed a slight headache. These landfills, the problems -- I知 sorry. I get so emotional.
>> [inaudible].
>> the problems are not going away. They have not been solved. And any kind of expansion is just going to make it worse. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. My name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. The Commissioners are well aware of the poor relationship between the b.f.i. And waste management landfills and their neighbors; however, their actions have made it eu78 possible for us to believe anything they say. You already heard in waste management's case most recently they told the tceq they would be closing their site in 2013 so their violation fines would be reduced by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now they tell us they need a an expansion that would add many years to the life of the landfill. I recently reported to waste management that one of their trucks on east highway 290 had trash blowing from the top on to the highway. I left a phone message with one individual and when I did not hear from him I sent an e-mail to the landfill manager. I have yet to hear from any of them, so they are not being responsive to our concerns about what is happening on that particular issue either. We thought we had a good rapport with b.f.i. Allied waste in years past, but they have also been dishonest in dealings with neighbors. In 2001 we began discussions with the owner of b.f.i. Property and his engineer regarding some city of Austin zoning he wanted change odd a small strip of the property fronting on giles road. While we were discussing zoning issues, we raised the issue what happened to the ground monitoring water wells located on that strip. Mr. Shoals said he didn't know anything about the wells because he didn't know anything about the landfill. We learned two years later at that time mr. Shoals' engineering firm was already in the process of applying for permits with city, county and other agencies for b.f.i.'s current project of destroying wetland areas on the landfill he knew nothing about. The way I was brought up, this would be called a lie. I don't know what you would call it. Our area of the county has endured enough industrial abuse. In addition to two adjacent regional landfills, we have the tank farm and several large trucking operations. The trucks are a constant source of problems. The last time I spoke here, you approved rerouting the garbage trucks and gasoline tankers along a poorly constructed portion of cameron road despite the request of neighbors you work with us in asking the state to designate parmer lane and 290 as the appropriate truck route. The new route has been in use a little over a month. Last Friday, February 11th, an out-of-county 18-wheeler transporting garbage overturned about 2:30 in the afternoon. Garbage was spilled along the roadway and the necessary wreckers and cleanup crews were there until at least dark trying to wipe the 18 wheel -- right the 18-wheeler and take kaeufrt cleanup. Enough is enough. It's time for some other area to take the garbage from many counties that versus been coming to our area for far too long. In June of 2002, a member of the county's landfill study group, mr. Bill hilgers, sent you a message that said this, and I quote: it is beyond belief to knee the b.f.i. And waste management would have the audacity to ask the Commissioners to expand their existing landfills in view of their utter disregard of their obligations to the public. It was a very depressing experience to sit on the work study group and hear repeated excuses and efforts to circumvent a responsible management of their sites. A contract arrangement with these companies would entail a constant legal battle with their attendant expense to the taxpayers without a serious prospect of success and an affordable public outlay. The complaint at the northeast landfills that there are no other sites available ignores their existing sites in other locations, end quote. Door forget in February of 2002, mr. Hilgers provided to that working group and I believe to this group as well a three-page list of properties that consisted of more than 500 acres, that were possible sites for landfills. That was three years ago. And so far as I can tell in the intervening three years, nothing on this issue has changed. Your proposed contracts with these two landfills will only make conditions worse for our neighborhoods by enabling them to stay for many more years. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> ms. English.
>> oh, good morning. My name is trek evening hreur. Commissioners and judge Biscoe, I had a prepared statement, but [inaudible] because you also brought up different things here in the last hour or so. And perhaps I would like to address that first and if we have time i'll give you some of my comments. There's something that's been bothering me, and Commissioner Gomez, I want you to know I have gone to capco on murmurs occasions -- numerous occasions. The concept is we were supposed to have regional landfills. That means that landfills are supposed to serve a region. Not that the region is supposed to come to northeast Travis County or now southeast Travis County. Somehow along the way the concept of regional landfill has become too associated due to the landfills' brainwashing has been associated with only Travis County. Now, in 1990, the early '90s when this concept came up, Travis County was the only county that had landfills that had enough money to -- to build up their landfill, actually to bring their landfill to [inaudible] standards which the e.p.a. Had put forward. Because it had the money, they went around -- I went to one of those seminars to I know exactly what they were saying, and they were convincing every landfill they could it's going to cost you so much money, you cannot afford to keep your landfill. So we can teach you what needs to be done, but if you can't, we can help you out also. That's how all these landfills kind of fell apart. And of course the regional concept, guess who was invited and pushed it forward. It's not difficult to see who was behind this whole idea. The whole plans behind it was money and we know that. But the point is is that you know are talk ago 15 years later and that concept needs to change because a lot of landfills now can bring -- or a lot of counties can bring their landfills to meet subtitle b standards and can take the waste from the region. And therefore leave Travis County with such little room that it has to just keep expanding to aobg date them. That's one thing we need to really work on because it's not right for one community to take it all. And I don't care if the growth is -- in Travis County is going to be -- or east Travis County is going to be tremendous. If you go to any planning or if you go to the legislature and you hear where they tell you about their districts, you would think that they are growing fast they are than we are. And maybe they are. So if they are growing faster, it's time tore them to take care of their trash. That's all there is to it, we need to get out of this regional concept and maybe have everybody take care of their own trash, or the regional concept needs to be in the big corridor, not just here. So having said that, I also want to know why no one wants a brand-spanking-new landfill that meets all subtitle b regulations and will be a good landfill for a good ten years. But two 25-year-old landfills 700 feet high operating simultaneously with an industrial unit and another landfill next to that is not enough for our community. Consider is it that we have to keep taking more? We're already going to take more. You know, if there's a decision made, they are going to be gone tomorrow, at the end of 2005, we know the permit, how long it's going to last. And we know how long they can make it last. But the point is is that if you remember in 1999, b.f.i. Was awarded two-thirds of the city's contract. That's a lot of money. I can give you the figures if you want to. But instead of buying a site immediately and permitting it -- they were good neighbors then. They didn't have anybody screaming about owed ores or anything. They could have kept that contract forever if they had cleaned up their act and told the city, you know, we're running out of space here, but what we're going to permit this site and, you know, for -- if we're successful with tceq, we would like to keep the contract past the five years. No, they don't do that. They just whine and whine and whine about they need more space. Where? In the same location where the slopes are so steep already, every time it rains there's carbon monoxide tphaeupb over there. And by restricting the amount of areas where the water can go, I don't understand how you can say to me, okay, we're going to push this sludge thing over here and do this over here, but we're going to have more garbage and we're not going the harm anything. It's going to be a lot better, going to run perfectly. Let's be serious here. I don't think we're all that stupid. They may be able to convince some of you of that, but I bet I could bring a contingency of, I don't know, chinese people or whatever, nobody would believe that. Not after we show them the pictures anyway. And so I am not all for putting it in one landfill. And t.d.s. Knows. If you want competition, do it right. You can't just identity with these two gluttons there on the right taking all this garbage and landfilling so poorly they can underbid everybody. They can identity right and they know how to do it right. They have the money and the knowledge to do it right and they know how to do it right and they are just going to have to get in the market with competing fairly with everybody doing things right. That's where we need to ask for them. If you think that a -- a performance-based contract is going to help our residents, then the same performance-based contract should help any other resident in Travis County, not just us. I mean the same logic should go for both whether it's us or them. If you can help us, you can help them. And you can get money out of it. And so I think that we're not looking at all our options. I also want to bring up the fact, Commissioner Daugherty, that I did drop a letter by your office regarding these signs -- I知 sorry, regarding the 2013 after the hearing. And I also dropped off -- and I知 not sure if I dropped it for everybody, but it's in this county somewhere has a copy of the report that the engineers for that company put forward with that date in writing. It was not just a public statement. It's based on engineering science. They put the date forward themselves. And all we ask the Commissioners is we would not oppose the agreed order if that date couldn't be incorporated in the permit. And --
>> what date is that now? What date?
>> the 2013.
>> okay.
>> and, you know, also should be a directive and pay that $600,000. Everybody could profit from that. And so I wanted to make sure. Also I want to let you know I didn't bring you my comments to chapter 330 because I don't know if you care anymore, but I知 working really hard on those rules and I think you should consider holding off this grace period that you give each other or this -- I don't know what you want to call it, I call it moratorium. Maybe it's a peace agreement or maybe it's -- I don't know, there's names for all this stuff. I don't want them to be grandfathered. And I think these new rules, if they don't turn out to be a disaster, which I知 hoping they are not. There's enough rings in it, it's harnessed enough that I think perhaps the rules are going to be more fair. And the rules are not made to help us, they are just made to take out these loopholes that they didn't realize they were writing in when they wrote the first set of rules. And if anybody is interested, you could certainly give your input. There's one chapter especially where it talks about regional planning. And if you don't comment on anything else, that's the one chapter that you should comment on and say whatever you want to say. I知 not going to tell you what to say, but you should certainly send your comments on that chapter to the tceq, and I will gladly give you that link directly so you can read what is in the chapter and then add whatever you want to it. So anyway, if you are interested, let me know.
>> what if one of the key provisions in any negotiations would be location and permitting of greenfield sites?
>> it would be nice if we knew about all of that before we give you --
>> that's what I知 saying. See, what [indiscernible] is that we enter into negotiations and discussions. It's not whether specific provision ought to be there. The specific provision, if any, would be brought back later on. And it seems to me that over the last seven, eight, nine months we have discussed greenfield sites. I don't know why you wouldn't put them in any kind of contract that you negotiated.
>> well, if the greenfield sites are an option and you need -- in the immediate future, yes. But if you are going to give it to them as an option after an expansion, no.
>> part of what you negotiate would be specific provisions. And I don't assume that we'll be able to reach agreement on them. I don't know that a government entity ought to take a position we want to enter into negotiations, period. I don't know that a history would justify that. At the same time, though, whether or not you all agree to a -- ought to agree to specific provisions of a contract is another matter. And in my view, you have to see those provisions in order to make that decision.
>> well, I realize that, judge, but nobody gave us -- you know, I mean I知 sorry, I think to meet a contract is negotiations. If you are going to call it a contract, the basis of a contract is to negotiate.
>> what's before the court today are not specific contract provisions. What's before us is whether or not we enter into negotiations or discussions with b.f.i. That requested that we do so. Now, we were negotiating last time and decided to hold those in abeyance, do the moratorium, try to find greenfield sites and do some other things. And we said we would do that until October. A few months back.
>> right.
>> and that expired, we sort of earlier agreed to just leave things as they were, keep looking for new sites, basically, and keep operating landfills as best as possible. So I guess from my viewpoint, the [inaudible] is pretty narrow. Do you discuss, do you negotiate for a possible performance-based contract. And if there are specific provisions later on that we are seriously considering, then I do agree that those ought to be prepared -- shared with the public before any action is taken by the court.
>> let me -- ms. English? Were you about to say something?
>> I知 waiting to hear what Commissioner --
>> we'll listen to Commissioner dave advice. Then we'll let merchandise ms. Mcaffee have her say.
>> I see that you mention performance-based contracts, I知 sorry, I think every one of our senses goes berserk in our group. There's just no way that you can have a performance-based contract with what's been going on the last five years. It may look good -- we have an expression where I come from, these contracts, baby, may be a herring in the moon light, it may shine, but it still stinks. I知 sorry, that's the way I look at the way these contracts would be like. I just think they are going to look good on the surface, but I don't think they will help us in the long run.
>> okay. Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge. Trek, in my opinion, as far as what i've been able to gather as we've gone through this process is that, in my opinion, it really hasn't been good faith gestures that have been demonstrated by these landfill operators at this particular location. The example, before we had an dopted ordinances on landfills that we supposedly looked at and didn't pass we didn't get three votes. But of course it was discussed during that time to maybe hold back on the adoption of a landfill ordinance that would have really governed the location of the solid waste -- as far as the operation is concerned. That never did happen. But, of course, the continued effort for them to continue to push for expansion is still present with us. I知 really hesitant on anything as far as negotiating performance contracts or anything else because, in my opinion, they still have not come up to the -- bellied up to the bar to ensure us on a lot of things. Another example is the status report as far as relocation for another landfill site. Of course, that was back in October or either earlier. Of course, we had some rendering of that and they said they were working on. That but we have nothing in writing to say that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. So again, I知 really hesitant and can't see any type of process where we will end up going -- dealing with these folks because, in my opinion, it just appears that they have not operated in good faith in the past. It's no rocket scientist business about this kind of stuff. There is a need for landfills, of course, but, again, as I stated earlier, you have no precinct Commissioner up here outside of Daugherty that said they would gladly accept these landfill operations in their precinct. No, that's not going to be said. But there is an approach where there is available soils and things of that nature where these folks can go, other than putting out the backs of Travis County as they have done for all of these years. Now, again, looking even at the situation out at webberville, for example, and I think everyone got a letter from mayor gonzales from webberville, the new webberville mayor, suggesting that a 20-acre site out there, don't want it used for a landfill. Everybody is basically saying, look, precinct 1, we've had enough. We're tired of being dump odd in precinct 1. And think I we're going to have to continue to keep that effort with developers, to elected officials and the community itself as a whole. Blackland prairie. All of these folks, the neighborhood groups out there are saying the same identical thing as you are saying. So you are not alone in your assessment of the landfill operations in eastern Travis County. That's very, very -- you are right on point and right on queue with that and I don't want you to be misled as far toss to think there is someone that really wants them over there. No, they don't. Thank you.
>> judge, I just would like to say that I think I can say for all of us that we would rather the county doesn't do anything rather than actually work a contract with them. I知 sorry, we've gone beyond trusting them at this point. Thank you.
>> ms. Mcaffee.
>> my name is melanie mcaffee. Looking back to all of the documents we passed back and forth last April, trying to pass a memorandum of agreement, I知 distressed to see that the idea is back. The solution should not be a deal that does not even address the problem but only tries to shorten the wrongs. Wrongs must be stopped.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] change
>>
>> ... Will the thousands of toxic barrels improperly disposed of cause a problem? I ask you, is this the condition and surrounding to locate a central Texas regional landfill? And -- and not only one, but two. I need not remind you of their problem history. You know it already. Are these the landfills that should handle our future needs? Are we afraid that there are no other companies? Are we afraid that their way is the only way? Are we afraid that they cannot be stopped? If the county landfill to co-mingled and buried trash with waste management to be objective? Why are we back to a solution that has failed before? Why are the health of our northeast suburbs as important as the health of the people opposing the sludge farms? I say we are way off course. The northeast landfills need to go. We have paid the price long enough with our health, our time, and our loss of property value. We have the means to stop this crazy grab for more. There is not a crisis for trash space. Capco acknowledges this. There will always be trash companies eager to come. There are better ways to landfill. There is a way to landfill without making people sick or mad. There is a way to keep -- there is a way to buffering landfills without companies going broke. Let the companies file. Fight them at the state. We can win. Northeast Austin does not have to be the sack efficiently lamb. No one -- sacrificial lamb, furthermore, we do not have to panic about our trash having no place to go. As was just swed animal control, let's have a collaborative approach. If the county let's it be known that it was willing to help the company that is most sustainable through its condemnation authority, tax subsidies or many other vehicles, it has as its -- it has at its disposal, there will be players at the tail. We don't need the same three players who are directing solid waste practices in the wrong direction. But two qualified locations doing the right thing in the right way. Instead of the county spending hours and hours in a direction that they have gone before, with no success, I propose the county to try a new approach. Instead of negotiating with their companies to see the least amount of damage to our area, I suggest the county oppose any expansion to the northeast area. This opens the door to brand new possibilities. This allows for a whole new world to emerge. First of all, new players could enter their arena. The dialogue could enlarge to include manufacturers, recyclers, composters, other policy makers, environmentalists, inventors, designers and others. Then the citing of -- the siting of a new regional landfill would take new direction. Travis County could orchestrate a new regional plan that could bring money to Travis County. Reduce waste and be an asset, not a deficit to the new community. There are communities all over the country who have decided to fight against all the myths that the landfill companies give. They have no reason to look for new land when they have cheap land ready to go. They have no reason to reduce their waste stream when their profits are based on taking more. And finally, they have no reason to stop polluting when there are no agencies to stop them. I regret not bringing in neil sillman from washington and plan to bring him on my own if I have to. I would like him to show you examples of how communities have stopped this negative cycle and started on a true path to sustainability. There is a better way. Better for all, and most important of all, healthy for all. Thank you.
>> mr. Macafee, I thought -- ms. Mcginty fee I thought we budgeted many to help bring mr. Sillman here.
>> we did. Your memory is correct, judge.
>> we just haven't brought him here yet, I guess is your point.
>> that's right.
>> because I thought we were working together at least on that point. [laughter]
>> and we are. I think the time -- the time is now.
>> okay. My recommendation is that we have this back on the agenda next week, i'll are have a -- i'll have a written motion prepared.
>> just to fyi you, I知 not going to be here next week, I知 in washington d.c. The week after that Commissioner Gomez is not here, she is in washington d.c.
>> well, we have four here now, I guess next week will be as good as any. I do think a carefully crafted motion would be appropriate.
>> saying it out loud that I知 not going to be here.
>> after -- the week after that Commissioner Gomez will not be here. Yes, sir?
>> judge, sorry, I did not accepted you this in writing, but you may recall if I remind you on the phone, I知 going to be out of town next weekend. If it could be put off to any time after that, basically, it would be great for me. But --
>> I don't know if there's anything magical about this motion. It's kind of based on what I heard today and what i've been thinking about the last two or three weeks. I can share it with you before we leave. Either we are going to do this or not. Basically we are going to goart further or we're not. I知 looking for a yea or nay really, not a --
>> right. Working on some information that might, you know, pertain to that but if -- that I知 not prepared to -- to, you know --
>> get it to me by Thursday at 5:00?
>> I tell you what I can do, I can give you -- with the disclaimer that it is not -- it's not at all finished yet, but I have done a minor amount of research, you know, we have many times gotten up here and said we need a health study in the neighborhood. We think that there's problems. Well, in a very informal survey of just my neighborhood, which is maybe 450 people or so, that's one of the things that I don't know is exactly the number of people, but our neighborhood dates back to before all these new neighborhoods had come in. And it dates back to -- to when the industrial waste unit was -- was being filled up. And by my calculations, without even going door to door, without even finding the people who have moved away, we have a 4,000% increase in leukemia. We have a 12 hub hundred% -- 1200% increase in colon cancer deaths. We have twice that many, but we have -- we have at least four cases of colon cancer in -- in maybe a -- a quarter square mile. Two of them passed away and -- and the other two did not. I know at least one survived. They are -- they are -- there are quite probably more cases. We just have not done an adequate survey. This needs to be done, to me, before anything else is done. I intend to -- to contact immediately the Texas department of health and see if I can get them going on it and then, you know, the Travis County department of health and if nothing else, I知 going to do something myself about it.
>> judge, may I request that we bring this back up after the lunch break. Because I -- it's 12:19 right now. There's things that I want to say, it's going to take much longer. Commissioner Gomez has left and I don't -- anyway. I -- may we please bring this back up after lunch.
>> [indiscernible]
>> that's fine with me. We are probably breaking until 1:45.
>> yes, sir.
>> [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic]
>> I知 sorry, there's plenty more to say about it. It's 12:20, we have --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> no, ma'am. That is a problem. That is what I would like to talk about after lunch.
>> oh, okay.
>> so you are anticipating action after lunch or just discussion?
>> potentially action after lunch. But I don't want to get into a discussion of this at 12:20 when we do not have a full court here to feel everybody out as to what they want to do today or not. We have been laying this out for weeks now and in fact in courtesy to the neighborhood, postponed this for two weeks until today. And you're right, judge, when you laid it out that either we are going to enter into negotiations and see where that leads or ya don't. And to me that's not something that you put off for two more weeks if that's just the -- the question before us today. It's not a question of what is in that contract. It is not a question of any particular -- item. To me it's -- does this body want to be open minded and listen to what somebody has to say and then reserve judgment as to whether that is a -- a document they choose to endorse or not. I知 not going into it thinking that anybody is predisposed to endorse a contract. But I -- I have -- I have great --
>> we will call it back up this afternoon for discussion. My position will be we should not take action today. But a majority of this court will prevail.
>> my position is not going to change, judge. I知 going to oppose as long as I知 sitting in this chair. There's no way in the world I can support anything like this.
>> we will call it back up at 1:45.
shortly before lunch we were discussing item 39, consider and take appropriate action on whether to negotiate performance contracts regarding landfill operation standards in northeast Travis County. My recommendation has been to take action on this item next Tuesday, March 1st, and then there was some need to have further discussion on thisthis afternoon.
>> judge, it doesn't have to be a long conversation, but I want a proper conclusion of our conversation this morning since Commissioner Gomez didn't have an opportunity to hear the end. I think the expectation, since we have a full court today, but shall we enter into negotiations or not, that vote today, but after visiting with you some more I知 understanding of your reasons behind waiting until next week to have a written motion to have out there to fully explain what is the proposed motion? And I知 fine with that. But I want to make sure that there's also certainty if we do wait until next week that we are going to do this next week in terms of that it's not going to be delayed again because we have delayed this for two weeks to this date, and it would discourage me greatly if it wound up being yet another two weeks or three weeks or whatever. I知 just trying to get some certainty as to what we're doing next week, judge, and we'll proceed on from there, if that's everybody's wish. I wanted to make sure that Margaret was fully awe wear of what the final -- aware of what the final conversations were.
>> in the discussion it occurred to me that you could do a motion and thereafter we could give our individual interpretations or you could write the motion out in advance and state it a bit more precisely, that way residents would know a little bit in advance what the motion would be, and in court we would approve that one or modify it, but if we modify it, we do so in writing, that way afterwards we do have an official record of exactly what was done. And I have that motion really this morning as I listened to testimony in court.
>> and judge, as I announced multiple times, I am going to be in washington, d.c. On county business next Tuesday morning, so I will not be here. Do not wait on me. Please proceed onward without me. And I think if I had a request of what I hope is incorporated within the spirit of this motion is that I think we heard from folks saying they don't want this action to be interpreted as a stepping back from the commitments that I think all of us signed somewhere else, that this does not take away from that effort. And I think basically adds to it in terms of that the commitment is there.
>> but as we do that, we need to take these other steps carefully so that we can get there. With that understanding...
>> makes sense to me. The intent would be to take action next week. The four of us will be here.
>> yes.
>> judge, i'd like to state that I will -- (indiscernible). Basically it's going to drive what I知 willing or not willing to do with this thing. I noticed that waste was not here today, and I will try to -- I will definitively get this error or whatever it was misstated, that waste said they would be leaving their site.
>> just one thing, because this is not about entering into negotiations for performance based contract with wmi at all. Nor am I prepared to talk about that, nor are they prepared to send anything on to the tceq asking for an expansion. So I知 a little confused as to why would we be bringing in another company in on this who is not the subject of the motion?
>> let's keep it simple.
>> I don't mind keeping it simple. I mean, I think that what this is going to do is put us in a direction of where we've got to go. I知 not going to try to make it complicated. And you're right, it doesn't anything about waste, but given the fact that we're being asked to get in and negotiate performance -- performance contract with one of the landfills out there just as far as I知 concerned, I need some understanding. I don't know if it does any good to try to come up with an agreement with one when we don't have -- at least as far as I知 concerned. I'd like to know where the other landfill -- i've got questions. So I just asked them to come. I知 not trying to get anything more complicated than it is, but i'd at least like to know about that.
>> judge, may I then -- because now we're taking a third and fourth look at the wording of this agenda item, this agenda item does leave it open that this is about -- it could be considered to be multiple landfill owners. And I have always felt that the motion that was pending before us was whether to enter into one with bfi and bfi only. And that there would be a separate decision on the other one if and when it ever comes about, but they are absolutely not one and the same.
>> one at a time. One step at a time.
>> in the agenda backup, it explains how this item came about and made reference to a bfi request.
>> but this could be interpreted by the public that we're talking about both. And wm has not brought that to our attention. They have no expansion plans pending before the tceq, nor any plan, from what I understand, to go there any time soon. They're not operating with the same set of circumstances that bfi is. And I知 just wondering if that would be more helpful to be a little bit more specific, that it has to do with one particular company as opposed to that it's opening it all up.
>> I told him why I put the item on the agenda and I told them that they would be -- they told me that they would be more than happy to attend. I didn't think -- I didn't expect them to be here.
>> I知 not upset that they're not here. I知 not saying that. Since we're going to talk about it again, I would -- they need to know that I知 going to have a couple of questions.
>> as far as I知 concerned, I think everybody knows my position on the whole study. And of course, the status report, the relocation for both of those landfill operators should be forthcoming real shortly. So again, I think we need to maybe hear where they also are on their relocation efforts. I have received numerous e-mails from the neighborhood association members over there and they don't support an expansion effort by these folks. So it's incumbent on all of us to wait on that also. And again, we've kind of been disappointed to the point that the relocation status has not revealed itself as we thought it would as far as moving on. I didn't want to see another tactic in place to whereby it would further the life or further the existence and the existing site where they're located right now. And again, I want to conclude with this statement, again, that if any of you would like to take the landfills on in your precinct, well, I think you can have them. But, of course, I haven't heard of any takers this far. It's been in this community for many, many years and I知 going to see if we can return a quality of life in precinct 1 that has not been experienced. And that's what I知 hell bent on doing. So that's basically what I知 letting y'all know that I知 not going to support any type of expansion with bfi or wmi. Thank you.
>> anything further on this item today?
>> judge, do you anticipate that the motion that's going to be put out there will be specific to bfi or not?
>> I would prefer it being specific.
>> me too. I知 absolutely not ready to entertain anything from wm at this point.
>> I just want to try to get some indications --
>> I want to make sure -- [overlapping speakers].
>> thank you, judge.
>> anything further? It will be back on March 1. Which is next Tuesday.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:23 AM