Travis County Commissioners Court
August 9, 2005
Item 15
Number 15 is posted to be called up at 1:30. It is to consider and take appropriate action on memorandum of understanding with browning-ferris industries. Tom nuckols did zoned out the latest -- send out the latest version of the revised m.o.u. On Friday. We had sent out a previously one on Wednesday night and those documents changed which we shared with residents in July at the expo center. Since Friday we have gotten several comments from various residents and persons. In my view, it would be good -- anybody here from b.f.i.? It would be good to have b.f.i. Come forward. Maybe lay out their impression of the agreement. There are several questions that I have pulled from different e-mails over lunch and yesterday, and residents may have additional questions, and of course the court. And then after that we can proceed as you all see fit. This morning we were asked by two residents who gave testimony under citizens communication for a one-week extension. And we did receive -- I received several other e-mails over the last couple of days requesting the same thing. If you would give us your full name.
>> good morning, heath edelblue district manager for b.f.i. South central Texas.
>> [inaudible] attorney representing b.f.i.
>> good morning, rain shul, engineer representing b.f.i.
>> welcome.
>> first I would like to thank you for your time today, judge and Commissioners. We laid out a little power point presentation to our beliefs and feelings and understandings of the agreement. Do you have that up?
>> that's this document?
>> yes, sir. We've given you a hard --
>> anybody in the audience like to receive a copy of this? Can we get somebody from the judge's staff to come down and get the judge's copy and can I show a -- a show of hands so I count how many. If I estimate 25, is that enough? Is that enough?
>> judge --
>> make 25 copies of this. Yes, sir.
>> my staff is coming with copies. The color printer was a whole lot slower than we anticipated so we got enough to give to you and made it over here on time. But others are coming.
>> 25?
>> no, probably not. Maybe 15 more or so.
>> we wouldn't dare leave 10 of our good citizens out. Mr. Gosselink. The judge -- one of the judge's staff members is suring down to the courtroom. I sense them although I don't see them. [laughter] let's proceed slowly. [laughter]
>> our memorandum of agreement is a performance based contract we discussed between Travis County, b.f.i. And guiles holding. Key agreement points, we believe this agreement is binding upon b.f.i., guiles holding and any success ores or assigns or anyone whom we may sell the property to. Key agreement points is continued. Through the contract, Travis County is restricting sunset farms property such that no transfer station will ever be operated on the property. No waste shall be received, processed or disposed of after November 1, 2015, under any circumstances or sooner if we find a greenfield site by that time, we'll close our operation. As far as the new site is concerned, b.f.i. Wants and understands and needs to find a new site. We have been and still are continuing to look throughout Travis County, but also in the [inaudible] region. The performance based contract, the proposed m.o.a. We believe is a performance based contract. Travis County has the right to sue b.f.i. To obtain specific performances. Travis County has also reserved the right to oppose our expansion if we violate this contract in any way. Design restrictions. B.f.i. And guiles have agreed to never place a transfer station on this property. Restricted our expansion to approximately 9 million cubic yards from the original proposed 15 which is about a 6 million cubic yard reduction in the expansion size. B.f.i. Is required to reduce the foot present by 25 acres thereby increasing the buffer zone which is seen in exhibit a on the next page. I believe we left maps over there and a copy for the residents and people in the audience to take a look at. The 11 acres in the front is currently permitted for landfill use today. We're giving that up in the expansion as well takes original 14 acres we had in our original proposal that we're taking out of -- with this performance based contract. Operating restrictions. B.f.i. Will control offensive odors by utilizing some of the best management practice we've put in place over the last couple of years with the gas recovery. We also have agreed to reject any mall odorous waste, limit the size of our working face. Use no alternate daily cover and not recirculate leachate or gas condensate. The other operating requirements, we've added an additional portable window-excuse me, wind screens, litter screens, litter screens near the working face. We've installed additional intermediate litter fences between our property boundaries and the working face. We've increased the size of our tall litter fence along blue goose road. Conduct daily litter collections on area roadways and maintain a daily log of our litter collection. Processes. Other operating restrictions. B.f.i. Restricts waste hauling trubgt on 290, johnny more reus and giles lane. B.f.i. Will also work with county residents to adopt some type of ordinance to prohibit trucks on blue goose road. Mud prevention, we've installed a wheel wash system on weather weather days to wash the trucks before they leave. Also the mud removal and sweeping and washing the roads in and around the landfill. ,.
>> you want to hold right there.
>> yes, sir.
>> those copies are taking longer to get here than I thought. I don't know if they will be much yours if we're going through the presentation before they get back. Let's distribute those. I thought for a while you were trying to set me up in front of my supporters. Couple, three more minutes.
>> sure.
>> thank you, mr. Smith. And what page were you on?
>> judge, I had just finished page 10.
>> can we go back to page 7 and let you explain again exactly what that represents?
>> yes, sir. On page 7 is an aerial map view of what we've given up in our expansion. The 11 acres, judge, we currently have permitted for airspace, today. The 14 acres in addition to that on the -- I guess the north side was what we had in our original expansion design. We've eliminated the current 11 acres that we had permitted as well as the 14 acres in our old design for the expansion to increase the buffer we have between us and our neighbors.
>> okay. So is that the primary reason for deleting the 11 and the 14?
>> yes, sir.
>> how much would it reduce the height if you used both of those?
>> ray, do you have a --
>> that doesn't really affect the height that we were going to go to.
>> it doesn't?
>> no.
>> okay. Okay.
>> judge, can I ask --
>> yes, sir.
>> so is the 11 acres and the 14 acres, are they presently permitted?
>> the 11 acres are presently permitted. The 14 are not.
>> so that's the difference in the planned versus plan not being in the 11-acre part. So you would have to apply for an expansion to secure the 14 acres.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> just in summary on page 11, we believe the county working with us and trying to come to the best resolution we can, we will stop waste activity, completely stop November 1, 2015 or sooner. If we get a greenfield site permitted by 2011, we'll close our operation down and be gone at sunset farms landfill. We'll never put a transfer station in place. The design restrictions we went through a little bit earlier as well as the additional operating restrictions put upon us in the processes. I would just like to touch on the November 1st, 2015 or sooner. The or sooner part in our last meeting at the expo center is -- there's been some confusion between a new permit, a greenfield expansion. We're going tore an expansion to buy some time for about four or five years. If we get a greenfield site permitted, which is completely different facility permitted, before then, we will close down the landfill on sunset farms -- excuse me, close down the landfill on skwraoeus road, sunset farms landfill sooner than 2015, November 1, 2015, if we have a new site permitted and ready to accept disposal. Accept waste.
>> on that greenfield new site you just mentioned, you earlier stated that you are looking in areas in Travis County and also in the c.o.g. Area. Now, if your greenfield site comes available real soon, are you basically -- and we don't know where it is, I guess, we don't have any idea -- and let me put this out to you the reason I?m asking this question. The reason I?m asking this question is because of the fact that the geography in precinct 1 and 4 have been favorable for landfills, but that doesn't mean that the reason outside of Travis County isn't favorable. Or landfills. So I?m concerned because of the fact that precinct 1 and 4 have been overwhelmed with landfills, wastewater treatment plants, sludge farm operations, petroleum facilities, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on. My question is, is there any way possible you can work with tceq to ensure that whenever you move -- and hopefully your expansion doesn't go through because I?m going to try my best to fight you tooth and nail to make sure you don't get an expansion, but whatever comes up in this process, there are provisions that are granted upon the tceq authority, which they have a heck of a lot more authority than Travis County, and it's almost like Travis County is a minnow fighting against a shark. But the type of authority that they have at this point, I mean section 361.069, section 361.089 given to the tceq, which allows these sites to be land use sites to be located where they deem appropriate. What I?m requesting is that you do not locate in precinct 1 or 4 or in Travis County. We have had enough in precinct 1 and 4 of all the bad stuff that we have of the facilities which I mentioned earlier which produce odors and a whole you budge of other stuff that's not acceptable as far as the quality of life is concerned. Of the 74 or 76 facilities we have been able to get data from tceq, 54 of them are in precinct 1 and 4 combined. That is way too much. So I?m requesting that whatever happens here, I don't know how this thing is going to go, but I?m going to try to prevent you from continuing expansion in Travis County to the best of my ability. I?m just requesting that you seek expansion, because you did bring up greenfield. I?ve heard that over and over again, but I haven't heard no one put in a date, a firm date on that. And you all have been very elusive on that. But I need to find out where you are on that as far as status is concerned because you brought it up. I need to know how close are you to it. Because here you are trying to ride the back of Travis County to get a permit for an expansion, and we have opposition to your expansion from the people that live in this -- in precinct 1, I know for sure, and also precinct 4, a cumulative impact effect. What is that? We don't rightly know. We're going to get it analyzed though. So I?m trying to get some type of date or some type of situation from you because right now you are just throwing out a bunch of stuff and I?m trying to get a firm handle on where you are coming from as far as that new landfill site, the greenfield site that you keep alluding to. So where are we on that? Give me a status.
>> well, we continue to look for properties. We continue to go and try to option properties with landowners. We have been doing that and continue doing that and haven't been very successful at this point in time, but we continue looking at those. And we spent a lot of time and energy and money to do so, mr. Davis. And as I told you, I guess you had an earlier question, I can't agree that I wouldn't try to option land in Travis County, but I tell you we're looking everywhere in the capcog region to not have this issue come up again down the road.
>> let me say this to you and I?ll be candid and blunt. With the number of those facilities located in precinct 1 and also precinct 4, and where poor people have to endure all of this -- the odors and a whole bunch of other stuff that you bring with these kind of facilities, it just appears that if you really want to look at a definition for environmental racism, reverend benjamin shivers, anybody look it up, because the percentages of the folks that reside in precinct 1, the majority of the folks that live there are people of color, very poor folks. And they have had to endure and struggle with this, so it just at this point in time, environmental racism appears to be something that has been brought to my attention in the past, way before I even got here fighting these kind of facilities with these kind of steps you all are presenting, because it is an impact on to neighboring communities where you may not think you have an impact right next door to those neighborhoods but do you. But it's all along in that neighborhood, as far down as imperial valley and the odors and things of that nature permanent ating from the wind and prevailing winds coming from those landfills. It's a nuisance, it's a public nuisance, and I really feel very strongly that the quality of life ought to be experienced the same across Travis County. And I don't think we should pit ourselves on this dias what precinct this should in against another one. The folks in precinct 1 and precinct 4 have said they've had enough of this kind of stuff in their backyard. So whatever we do, whatever happens here, I don't really know how it's going to end, but whatever happens, the folks are saying they've had enough. And it's been disproportionate of the facilities that are located there. So it's something we've got to work on with tceq. You are in business to make money. But I?m in business to take care of the residents of precinct 1. And I?m going to make sure that I do that to the best of my ability. So as we go through this process, I?m going to let you know that those new sites and you shut down your operations is very apparent to me and also the folks that say they want you out of there. Because of your nuisance and your odors and all of the other things that go along with it. So I just want to let you know where I?m coming from. Thank you.
>> we understand your position, mr. Davis. Moving on with our presentation, I?d like to turn it over to ray. Just walking with waste capacity issues and landfill height expansions.
>> thank you, heath. There's been some questions about issues related to the capacity for landfills in the capcog region. I thought I would provide some of the information we've obtained in that regard. According to recent capcog report that was finalized this spring in April of 2005, the r. W. Beck report, there's currently approximately 44 million tons of permitted landfill capacity in the capcog region. The mathematical exercise there's 19 years left that there's no growth in the annual waste disposal volume. The capcog report goes on with the standardized growth rates as published by the Texas water development board for that period of time, but that current permitting capacity would be used up in approximately 13 years. That's how much remaining capacity there is right now.
>> ray, help me understand. When you say there's 44,728,000 tons of permitted capacity, does that mean you take the capcog region and everywhere from is a landfill, whatever is supposedly left within the permitted areas of all of those landfills, is that how you get to that 44 million?
>> that's correct. You aggregate that capacity that you just described and that's the number.
>> and how many landfills, both landfill locations are there in the capcog region?
>> I believe there's five or six. Five, I believe.
>> and three of them are in Travis County?
>> yeah, six in Austin, yes. That's correct.
>> so five of the six are in Travis County?
>> right, the one in Williamson county is the one outside Travis County.
>> so travis and Williamson are the only two counties that have landfills out of the 10-county capcog region.
>> that's correct. Prior to subtitle d, probably most of the counties had landfills within all 10 counties, I?m aware of most of them that did. But after '93, most of the smaller counties closed their landfills. The next slide there is a good description of why I think most of the landfills are in Travis County. 89% of the waste disposed of in 1bgs landfills come right from capcog. There's a small percentage that comes outside of capcog. Of that 11% of out of capcog waste, 50% of that is the san antonio waste that's under contract to the t.d.s. Landfill. Of the sunset farms waste, 94% of our waste comes from capcog, and 70, 80% comes from travis and Williamson county. The vast majority of our waste comes right here in our backyard from travis and Williamson county. Those numbers are also from the beck report prepared by capcog.
>> how much Williamson county waste comes here?
>> through sunset farms?
>> right.
>> we don't have that exact number to know --
>> it's hard to break out, judge Biscoe, because we have trucks crossing over the line ban 5:00 forth and you don't know if half that truck, all that truck, three-quarters of that truck are from Williamson county. That number was too hard to put together.
>> how much Travis County waste goes to Williamson county?
>> my opinion is not very much. Because the Williamson county landfill is primarily served by a few disposal companies that handle georgetown and Round Rock waste, and I don't know of hardly any Travis County waste that ends up there.
>> I thought they had a restriction on out of county waste.
>> not anymore.
>> I think they did at one point.
>> okay.
>> can I ask you a question? If we just go back to the previous page, number 13.
>> yes, sir.
>> so when you look at the -- those years, what do they represent? The 19 years represents total landfill capacity by year?
>> if the current volume remains constant and if it was equally distributed to all the landfills so that they were all filled up at the same time or filled up and then diverted to other landfills, all of the capacity would be consumed within 19 years.
>> well, where does this 50-year figure come from?
>> it's incorrect.
>> what does it represent?
>> I don't know, sir. There's no way you can assume that there's 50 years of capacity in capcog with the current waste volumes.
>> okay. I?m sure somebody will address that issue. I?ve heard 50 mentioned a few times though. Verify that for us, somebody.
>> okay.
>> okay?
>> the proposed vertical expansion of sunset farms, again, we will reduce the current permitted footprint by 11 acres and also remove 14 acres that we had planned for expansion from consideration. We'll -- it's a two-tiered expansion. The western portion will be raised approximately 75 feet and the eastern portion approximately 50 feet. And that's the same figure follows that slide which is the one you've seen before which is the depiction of how the landfill would look. Now, we've also would like the clarify the landfill height expansions that have been compared to the height of mount bonnell because they would just, I guess, coincidentally be at the same mean sea elevation at the top. Mount bow nell is approximately 300 feet top from the top to its base at the colorado river. Our expansion will be approximately 155 feet tall. But it's approximately half of the height of mount bonnell.
>> from where to where?
>> from 795 ---.
>> that's from where to where?
>> the elevations of our landfill, the top will be 795 and the base grade under the highest part of our landfill at about elevation 640. So the difference from our natural grade to the highest point of our landfill will be about 155 feet.
>> so the natural grade is like street level or --
>> yes, that's right.
>> foot level.
>> yes. If the lands fill wasn't there, that's what the ground would be at that point.
>> okay.
>> is the 300-foot of mount bonnell, ray, measured from the site if you fall off of it? Or is it 300 feet from the road that you walk up the steps, which is the 300 feet, to the lake?
>> to the bottom --
>> you are considering the lake as being the base in going up that.
>> that's right.
>> koe incidentally on the other side of mount bonnell, if the lake side is the south side, on the north side it falls into a ravine that's only about 20 feet taller than the lake. So it's a very -- and it's a very steep hill too. Its slope is with about one to one, almost a 45-degree angle. Our landfill will be four to one. Visually mount bonnell appears to be much taller because it rises so much faster. All right. Now I?ll turn it over to mr. Gosselink.
>> judge, here is -- we are aware and you have mentioned there is some concern that there have been last-minute changes to this document which -- which are offered as a reason that you should not consider it now because there is surprise presumably associated with and harm associated with finding new changes to the document at the last minute. Now, I?d like to address what I know about the process that has been involved here, and I?d like to start with about two years ago we started this effort to try and get a memorandum of agreement. Since that -- and at that time the terms on the table included the year 2025, including a larger landfill, included significantly greater proportions to the proposal. There have been multiple meetings, dialogues, meetings before the court. The matter has been discussed, I?m sure from almost everybody's point of view virtually endlessly. I?d like to skip forward to July 9th of this year where we had a public meeting at the expo center. And at that meeting the -- the version of the memorandum of agreement, performance based contract was also criticized. But that document that we brought forward on July 9th is essentially the same document you have before you today with one very significant change and that is we have agreed to no transfer station ever. Prior to July 9th, we actually agreed to leave on November 15 -- November 1st -- no, that's not right. Since that time we agreed to also cap our time on November 1, 2015. To leave no later no matter what in 2015 and leave sooner if possible. We were asked to consider the criticisms raised at that meeting. On July 22nd, mr. Lowery wrote on two-page document which he submitted to the county identifying his concept of loopholes in the document which we were asked to address. On July 26th, we negotiated further with the county staff and reached the document that essentially you see before you today. With the exception of changes which were instituted by, it is my understanding, mr. Gregory's proposals and his lawyers' proposals, which we had accepted. We have accepted every one of the changes that have been put before us with the exception of 13 words which are identified in the document before you. There's really not a lot of surprise here. We have consistently been willing to make the concessions that we have been requested to make. The idea that we are coming before this body with a surprise and secret document that we are breaking out at the last second is not accurate.
>> the one thing that is still outstanding that I don't see christina here today, but I think some other folks brought it up as well, at one point we were talking about some kinds of restrictions on hours of operation. And it seems in the idea of trying to be a good neighbor, good neighbors don't have things happening at 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning in terms of an industrial site. Has any thought been given, and in terms of whether that is something that is still not a deal-breaker and is reasonable and is just one more way to be a good neighbor of not having things going on at 3:00 in the morning or 4:00 in the morning.
>> like you said, that was mentioned in the past. I think judge Biscoe brought it up in a meeting -- I can't remember, three or four months ago and it was kind of thrown aside like that didn't matter. At that time b.f.i. Took a different look at things and gave concessions on transfer stations, gave concessions on the time we would be there and things of that nature to be able to keep our hours of operations the way they are. We didn't think it was an important point at the time so we kind of took that off the table.
>> are there just logical normal things you would be doing just because it's good business practice related to your hours of operation or are you a 24/7/365 organization? I?m trying to find out if there's things you would normally do anyway that can be locked down.
>> really the 24/7 operation gives us a lot of efficiencies. We service dell. We have trucks at dell 24/7 moving compact ores and their waste in and out of dell's facilities up there. We also have a lot of third-party haul thaers come in nighttime. We service in the non-traffic hours to stay off the busier streets during non-traffic hours, which is a benefit in being able to dump in that facility at nighttime.
>> is there any leeway here, play, is there anything -- I feel like we're always saying there's just one more thing, but I want to make sure that we ask the question that is being asked by some of saying I?m just down to one issue and that is is there anything related to hours of operation that can be put forward or general hours of operation, or is it that's not in play here today?
>> at this point because of the concessions we've made, b.f.i. Would not be willing to give that up. I will say, however, we would be willing to in our permit process if and when we get the expansion to do so.
>> so talk about it at that time.
>> that's correct.
>> and one other thing I want to make sure is related to -- and paul, you did cover this, the suggestions made by t.d.s. Largely were incorporated within the August 5th draft, correct, other than the 13 words which are like --
>> they were -- 13 words in paragraphs 5, 9, 11-b. And 12.
>> let me ask the question one more way. Let's just say you can't find a greenfield site. On November 1st, 2015, you are locking the door and you are leaving.
>> we are gone. There will be no more trucks coming in and out with the exception of the closure process that we are by a permit we have to do.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> or sooner if we can find the greenfield site.
>> the same. What if it doesn't happen, you are still leaving.
>> yes.
>> will you explain this to me? Since you are trying to acquire a permit, you have to go through tceq for their permit process. Why do you need Travis County? The reason why I ask this question is because there is a process, there is a process that you have to go through tceq. You go and apply for a permit for that area that's not permitted. Secondly, there is a public hearing that is generated from that application for that new permit. Thirdly, there is -- if there's enough folks show up and they find reason to look at this, it goes to a contested case area. Fourthly, there's a determination mad by tceq at that point. Why do you need the assistance of Travis County since you -- get your expansion, why would you need our assistance? All of these things that you have mentioned before, the roads being clogged with mud, the litter spraying all over the place, all these things that you've mentioned, you ought to be doing those anyway. Why should you do these things after you tried to -- as far as I?m concerned, trying to get bonding situation on things you ought to be doing anyhow? Those are given things as far as good neighbor practices that you ought to be doing. And when you bring up those kind of things like, well, we're going to deal with the litter, we're going to do this and all these kinds of things, a, b, c, d, in exchange for Travis County granting you -- supporting the granting of an extension, it doesn't add up. Not in my mind. So my question to you is why do you need Travis County as a crutch? Because Travis County is a government here. This is something never happened before, that I?m aware of. But the people who are opposing this are also part of Travis County. Here you go before tceq. You got people here that don't agree with what's going on here. That Travis County has signed off on the expansion. Who does Travis County represent? You or the people of Travis County? And this is kind of very confusing and especially to what I brought you up earlier, and I want to give you a copy of this because I?ve already given it to my colleagues and the collect. What this is is a letter that was sent to mr. Glenn shank, the executive director, I?m quite sure you are familiar with him, of tceq. What is this letter talking about? It's talking about the cumulative impact in eastern Travis County on not only your facilities but similar facilities in precinct 1 and 4. And as a result of that, we cc'ed elected officials and I want you to have this. From barrientos' office, he would like to have an analysis on what kind of you and other industries such as you are having in eastern Travis County, precinct 1 and 4. And also attend meets in the future with tceq. This is how significant little. That's why I brought up that thing about environmental racism earlier. It is alive and well. It is alive and well because you talk about expanding in an area that is cumulative effect. As soon as we get the data and information from the analysis from tceq, we'll ask tceq why they do not expand and look at other areas that are regionally favorable under health code section 361.069 and 361.089 under health and safety code. I submitted this to the clerk as a record. My colleagues have the same thing with the county attorney. And, of course, I want to give you a copy because you have to answer these questions for the people that reside in the area of precinct 1 who get the sting and the smell as far as lbj neighborhood, christopher, colony park, all the way down imperial valley. No one will claim the odors, you nor your counterparts over there at w.m.i. No one. No one will claim the odors. Don't know where they are coming from. So yes, I have an investment in this to protect the quality of life as my people as we go through this process. My constituents just said mr. Gosselink is representing you, I represent precinct 1. So I want to give you this because this is what's coming, and I?d like to let you see exactly what and where we're coming from and where I?m coming from on this particular regard. Before you leave today, I want to you have this, paul. Thank you. If you can answer those questions, I would appreciate it. No response? I?m speaking to you, please respond, because the folks are watching. They want to hear --
>> can you restate your questions?
>> I think I understand the questions. The application process to be allowed to operate a landfill is very complex and it involves touching base at all levels of all governments. In fact, the tceq's process expressly makes clear that by going to them, that does not empower you or entitle you to a king's x over a county or a city's authority. You have to go to the county and the city and you have to go to the c.o.g. We're going the all of those places because we have to. We are here with you and have been for years, have been for at least the last two years or three years because of a siting ordinance that was proposed and because there was a proposal from this court that we go forward and we have meetings with the neighbors and we try to come to some agreement with the neighbors. We followed that path down to this present state where there is a memorandum of agreement, performance based contract that has been proposed. Pursuant to that long, three-year journey. That's why we're here. I think we all know that. We have to be here to do that, in part, we were invited by you to do that.
>> I didn't invite you. [laughter]
>> the Commissioners --
>> I did not invite you. So just tell who invited you because I didn't invite you at all.
>> speaking to the court as a whole on okie-doke.
>> the -- we are not asking for your assistance. We are asking you to stand aside. You may not think that's a difference. I think you should because we are not asking to say anything about us. Up, down or sideways. Stand aside. We reached this agreement. We satisfied the obligations to reach an agreement. We have satisfied your ordinances, which I think is something we have to do. And that is what we have requested in this document. So it's no -- I don't believe I?m asking to you come and testify on my behalf or anybody here to come testify on b.f.i.'s behalf. We are going to be happy to -- because we have to be happy to meet with senator barrientos.
>> not only senator barrientos, but it's also representative dukes and representative eddie rodriguez, who has sent me this correspondence and they've all signed off on it wanting to know what the results of the impact analysis that making a killing to the effect because you are part of the cumulative effect in people of color community, period. And we represent all, of course we do, but the majority of precinct 1 and 4 are made up of people of color. Of course, they are being overwhelmed with these kind of things. It's very simple for me to see and what's going on there. It's a cumulative impact. What are the analysis on the --
>> is there another answer?
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i know nobody wants to hear this answer, it all depends on the amount of volume that goes into the landfill. We have x amount of cubic yards per minute remaining, if we take in more than we do now, it would be quicker. If we take in less than we do now, it would be longer.
>> but still there's a drop dead date of --
>> approximately about five years at current volume.
>> there's still a drop dead date of November 1, 2015 if we execute the agreement.
>> that's correct.
>> but if you run out of landfill capacity before that date, without an expansion,.
>> we can't take any more.
>> > that's right, judge, if we fail, we still expressly have agreed to the 2015 date.
>> if no alternate site can be located will b.f.i. Leave in 2015.
>> yes, sir. No matter what, we will be out of here November 1st, 2015 if not sooner.
>> is b.f.i. Willing to execute a restrictive covenant?
>> regarding the November 1, 2015.
>> we would prefer not to execute a restrictive covenant. I will say why.
>> okay.
>> irs of all, I will also note that my reluctance to exercise or to enter into a restrictive covenant may not be very meaningful because the document itself says that this agreement can be filed in the county records and it is, I believe, a restrictive covenant.
>> it runs with the land, holds us to all of our promises, anybody who purchases the land knows it, is held to it. That I think is the effective -- the effectiveness of the agreement. To enter into a restrictive covenant, what I worry about in part is we will go through a lengthy process to debate what our restrictive covenant should look like. I have seen an example of the proposed restrictive covenant. Which seeks to empower everyone within one mile to enforce everything that they could think of about our operation. That's not the kind of document that I think we want to enter into. It's a proposal from one of our -- [indiscernible] it's unnecessary, it's overreaching, I would prefer not to get into that kind of exercise. I think that you have got what you need in the document at hand, and I think that's sufficient. I think your county attorney believes that's sufficient as well.
>> what if b.f.i. And the -- [indiscernible] county diligently [indiscernible] a green field site but fail to do so.
>> fail to find one?
>> right.
>> the first answer is we are -- we have to close by 2015 no matter what. That may be the last answer, too. I don't know what else happens, we fail is sort of the unfortunate answer.
>> okay.
>> what it's b.f.i. Doing today regarding odors and -- and operating standards? Really to try to improve them.
>> well, over the past couple of years we have installed additional gas collection systems, we continue to [indiscernible] working face down, we are not recirculating leachate and gas condensate, we are doing these items right now to keep that down. We are bringing in less and less sludge. Which is malodorous a lot of the times. We are rejecting some of those, quite frankly I?m not allowing our people to bid on those. I don't know how else, judge, to answer those questions.
>> okay.
>> questions from any of the court members.
>> judge, one final question --
>> Commissioner Daugherty, we will get you last Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Daugherty? Then Commissioner Sonleitner and Commissioner Gomez? Do you have questions?
>> just one more -- one more --
>> go ahead.
>> one more time. In your opinion, roughly, with the amount of tonnage that we take today, you all will probably have five more years, five to six more years. We are talking about most likely you are there until 2010, 2011 at the most.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> I have seen this several times and I?m sure somebody has it, a chart that shows the amount of complaint odor wise in the last 12 months, I got started in this thing two years ago, it was an odor issue for me. And I wasn't happy with the odor numbers. And on one was. Now, I realize that some people may be sort of anestisized to the fact that why complain. There are going to be all sorts of reasons, because I think the numbers have gone down considerably unless I?m seeing something that's incorrect. Can somebody give me roughly, you know, those numbers from -- from 12, 18 months ago to the last, you know, six to 12 months?
>> mr. Daughterty, I have them all the way back to 2001. There were four complaints according berry calleder and the complaint long here. Four complaints in 2001. In 2002, 701 complaints, in 2003, 82 complaints and 2004 there were 31 complaints and in 2005 through the end of June there were 19 complaints.
>> so we have gone from 700 the last -- to less than 20. And I realize that -- that again I mean, I think there's a factor in there where people just stop complaining. But the point here is that we have -- I mean whether it's y'all or whether it's waste, somebody has done an awful lot to take those complaints down. I would like for everybody to -- whether you believe it or not, at some point in time I have got to start believing somebody's numbers I mean as the Commissioner. My last question is, I mean, everything that I read, the testimony that I heard this morning, there seems to be an overwhelming mindset that this document is nothing more than seven or eight pieces of paper with language on it that's not enforceable. If this thing is signed by b.f.i. And the county, in your legal opinion, do we have the absolute right to enforce what is in this thing?
>> as much as any other contract that this Commissioners court enters into. I say that after looking at all of the comments that have come in, after discussing it with several of the litigators in our office, this contract is certainly as enforceable, probably more enforceable than most of the contracts you enter into. I think the issue is there's no such thing as a perfect contract. You take the best lawyer in the world, draft a contract. You can take the most average lawyer in the world, that lawyer can find a problem with it. There is no contract that another lawyer can't look at and make an issue out of. But on a fundamental level, the basics are there, it's an enforceable contract. If you compare it to the other contracts that you enter into and you enter into sometimes a dozen contracts a week, this contract is as enforceable as any other contract that you enter into.
>> thank you, judge, that's all.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner?
>> just follow up with that. Because that was the thing that we heard this morning that there's no enforceable in the provision in the agreement for b.f.i. To actually close by 201. I guess tom is this correct why I would go in many places is under section 21, the county may record a memorandum of this contract in the Travis County real property records, the parties further agree if any dispute arises under this contract, then any party may choose to have the dispute resolved by binding arbitration. Provided that b.f.i. And giles shall not have the right to arbitrate any issue with regard to the requirements in paragraph 1, not to establish a transfer station and to cease, disposing of waste at the landfill, no later than November 1st, 2015. They are even giving away their right, let's say it is in dispute and you can go to binding arbitration, they are waving the ability to relitigate, for lack of a better word, the transfer station and the November 1, 2015 date, correct?
>> correct.
>> then the other one that we heard this morning, that there was no -- that we were giving up our right to oppose their expansion application, under 21 as well, it talks about that this is a contract under which the parties are granting certain concessions and providing services to one another. And we have under sections 15 and 19, provisions, if the alleged non-compliance is not timely cured, Travis County reserves the right to oppose b.f.i.'s or giles' application. And under 19, if b.f.i. Or giles materially breaches this contract and does not timely cure said breach, in addition to other rights and remedies, Travis County shall be released from all of their obligations of the contract. We do have the right to go scream and holler to tceq and to oppose them with, you know, guns and lawyers over at tceq. We absolutely do retain that right if they breach this contract and do not perform.
>> true. The contract basically says will remain neutral on an application that b.f.i. Files at tceq, as long as that application comforts with the parameters that are very clearly set in this contract. That are parameters on height, parameters on footprint, parameters on what type of facility, ie no transfer station. And there's a program meter on the -- program meter on the date. The contract -- parameter to the bet. It says b.f.i. Will support the permit b conditioned to meet each one of those parameters, including something in the permit that addresses the 2015 date. Am I correct, paul, that b.f.i. Is willing to make that -- --
>> a condition of the permit in some form or fashion yet yet to be determined but that's what the contract requires.
>> the present memorandum of agreement obligates us to request that its terms be included as person conditions in a tceq permit. That would make it enforceable by both you and the tceq. In addition to that, if we enter into the moa, response to the objections we have heard recently, we will expressly modify our application document. In addition to the moa, to state that we will leave by November 1st, 2015.
>> I forgot one other place. In section 10 is talks about dealing with tceq and going through the application process. However, in no event shall waste acceptance at the landfill continue beyond the earlier of the dates in paragraph 5. Tom, I have a question for you, what was mentioned this morning, from ms. Shea and others, is that the county is somehow giving up its right to seek enforcement of this contract in state district court. Could you please address that? Because we do talk about binding arbitration, but where does binding arbitration lead? Give us a sense of where the process supposings -- process goes.
>> my goal has been to implement the vote you took in may, to do a contract with b.f.i. Obviously if I could dictate the terms of this contract and it would be what tom wants, it might look different. But it's tough when you have to -- to come up with a contract that both parties are willing to sign. I think b.f.i. Felt strongly that arbitration was the appropriate remedy. I felt strongly that on the most important part of the contract, November 1, 2015 date, you all ought to be able to go over to the courthouse to enforce that we ended up splitting the baby. What I will regard as the most important issue, you all have the right to go to a district court and get an infunction to enforce the November 1st, 2015 date. On the other issues in the contract, they are sort of second tier issues behind that hard and fast closure date that arbitration would be the remedy.
>> one last question. With that line of thought, does b.f.i. Or giles or any of the others have the right to -- to somehow get to the district court room, if unhappy with arbitration? I?m just trying to find out if --
>> if they -- arbitration is a relatively [indiscernible] let me say this, I would like to go to executive session on the arbitration issue. There's some other things that I want to explain to you, but I would like to do that in executive session.
>> okay.
>> how important is arbitration to b.f.i.?
>> I haven't rethought that in a while, judge. It was important at the time. It hasn't been an issue, I haven't thought about it. I believe that it is still of importance to b.f.i. I guess that I would like to talk to my client about that, other than here on the microphone.
>> think about it, before the close of this session today.
>> when you all are in executive session, we will confab.
>> just one thing that we couldn't answer during -- during citizens communication this morning, we were asked who wrote this contract. And of course that person already knew the answer because they met with mr. Escamilla. The county attorney's office wrote this contract and actually did you feel that you had the support, ability to seek outside opinion, trying to get outside help? I?m just trying to feel --
>> I got outside opinions even though I didn't ask for it. But I -- I gladly received every one and carefully considered it and let me say this, a lot of the comments that I got, were issues that got raised in the many, many meetings paul and I were in, a lot of it was stuff that once again was considered, you know, there was quid pro quo, each side gives a little bit, but at the end of the day, it's an enforceable contract.
>> I guess the -- to put it on a bumper sticker --
>> it's just as -- I mean at the end of the day, you could probably take each paragraph and figure out where it came from, it would be about 50/50. B.f.i. And county.
>> but if somebody had a concern being raised of I?m concerned you got outlawyered, what is the response related to the county attorney's office and its ability to write a contract and seek outside counsel on how to write this contract.
>> you may not want to answer that [laughter]
>> whether we would seek outside counsel is up to the county attorney obviously. Again, in terms of the level of effort that's gone into it, the amount of scrutiny it's undergone, it's certainly had more effort and more scrutiny than any other contract that I have worked on at the county attorney's office.
>> okay, judge.
>> Commissioner Gomez?
>> okay. [indiscernible] waiting until the last to ask is that all of the questions have been asked. But I have listened very carefully. I think that I don't need to repeat myself. There's only one thing that I kind of wanted to -- to have somebody draw me a pick. When you say that -- let me see what page was that. That it's 155 feet, what does that look like?
>> that's from the top of the proposed expansion to the natural grade elevation. The top of the expansion is proposed to go to mean sea level, 795. The natural grade in that area is 640. You know, if the landfill wasn't there, that's what the ground would be, 640, so it's only going to be 155 higher than what the natural ground was.
>> okay. The other thing was on the contract I think on page two, if you had a site picked out right now, how long would it take to get the tceq and get a permit? Meaning all of the public hearings and everything that you would have to go through to get the permit to operate a new green field.
>> that's an answer that I have been asked to give a lot, it's a terribly wide range. That terribly wide range included the time to try to find the site, acquire the site, trying to just narrow your question down to we own it, we now want to say to mr. Schill go out and do the technical investigation, one year ground water analysis. You put the application together, you mitt it, go through the process. It can be done in as little three years. As little as three years. It can more likely be tended to in about six to eight and depending upon the level of opposition, which we have at least learned in -- in this county so far, is -- is pretty intense and sophisticated, it can take longer.
>> so an additional maybe two years?
>> an additional -- an additional two or three years beyond that top end. If the opposition is -- if we have a permit, the opposition continues to appeal it, it is appealed even to the Texas supreme court even longer. We can't push trash in the hole until we have a final and unappealable permit.
>> so we're still talking maybe five to seven years, so that takes us into 2012 possibly. Then you would still meet the 2015 deadline.
>> yes.
>> with a little room to spare.
>> yes.
>> I think that kind of answered that, everyone has been very good with the questions.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge. You have heard a lot of discourse from this court over the years, but I would like to maybe step back a little bit in time. When this -- you and I guess wmi and everybody else, tds, all of these other folks involved in this process, there was an ordinance that was being proposed, solid waste sight ordinance that not only covered minor, major facilities, including landfills offered, you folks wanted to bid for time to go and look for alternatives. I think you brought up something earlier about an ordinance. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you brought something up about an ordinance, of course you came later on with this agreement concepts. Well the ordinance, solid waste sight ordinance for landfills was one of the things that we are looking at that we hoped to adopt but never did get as far as we would like to as far as I was concerned because it was kind of killed. But there was another ordinance that governed all of the kind of solid waste facilities as far as set backs are concerned which we are allowed to do, that dealt with everything other than landfills, such as sludge farm operation, a whole lot of other things. I wanted to make sure that comes across, because you are the ones that wanted the time if I can recall correctly. To work out something. All of these years that have gone past, in my opinion, still could have been years that you could have been looking for someplace to move. Not that -- up against --
>> we --
>> hold it, let me finish what I am saying, then you come on in, please, otherwise you will make me mess up my train of thought. There are things that we can do from Travis County. Maybe things that we haven't done we should have been doing. That's criminal environmental enforcement, things that I think that we have the capability of pursuing. That's civil and also criminal for violations that occur, we do have that authority. From what I understand. Now, I?m sitting in a position here now, looking at this as this thing unfolds itself before us today and yesterday and a month ago, years ago. Here you are asking again for us to enter into a contract agreement with you. I guess when this goes before tceq, if the court decides to grant this marriage through this contract, that in my opinion does give you a little more clout than you may not have had before without Travis County involvement. Before tceq. Again leaving out the people. In this process. As far as having the clout that we would need from tceq that we would need as far as representing the people, that they come to Travis County, say, well, we need y'all's support, well, we can't, we have already given the support to expansion folks. B.f.i., for example, the expansion. So that's an argument that still -- I?m still wrestling with and trying to deal with. So again, I think this contract, in my mind, is -- is a racist thing to do. It an environmental racist thing to do against the people of precinct 1 and 4. I don't care how you shake it down, that is the end result in this because it's a cumulative impact on what you continue to do in the community. So I?m going to leave it like that. As you know, I have opposed anything that you have ever come up with before this Commissioners court, so when you say Commissioners court, well, leave comaichs leave Commissioner Davis out, I have been opposed to this from the junction because I have seen where this was heading. Hopefully one day we will get a solid waste siting ordinance that setbacks for landfills, right now we don't have it. I do appreciate this Commissioners court diligently dealing with things like cap tech where we sent letters to tceq and got a good disposition on those things, also in precinct 1. Magna flow and others. Commissioner Gomez's precinct, Texas organic recycling. So we end up coming up with a floodplain ordinance to deal with some things. So all of these things I think have to be taken into consideration as we go forward. But I really believe at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, I think the people of Travis County deserve better than what you are offering here today. I really do. So thank you very much. Also, I have a little sheet here and I don't know how the court is going to decide on this, but it's a -- it's an actual -- I give it to all of my colleagues, also to the county clerk, what it is, it's a sign-off sheet. In other words, if this contract passes, I want everybody's name on this -- on this particular contract to show that they were for it. Opposed to it. Which way it goes. I don't know. But I want to make sure that signature sheet is illustrated with every Commissioners court's name on this signup sheet. So there will be a record, everybody will know exactly who did what when it came to the quality of life for the people of this county. Thank you.
>> any closing comments before we get testimony from others?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> we will get back to you on arbitration, either formally or informally after executive session. Now, if you have come down to testify on this item today, please come forward at this time. We -- there are five chairs there, five microphones. If you give us your full name, we will be happy to get your comments. We are posted on the memorandum of understanding with brown and ferris industries, b.f.i., the contractor that we have been discussing since about 1:45. Not everybody at once. Ms. Best, do you want to be first?
>> thank you. I do have several issues that I wanted to raise related to holes in the contract, but I see there are attorneys present who I?m sure will do that very nicely. So I want to discuss a math issue. Why does this contract not give b.f.i. A limit on the quantity of waste in addition to the date of 2015, because as you know, tceq doesn't care about the date as you have already heard from the b.f.i. Folks. They only care about the amount of capacity. According to the engineer certified report, b.f.i. Filed with tceq in November of 2004, the total tonnage b.f.i. Disposed of at this site in 2003 was about 820,000-tons. In 2004 the total tonnage was 865,000, an increase of 45,000-tons, using b.f.i.'s figures for the number of remaining tons, converting that cubic yards using the compaction rate they site, they would need only an additional 5.2 cubic yards to get to 2015, that's allowing for 3,000-tons a year over the amount they disposed of in 2004. The figure they mention but have not put in writing in this contract, I?m not sure whether their powerpoint qualifies as a legal document or not, in their expansion they want over 9 million cubic yards. That's more than 74% more space than they need to reach 2015, at somewhat more than their current rate of disposal. What makes you think b.f.i. Is acting in good faith on this contract? Either they will fill the additional space so quickly that the trucks and gases will be unbearable for the neighbors or they have no intention of leaving in 2015. I know mr. [indiscernible] talked about concessions that b.f.i. Has made. They have made some concessions. But frankly asking us to accept this contract for expansion is a lot like asking me to thank them for allowing me to wear a silk dress instead of blue jeans while they push me over the cliff or mount bonnell as the case may be. Frankly I don't think that any of the neighbors are willing to do this, to accept some minor things when we are still getting the expansion that we have told you repeatedly no expansion. Thank you.
>> yes?
>> my name is evelyn rimert. I?m a landowner and I live on property that is between blue goose and cameron roads. Just north of the b.f.i. Landfill. My parents purchased this property in 1941. I can remember going out on our front porch, when we moved out there, and I could see the beacon light at -- at bergstrom air force base at that time. Now when I go out on my porch, at night, I see a bright beacon light, that -- that is put there so that the garbage trucks can dump all night long. Garbage trucks run on the roads, cameron roads and blue goose roads constantly. They are driving on roads that were never constructed for the weight of a loaded 18 wheeler. Nor are the lanes wide enough to accommodate these trucks. A stretch of cameron road that runs through harris branch property and is maintained by the city of Austin because this is in city of Austin at the city limits, was resurfaced this spring and this stretch is already in need of repair again because of the loads of trucks that have been tearing these roads apart again. Who is going to pay for these repairs? The taxpayers of Austin and Travis County, of course. Not the owners of the big trucks that are running on the roads. If we get rid of the landfills, we get rid of the trucks. We get rid of the trash that drops off of the trucks on to the roadsides. A few weeks ago, everyone saw the tv footage of the digging in the landfill for the baby's body that had been brought there from Williamson county. Everyone also could see all the buzzards flying in the background. These buzzards roost on power poles near the landfill. Their dropping carry diseases that stay in the ground for years. What kinds of diseases might be spread through the soil and water contamination to humans living in the area now and in the future? Contrary to what b.f.i. Has said today, the odors from the landfill are unbearable and annoying. One cannot go out in the yard to enjoy one's own yard. We were in our fields adjacent to the landfill on July the 25th and 26th. And I had a headache and was nauseated from the stench both days. Plastic bags blown into our property are also a nuisance and if you extend this higher, how are they going to control these things from blowing into the land around the landfill? I am solidly opposed to any expansion of the -- extension of the present contract or an expansion of capacity for b.f.i. Or waste management. I strongly support the vote taken by the residents at a public meeting on Saturday, June the 4th, 2005. That vote unequivocally and unanimously mandated no expansion of either b.f.i. Or waste management landfills in northeast Travis County. The people also requested that Travis County stand by us in opposing any application for expansion filed by these companies. It is time for the owners to obtain another site out of Travis County and vacate this location totally by the expiration date of the present contract. Surely one of the county's presently dumping garbage and dirty baby diapers in this landfill would have a site to locate. The present contract gives b.f.i. Plenty of time to obtain another site, so spend the time and money on obtaining a new site now. Given the present rate of growth, I don't think anyone can imagine what this area of the county is going to look like in 10 years. The landfill will be surrounded by residential areas and businesses and the highest point in Travis County will be the northeast Travis County landfill, even without an expansion. Austin has said they want to annex all of us out there, all the way to 130. So this would then locate the landfill in the city of Austin. Commissioners, I ask you not to approve any contract with b.f.i. That calls for an expansion of any kind. Remember, that what you do, concerning this contract, will affect present and future residents. And the environment and the development of this area of the county in the years to come. And I have one question for b.f.i. They have said that they are giving up this area here. As a buffer zone and they are going to go 50 feet higher in this area but they are going 75 feet in this area. There is no buffer there. The landfill goes all the way to the road. So why isn't there a buffer there? Along this part of the landfill? Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Rimert.
>> I have some pictures that I would like to -- to present to you. That were take place this morning, about 10:30.
>> thank you.
>> I?m cecil rimert, my wife and I live north of the landfill. I am opposed to any scangs on of the contract or expressed christmas of b.f.i. Or waste management. Every time we go out on our property, we pick up paper bags, plastic bags and all unsightly things and there are a lot of unsightly things hanging on the trees and fences. If the waste is allowed to go higher, it will be much higher to control as they can't build a fence that tall. Everyone saw the tv coverage of digging for the baby body a few weeks ago. If you noticed some were wearing masks because of the smell. Others said the odor was awful. It doesn't stay in the garbage dump, it travels all over the countryside, that is what we smell every day. If b.f.i. Has stated that they have controlled the flying trash and the smell, the pictures that I have presented to you show that this garbage was there all day yesterday uncovered. Uncovered all last night and it's still uncovered right now. Tell me how the odor is being controlled. Also the garbage trucks, the garbage laying off on the roadside is a disgrace to the community. I have yet to see the sheriff's department stop any of these trucks citing them for littering, if we would do this, we would be cited immediately. Why is it that they have so much power that they do not have to obey the laws? So we beg you not to give them any contract that will support and extend the capacity of these landfills. Please stand up for the people of the community that voted you in office. Pay your salaries with our tax dollars. When you are out of office you won't be here to deal with this anymore, but we who live out here will be dealing this the rest of our lives. When you vote on this contract today, please ask yourself and look at these pictures if you would want this in your front yard in years to come. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Rimert. Ms. Macafee.
>> my name is melanie macafee. It is truly unbelievable that we are here today discussing this contract. The neighbors do not want it. Each and every time that these contracts have been presented the answer from the neighbors has been the same. We do not feel that the so-called benefits ever outweigh the potential harm. The environmentalists have never supported these contracts. In fact, there have been numerous groups who have written repeated letters stating the need to close these problem landfills. The waste reduction effort certainly does not. How could they? There is absolutely nothing in it about it in the relocation paragraphs. This contract just perpetuates exactly what a greedy waste hauler would want. The solid waste task force has asked for a moratorium and the county would not consider or discuss any amount of time. The city does not either. We have gone to our city council members. And they have personally voiced their opposition to any expansion of these landfills. With the city completely surrounding the landfills, why has the county ignored their input? Why has the city not annexed this land when it owns land completely around the landfills? They obviously don't want the liability and for the county to add to their liabilities is incredulous. Who does want it? Who wants these contracts? B.f.i. And b.f.i. Only. After years of keeping issues regarding wmi and b.f.i. Together, we have suddenly split the two and the results of the first will obviously affect county policy on the next. Both should be on the table at the same time. Your decision today will impact the decision you make with w.m.i. Your decision today will take away our chance to oppose expansion at tceq. Unfortunately, none of you were at the neil sellman and rick anthony visit that our council of government sponsored Friday. They presented focus, directed plans to take our region to the next level. Endorsing any expansion of old landfills is a serious step in the wrong direction. Once again, they reiterated the problems of having too much landfill space. This is not planning for the future but only inviting garbage to come from further and further away. A landfill bonanza suffocates recycling efforts. What I find so frustrating is that rick anthony presented a model to easily categorize the waste stream into 12 categories, then to formulate what our region needs to handle our new waste resources. Then it only becomes a systematic effort to bring in the needed private industry who are already operating profitably around the country. Many are small businesses that will spring up naturally if we start providing opportunities for our citizens who will recycle more if we give them an opportunity. Our energies are totally misdirected. This is a blatant push by the waste industry for a solution for burying more trash. This is obscene in our age of resource scarcity. It is time for the contract idea to be off the table. Contracts and roads are clouding a simple message. No expansion of the northeast landfills. It is time for them to go. Begin a mission to zero waist. As neil sellman says, the hard part is the decision to begin the journey. The rest is easy. All of the pieces are there to bring our community to the next level. We have adequate landfill capacity, we have time to find a new location, with the help of the city of Austin and our region. We have the potential to create an eco industrial park where this could be our region's last landfill. Where there are adequate buffers and for once a landfill will be an asset and not a nimby. The point that needs to be made on the siting of the next landfill is not that present one in four precincts should not get it. But I say no one. Not lee county, bastrop or any other county should have to have a landfill like what is present now in northeast Austin. The point is to do it right the next time. The next site could be a model for the nation on how to support the concept of zero waste. Great big holes in the ground that becomes mountains to cover up all of our trash are no longer good ideas for our society. The third world is desperate for our trash resources. We are entering an age where we have a new emerging resource, to source out to our community, and to the rest of the world. Let's get ready. Give us a chance to show you models and pictures of this happening all over the country. Don't slow down potential progress. How will you vote?
>> thank you, ms. Macafee. Who else plans to give testimony today? We will need those three seats in the middle. If we could get three more to come forward.
>> mr. Lowry?
>> judge, Commissioners, I?m rick lowry, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am here because I?m working with a number of -- I have the privilege of working with a number of communities and local governments around the state dealing with green field landfills and expansions, I have a half a dozen, I have worked on at least a dozen others or more. I have very big concerns about what you are proposing to do here. I have worked in the past with some of the landowners in the area. I?m not representing them now. And what I?m saying is from me and from my firm, not representing them here. I -- I believe that if you want to proceed with this type of proposal, there still are some significant things that you need to revise in this agreement. And I had -- I did, as mr. Gosling suggested, provide some input into mr. Nuchols work, it was a little late I fear and it was limited because of our discussions. But even so there's a number of things that I suggested that b.f.i. Did not accept. I?m not saying that they should all. This is a imoation process. But there are a number of and I will talk about a couple briefly. But my major concern really is this whole idea of what I think is going to end up looking like a partnership to tceq and others as a result of this. And the reason that you are being asked to bring to -- to do this condemnation and take some of the steps in this agreement, I believe, is that when there is another landfill proposal in Travis County, some other Commissioner or maybe the same Commissioners having to deal with another community coming and asking for your support, another community, you know, basically wanting not to have a green fill site in their area and I know that this group that lives around the 290 landfills to be very sympathetic, I worked with them, tried to help them. But they want this landfill shut down, too. And you are going to have some conflict I fear. Having followed a number of green field plans and expansions, the agencies, the decisions by the tceq, the position of local government really doesn't matter. I think that you have, you are being brought into this situation where no matter what you say, the implication is going to be there to tceq and others that the county wants and needs this landfill, has been supporting this new landfill. I think that's hard for you to -- you may decide to oppose that landfill. But I think that does create some conflict for you. As one, you -- as one that may get hired by people like that, I?m not suggesting that I have or will be. But others will be in a position for you to come to you and ask you to deal with that new landfill site, one that you are being asked to condemn some land for one in the next two years or so, one that could start a battle royal in the county right now when you are being asked to help support it. The whole idea in this contract of you getting out there and condemning and supporting b.f.i. -- condemning land has a lot of other implications I?m sure that you are familiar with the supreme court case and the controversy about governments condemning land for certain business practices. I -- I really think that it's a problem. I also think that the contract language itself has some serious problems. I thought b.f.i. -- I fought b.f.i., represented landowners in san antonio, fought b.f.i. On the issue of site operating plans. Their favorite words before the court, before the agency were performance based, I don't know what a performance based agreement is, I don't know what a performance based site operating plan is. They use is repeatedly because they think it means a flexible agreement. That's what they argued. I don't know why that language is in there. You have some language in here about -- that you have to -- you can accept or not accept a new site. If that language is subject to arbitration, and there's no standards for -- how do you make your decision? Who makes the decision? If the county really has veto authority over a new site, for no reason or any reason, that should be in there. To say the county gets to decide whether acceptable with no standards, no criteria, no process, worries me, especially when that provision is subject to arbitration and the whole agreement is based on this county complying with the terms of this agreement. No matter what b.f.i. Says here today, the court is not going to listen to this tape and say the contract means this. They are going to look at the word of the contract. And if the words of the contract aren't very clear, very specific -- very precise, you are going to be in the same battles that brif took the landowners down in donna, Texas to over their agreement that waste management has taken the agreements with and the iesi, other parts of the state and you are going to find yourself in litigation. Tom is right. Tom did a good job of improving this agreement, given his limitations. But you really do need to make it as tight as possible if you really want it to be enforceable by the future Commissioners court. I will be happy to answer questions, I appreciate the opportunity --
>> let me ask you a question, lowry. Do you think -- you know, here we -- here at the Commissioners court and -- you know my position. I oppose all of this stuff that's being presented here. The partnerships and all of this other kind of stuff with these landfill operators. But what role do you see, can you see the state playing -- playing in this whole thing? Because let's -- tceq -- you know the history of this all of this stuff used to be -- you know Texas water commission, Texas air control board, then mergers from that, now we have tceq. But when -- when the accountability of these things come fort, the elected officials that are involved in this thing state -- I had the letter, I gave it to -- to gosling a little earlier, shared with my colleagues. Response from gonzalo barrientos also from the other three elected officials with the the state levels, asking that they want to see what the analysis is going to be after tceq going to analyzing, seeing what the chemical impact of -- in eastern Travis County, where all of this stuff here. What role do you think, talking about the state legislature, all of this stuff, let's look at what it is. This is an agency, of course it is, the agency is funded by the state, the state legislature that -- the people that make the rules, not make the rules, but appropriate the funds everything else to tceq. What role can they play other than just, you know, well I want to get involved, da-da-da. What can you forecast as far as the role of elected officials at the state level, especially counties because they represent different areas anyway. What role do you see them playing in this?
>> it's hard to say. Obviously the legislature is a place where compromise and decisions are made and -- and I?m optimistic that -- that in part because tceq has done such a poor job that there is growing opposition to landfills all over the state. We are going to see more and more local officials coming to the legislature, going to change this. It hasn't happened yet. I think it will. Just because of what you are facing here. So it's really hard for me to predict -- predict what your legislators or what you can do at the legislature right now. It's going to take some time I think to get to a point where on-- governments -- agencies are given a more appropriate role [indiscernible]
>> thank you, ms. English?
>> good afternoon.
>> good afternoon, this is trek english for the record for the northeast action group. I don't have a beautiful presentation. Like -- like some of our previous speakers, that was really good. I hope you care enough to pay some attention to the amount of effort these people have put to get you some data and some comments that actually were constructive. Not just saying not in our back yard. I also want to remind you that -- that on June 4th and July 9th, the people said no expansion. No expansion. Somehow that seems to just go out of the window every time we come to this Commissioners court. Now, why on earth would you -- would you say that you are protecting us? And I?m really grateful that you are. That you want them out by 2015, that you are able to get them though the to put a transfer station and what -- whatever else you may think because I don't think there's much more than that in the contract. Why is it that if you are trying to help us, and you are trying to get them out by 2015, why would you give them such a huge expansion that will carry them at least five more years beyond 2015 if not more? I don't understand. That to me comes across as a bad faith negotiation. No one can understand that, no one. I even asked a 10-year-old kid and he didn't understand. I?m trying to figure out why would you give them so much if -- you are saying, you know, it's like telling me here we will give you 20 bedroom house, but we only want you to use two bedrooms. Why would you give them such a big expansion endorse such a big expansion and say but we only want you to use this little bitty three years. That makes no sense to the people. So unless you tighten this thing some more, on that language, it makes no sense to anyone. The original date that we had was January 1st, 2015. Somehow we are sliding into 2016 really fast. We are now in November, okay. Somehow nobody pays attention to those little months, I guess I?m the only one. Because I can see we are now at 11 of -- November of 2015. Another feeling is that mr. Shaw said the base of the landfill was 650. However when mr. Shaw and I spoke on different occasions as to the natural grade of the site, some of the site is at 600. And I would -- I?m not calling him a liar, I?m just saying that somehow there's other dimensions in that site because it's a hill. We didn't have a plateau. It was always a hilly type of landscape. So if some of the areas of the landfills are at 600, you are looking at 195 feet column of waste. Okay? Which would mean that -- that probably about -- I don't know. A 20, 20 story building above the ground. Made out of garbage. So -- I would like to be clear that the 155 feet is what's above the ground that's going to be actually right now they have about 100 to 110 feet. And if they add 75-foot of garbage above it, that's how they get to 7 -- 85 or 95.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...but if we were to assume they have 30 years left, we have 50 years now today. That's the way I look at it. When I go to the bank and I take my financial statement, I look at how much money I make, what my debts are to date. I don't have the banker tell me, you know, ms. English, if your husband gets laid off in two years your income won't be the same. If I?m applying for a 30-year loan, he could be looking at all kinds of eventualities. I could get sick and not have an income. I could look at the fact that my husband is going to lose his job and we won't have his income. We have three children and they will be going to college this three years and they will suck even more money out of my income. We are looking at eventualities in the future. If 19 years is looking at no capacity above and beyond what we have today with the same amount of people but in 20 years or 30 years. I?m not sure what the figures are because it's not clear. It doesn't mean that's what you have today at 19 years. It means if you don't permit anything anymore and you don't have another human being born between now and 30 years, you only have 19 years of capacity left. So I want to explain where I come from with the 50 years. I?m looking at to date. In other words, there's no crisis, that's what we're saying, there's no crisis based on that logic. Now, the thing that bothers me the most, and I see this over and over in this contract, and I will ask you to please, please at least -- we are not saying that your attorneys don't know what they are doing, we're just saying can we get with your attorneys so they can address some of the concerns of the people and the attorneys that will represent the people. I think that's the least you owe us is that since this is your representative people, for us to have a voice in these contracts. Not just saying this man doesn't know how to draft. That's not at all what I?m implying. I?m implying I don't feel secure under what is in this contract and I don't know that you will be here in 10 years and I don't know that mr. Nuckols will be here. If you've dealt with anything that has to do with government, anything at all, one of the things they always tell you, that was another court, that was another time, we weren't there yet. It's always we weren't there yet. Because they weren't there yet, we have something in front of us at that point that is not enforceable or they can't do anything about. That's what I?m trying to prevent because if I?m there in 2015 and you're not, I have nobody to say, hey, do you remember what you said? I want to have that certainty. So my -- to get back to my original thought, why is it that I get the feeling that b.f.i. Has a completely different application in mind? I don't think they are going to -- this application, they keep saying we're going to expressly modify our application. I heard it today. I keep hearing this thing. And if you look throughout the contract, there's all these -- almost insinuations and lack of wording where their application is going to say this is what we want. However, we promised Travis County this so we're willing to amend the permit with all these provisions. But should the contract of the county get breached like in number whatever it is, towards the end there, 20 or 21, wherever it is where it says Travis County shall be released from all their obligations of the contract, which is just such -- that's probably the shortest paragraph in the contract. If that contract goes away, do they get the original amount that they were asking in the application? I don't know if you are following me this, but I?m having a real problem understanding why do we keep having language saying we reserve -- thereby abandoning the previous plan to seek an expansion the longer site life and their right to seek future expansions. Why do we have this? When you sell a house, do you say thereby abandoning the previous price asked in the original contract? Do we put these in contract that you are abandoning something that you are originally asked? I?m sorry, I have a real problem as to are they reserving this right on the side just in case your contract falls apart and they can go back and say tceq granted us, we asked for that much and tceq said, okay, you can have that much, but under your contract you are agreeing to cut your contract short. And leave by 2015. If everything goes well with the county. But if things don't go well with the county, you go back to the previous contract. I?m sorry, that's not clear for me at all in this contract. And nobody else put it in my mind except that I just kept reading and reading. There's just something there that makes me think you don't keep putting this language. And if you look at the contract, at no time do they say b.f.i. Agrees to file with tceq a permit for expansion in the amount of so many cubic yards and with the 795-foot limitation. I don't know, it's not there. If it is there, somebody please bring it out, okay? And then I really don't like the words that paul used today. They are telling you to stand aside. What's that mean you stand aside? Why are they trying to eliminate you? We want you to stand by us. We don't want you to stand aside. This is important to us. This is really important to us. So there's more of us than they are of them, I?m telling you this right now. We may not have the same kind of income, but I?m telling you we are there, a lot of us are there behind you. So at least give -- stand by us a little bit in this contract. I will ask that you not vote for this contract today and I would ask that you actually go back and you ask the people that were there on July 9th when people in the room have asked b.f.i. For another meeting because they didn't feel there was adequate representation because that meeting was put so fast together. People actually asked them to meet again to see if there were room for negotiation, but they didn't do that. They came to you with another contract. So that is not going to go by the people very well. And I will end by saying that if you go by odor complaints -- well, you weren't there, Commissioner Daugherty, but there were at least 50 out of 100 people that said there were still odorous problem in the area. So my baseline is four for 2001. And if we have 50 right now, we're at 46 complaints more than we had in 2001. If you don't want to look at 701, let's look at reality, that's it. However, I think there is much more. A lot of people write to you and don't send their complaints to mr. Calleder. So mr. Calleder does not have an actual real count of the amount of people complaining about odors. Thank you.
>> at the June 4th meeting on the satellite office on johnny morris road, how many neighborhoods was represented there that day? And if you know. And then, of course, there was a vote taken and I think we brought that up earlier that no expansion at all for those particular existing landfill sites on 290. But how many neighborhoods were represented at that meeting, do you recall?
>> yeah, there were about 11 neighborhoods that were represented.
>> 11 neighborhood associations?
>> 11 neighborhood associations that were there.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. English. Yes, sir.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners and judge Biscoe, frank riley, I?m with the law firm of potts and riley. I?m here on behalf of the joseph and williams families which in particular roger joseph properties and williams limited which owns them. Some of the properties adjacent to and across the road from the landfill, sort of like the remerts, they are on the area of the landfill that doesn't have a setback or buffer zone. I?d also note that we're on the northwest side of the landfills which receives the prevailing winds most of the time here in Texas so we get the brunt of the odors and the brunt of the trash. We do appreciate the efforts that have been made towards reaching towards an agreement, but we are very concerned about continued expansion of this landfill. We really -- you know, being adjacent landowners, a additional 75 feet of height to an existing mound of landfill is not beneficial to our property's value. We are also very concerned about the uncertainty that is still remaining within this contract, which in itself, as any of you would know, can also diminish property values. You are not looking quite yet as a complete application before the tceq and we would ask that you look at a complete application before the tceq. And ms. English and some of the others have made a very good point. If you are expanding -- I mean why wouldn't we limit the volume of material that's going to be placed in this landfill rather than a time limit, or have a combination of the two. We think that would be a welcome amendment to the agreement. In addition to that, we would like to see a restrictive covenant. And I know that certainly the permit holders would not like to see it, but certainly that would benefit people nearby and add an element of certainty to this whole transaction. If in fact a filing of this contract has the same effect of filing a restrictive easement, why not make that small extra step and require that as well. Seems to me a very minor point that would provide some certainty. If the applicant and the permit holder have some concerns about the distances by which, you know, one-mile radius or that sort of thing, certainly that's something that could be negotiated down where you might get some people that are a little bit closer in nature so that you don't have as many people that have to be involved in some sort of a waiving of that. Honestly if they are saying they are not going to have any more material at that time landfill after 1015, why not -- 2015, why not put it in the records? We are a bit concerned, and I think you should be as well, although anything to move the landfill to another location we're certainly appreciative of. I just note out that we're a little bit concerned about the county. It sounds like you are going into partnership with b.f.i. And I?d be worried you might go into partnership with other folks to use your condemnation powers for private purposes. Then again, if we can get the landfill moved, we're happy to have that happen. Thank you very much.
>> you think that -- my thinking early on was that a time certain for closure, i.e. 2015, would be better than a roll of the dice. Where the landfill basically would go to tceq and I guess ask for as much as it could get and whatever that process is tceq would make the determination. It may be less, it may be more.
>> sure, judge.
>> and my thinking was that residents would be better off with a deadline, a time certain.
>> sure. Assuming we have an expansion of this landfill, which of course we continue to oppose, if a time certain is not anything we're opposed to. What I?m suggesting is we have a time certain by which you have a whole lot more material that b.f.i. Is asking to place in that landfill than what they would currently place there under their current operating scenario and anything that they presented to anybody. So perhaps what I was suggesting might be a two-tier approach where you have the earlier of, you know, reaching capacity at whatever level it is that they are suggesting needs to be out there for what the needs that they have currently; you know what I?m saying?
>> okay.
>> or 2015.
>> okay.
>> you have that to a degree, it's just that asks for so much more by volume than what they would require under current operating scenarios.
>> all right. Thank you. Ms. Klotz.
>> thank you, judge, county Commissioners. I?m jeanette klotz. The neighbors of far east Austin have been fighting for 22 years to same the socioeconomic divide between the east and west side of the city. We've been working to change the image of this -- of this area of Austin. However, divide continues to widen. For example, when we built our home in woodlive off of dessau road, we also had continued building in Bee Caves woods. At that time in 1979, the cost of our home would have been -- only been 10,000 more, the difference of the cost of a lot. According to county tax rolls, the value of a comparable home in Bee Caves woods is now approximately $100,000 more. The bald mountains have become a very visible landmark in our area. Don't let anyone tell you that an additional 75 feet would not have an extremely negative impact on us. If an additional 75 feet of height is approved, the future height of the landfill will be approximately twice as high as it is now towering over our area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that will -- what is going to happen to this area. I know there was a question about the height of mount bonnell, and I guess I was wondering how high is mount bonnell from the roads in the area. There will be a visual difference between mount bonnell and the landfills. Mount bonnell has high hills around it. This landfill will be a pinnacle in a relatively flat area. Therefore the visual impact will be much greater. And I can assure you that impact is going to be astronomical if that landfill does go twice as high as what it is now. You drive the roads, some of the roads in the area, I can walk to my neighbor's house across the street, look down a cul-de-sac, and the landfill is framed beautifully by the trees and the cul-de-sac. I couldn't see that landfill, those landfills at all when we built our house. They are now very visible, and just the thought of them going twice as high is very frightening. And that's only from my house. We have the same scenario from various areas, various locations around the area. It is going to have a very detrimental effect if the landfills do go up twice as high as what they are now. I have a question. Can a future Commissioners court change this contract if they choose to do so?
>> any contract between any two parties can be amended if both parties agree to amend it.
>> okay. So we have no -- we at this time are telling b.f.i. That possibly -- or the Commissioners court, the county, that we will not oppose a landfill expansion in exchange for something that's going to happen 10 years from now. But at the same time we do not know what a Commissioners court, five, six, seven, eight years from now will do. So we have no guarantee. This contract really is not worth much more than the paper it's on as far as what's going to happen in the future. Thank you. [applause]
>> ms. Klotz, both parties would have to agree.
>> I understand that, but that would be a very simple thing to do. Thank you.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners. I?m very glad to be here. My name is margo clark. I?m not a northeast Austin resident, but in my previous role have heard a lot about these landfills over the past two and a half, three years. And have come to be very concerned about the situation. And I basically just today just want to ask why. Why if a landfill has a capacity for six or seven years and will close in 10 years would we give it significant expansion for 15 or 20 years' worth of additional garbage? Why if you have heard unkweuf callly from your constituents and those who will be spwabgtd by this decision that an expansion is unacceptable would you pursue this contract? Why would the kheurbg surrender its ability to oppose the expansion of a landfill that Travis County doesn't want? Why would we want to reward and expand the operation of a company that has repeatedly violated the rules and its commitments? Why would we consider continuing the kind of landfill operation that is short-sighted, does not look to the future with recycling and other necessary means of waste reduction? We know that solid waste is going to be an enormous problem across this country, and we are not looking to the future with this kind of landfill operation. Why would we enter into such a contract in advance of a long-range solid waste plan that is currently being considered in this area? And why would we leave the taxpayers potentially responsible for the cost of the new landfill? In sum, I would say why would you, as b.f.i. Has asked you to, stand aside on an issue so important to Travis County? Why would you consider an agreement that does not protect and promote the interests of Travis County and its residents? That's my question. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes.
>> my name is nana harrison. I was born and raise understand houston, Texas. I moved up here to staoupb ovember 20, 1968. In houston I was with the civic club for 18 years and I?m now in my 15th year as president of my neighborhood association. I know a lot of these people that have spoken ahead of me. I have a friend whose son just bought a house out in shadowglen. This is out -- you go out 290 just a little beyond manor road. Okay. His mother one Sunday after church she showed me the house. So we drove all over this area. There are a lot of new homes going up all in that area. I?m glad this attorney was addressing some developers. I?ve been appalled that developers aren't coming in here. And if you haven't driven out in this area, it's unbelievable how many different little areas where this road leaves 290 and you drive back where the developers are building these beautiful homes. Gorgeous homes. Out in this area. So in addition to that, coming back we drove all around the area where the landfill is. I had seen it once before when I attended a meeting at bluebonnet school. And I was riding with someone else and I said, good god, what is that hill over there? I mean it was so high. It was unbelievable. Since then I hear from people that say that the kids that's in elementary school smell some of the same odors that these people say they are smelling in their neighborhoods. I guess my question is, I?m really -- I think it's obscene that developers hadn't come forward and expressed their opinions about this place. That's it.
>> thank you. Mr. Mcaffee.
>> thank you. I?m mark mcaffee. And thank you, judge, Commissioners, and thank you for all the time that you've spent during the last four years trying to resolve the issues concerning these problem landfills in the northeast Travis County. I know we've made many attempts that have ended in dead ends and this has been one of the most time consuming items for yourself and the staff. We want to thank tom and john and melinda for all the time they've spent, again, trying to work all this out. But I?m afraid we're real "the wrong track with these contracts. I?m afraid the county will be getting little to nothing out of this deal and will be -- it will be tying your hands for the future. Although getting a time certain for steve mobley and b.f.i. To exhibit the area is a noble cause, I do not believe this contract will get us there. The company could easily force a future Commissioners court to have to make a tough decision and force their hand to where they have to negate the contract, basically. And therefore they would be negating our time certain. If this is -- if not, then why would the company be filing for this 75-foot height expansion? Again, that could be easily remedied by just limiting the amount of the cubic yardage that they apply for in their permit. So simply remedied. And that's one reason why it keeps coming up. If it's so simply remedied, why do they keep asking for a massive expansion? The issue of eminent domain is before the legislature and the outcome could affect this entirely. The language in paragraph 1, the closure language that refers to commencing operations as soon as possible at the new greenfield site that theoretically gets permitted. What kind of contract has language that reads as soon as possible? I promise you I have never signed a contract with this language in it, certainly not from the bank or anywhere else. When you miss a payment, they don't have a language in there that says pay it as soon as possible. The entire relocation language is poor. And this is supposed to be a contract that was initially set out specifically to force relocation. So it troubles me that that language has so many loopholes in it. There are many other problems with this contract. In 6, the control of offensive odors, this language is weaker than state law and doesn't make reference to level of effort or best management practices which this language is ambiguous and puts the county at a disadvantage, I?m told, by an attorney, an attorney who was formerly with the tceq. He says it will put the county at a disadvantage in the future when trying to enforce a problem. Number 9 on truck access, I see that the truck driver gets fired if he or she drives on the wrong road, but I don't see any penalty to the company. Where's the teeth in this contract? Where's the language that protects the citizens at the new greenfield site? Setbacks, buffer zones, all the things that we spent two years talking about basically. And there's nothing in this contract that protects the next group of people wherever they do locate this. As was just mentioned by this gal, thousands of homes are under construction just northwest of this site and the predominant wind direction from the site. And the landfills have been proven to be harmful to your health. These homes will be full of children soon. Any expansion will be a shame. It will be a shame for them as well as for the citizens who already have the miss fortune of living there. She also spoke of her -- I guess jeanette spoke of her real estate not gaining like the real estate values have gained in other areas. This really affects what amounts to most people's nestegg. And it's not an odor issue as much as it is really it's a health issue. The odors come and they can go, you know, and they could perhaps rid some -- our area of odors. Maybe that's something that could possibly be done. But you know, if you've been exposed and you contract an illness, that doesn't go away. This is not an odor issue, it is a health issue. These are not -- landfills should not be in the same vicinities as populated areas. Commissioner Davis reminded us a moment ago -- before I get into that, I would like to take a little bit of exception to some of the things that we heard up here from the corporation. When ray was talking to us about the remaining capacity, the 19-year figure, he obviously ignores the fact that there are huge expansions underway in Williamson county presently. Again, we have all of the landfills in Travis County. Why do we need another landfill in Travis County, period? Why do we need -- like melanie said probably why do we need one anyway, but certainly we don't need another one in Travis County. And it also -- his testimony ignores the fact that we have an operator who has bought 1350 acres, has done many of the things that we would like to see done at the next landfill site, has done all this without being forced to, and has a lot of space left in his footprint that I?m sure that they would like to eventually place into landfill service. I don't think that we have a crisis. Now, maybe b.f.i. Has a crisis because they have waited so long to look for a new site and they have clung to the possibility of getting this cheap site through. You know, please don't let them get away with that. That's not our problem. That is their problem. Another question that we did not ask -- that was not asked of ray and I would like to know that, how far below the natural grade does the trash begin? Are we hooking at a trash column -- looking at a trash column that is the size of mount bonnell? And frankly, I will look at the contra mass, but I bet this was a generous base grade. Generous to them that is correct is, the natural grade. B.f.i.'s attorney paul gosselink asked you to stand aside from the tceq from your number one duty to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who you hrebgtd you? He doesn't like the idea of a protective covenant and I guess not. We do like the idea of a protective covenant. And can see no reason to not have a protective covenant. And paul also mentioned that there was no king's x in front of the tceq, but this contract is full of king's xs. The devil is in the details and the details need to be worked out on this contract. If you end up going in the direction of this contract, it has got a lot of work left to be done on it. And Commissioner Davis reminda moment ago about how we got here. Because of these problems at the northeast landfills, we were trying to produce a siting ordinance to protect folks from something like this, and now here we are four years later talking about entering into a contract for expansion with one of these bad operators. Please do not enter into any agreement that includes an expansion of these horribly managed landfills. At both the public meetings that have been mentioned, the June 4th and July 9th meetings, the citizens resoundingly and unanimously said no to expansions. I do not recall anyone that was not with the company themselves or the landowner who leases to the company, I don't recall anyone who was -- who said anything contrary to no to any expansion. We were, frankly, rather roll the dice than to take what is presently in this contract. Thank you for your consideration.
>> thank you, mr. Mcaffee. Ms. Snyder our last speaker.
>> my name is robin snyder. I?m the director of Texas campaign for the environment. I also want to thank you and your staff or forethe efforts you've made. Your staff has done a yeoman's job at capcog as developing detailed land use issues that serve as a model really for the state on how councils of governments should consider the land use issues involved and evaluate the land use issues. Unfortunately, this contract would tie your hands to actually apply those guidelines to this expansion. So really one of the most concrete achievements that Travis County I think has made statewide to this battle would be basically thrown out the window with respect to this expansion contract. If you go ahead with this proposal. I think that what you are seeing is the result of a flawed process. The process began a number of years ago between negotiations between elected officials and the companies. And the neighbors were not really included as a full partner. They were consulted period beingly, but they were never a full partner in the negotiations. And that's why you have a contract before you that not one person has public electrically come forward today -- publicly come forward to support aside from people who represent b.f.i. Maybe you've had some e-mails from a few people that have supported it, but my guess is that what you've heard is overwhelming opposition to this contract. You know, I know that at once neighbors were optimistic. They were willing to extend the closure dates from the 2013 deadlines that waste management had put forward with the tceq when they settled their fines, they were willing to push it another two years to 2015. They were in favor of a date certain. But that was before the idea that that was in exchange for an expansion. That's when they thought this was a date certain and the county would help them relocate. And they were willing to accept that deal. But once these proposals were tied to a large vertical expansion at the present problem site, the neighbors have consistently and environmentally groups, 15 environmental leaders signed a letter today unanimously opposing this. I don't think you've seen support from this. Last year when this was -- same ideas were being floated there were a number of community groups, city council folks that came out in opposing any further expansion. And I think the message has been pretty clear and consistent that we know you don't have the power to permit landfills, but your standing with the community to oppose further expansions at these problem landfill sites will greatly increase the ability of the community to fight them at the tceq. And that's what they've consistently and we've consistently asked for you to do. We've seen that landfills can be run better than these problem landfills have run. As we've got 19 complaints already, that's 38 complaints that could happen for the year. Again as you said, Commissioner droughtry, these are probably low figures because people have gotten sick and tired of complaining to the tceq and not getting much in response. Investigators who come out two weeks, three weeks, four weeks after a complaint is lodged about gases that are creating odors. I think another issue that hasn't been raised is the public safety issue around methane gas. We've seen apartments had to be vacated in this county in the past because dangerous levels of methane gas. My understanding is that the fire department substation in the area gets called on a regular basis from people complaining about odors. Methane doesn't have an odor and that's very highly flammable and very dangerous the more waste you pile in there, the more methane is created. Methane can travel fatherly long distances through cracks and fissures in the ground and that is a real hazard. As this area develops with more and more houses, I mean some of the houses at colony park, I don't know if you've been there lately, are cheek by jowl to the waste management landfill. There is tremendous expansion north b.f.i. Landfill. And you are putting people at risk if you expand these landfills any further. The r.w. Beck study, the one point I want to raise, the r.w. Beck study that was performed for the county -- or capcog showed that lot of the waste going into b.f.i.'s landfill is the construction and tkepl hraeugs waste, which is one of the most easily and profitably recycled materials that currently goes into landfills. I might have mentioned before the city of palo alto does not allow any c&d ways to go to landfills for any construction project that's more than $75,000. So if you took a look at the waste stream going into a this b.f.i. Landfill and really started picking at those waste streams and recycling and getting the benefit, economic development benefit and the jobs benefits of keeping, diverting these substances and materials that can be reused, you would see these -- the capacity numbers grow even further. That's really where the county needs to focus our efforts and the city working in partnership with the state, with dell that has already taken stands in favor of take-back recycling. This is the kind of cutting-edge areas where we can be going and where we should be focusing our efforts rather than on contracts to expand these problem landfills. Thank you.
>> .
>> thank you, ms. Snyder. Mr. Gregory.
>> judge, could I pass out something?
>> please.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners. I?m passing out a copy of an e-mail that I sent you guys yesterday morning. There's also a copy for tom and a copy for paul gosselink, attorney for b.f.i. Mr. Gosselink made the comment and brought up the fact that I had made comments on the contract. I did. He also made the representation that he had accepted all the -- all but a few of the comments that we had submitted. They have not. Not even come close. Within this package you will see a contract with wording that we're recommending that you consider, and it is red lined version, all of language, text that came out of the Travis County attorney's office last Wednesday and Friday is accepted, so everything you see red lined, underlined or marked out is a change that we're proposing. Now, it is obvious that Texas disposal systems, a company that me and my brother own, is a competitor to b.f.i. It is also well known by each of you that we have worked very, very hard and spent millions of dollars over the last 27 years building up a reputation and a business, particularly a landfill business, in the community that sets new standards. I would like to particularly call your attention to a few things that I think it would be a grave mistake if you approve this contract the way that it is. We know the issue and we know the difficulting of fighting to get a landfill permitted. We did it with Travis County's opposition. And we have built a facility that now includes 1350 acres that -- and spent millions of dollars doing it that includes a eco industrial park, composting, recycling, all of these things at great expense. No question it would have been cheaper to just run a landfill. That is proposed in b.f.i.'s proposal at their current site and I don't see anything different at their proposed site. The language you have on eminent domain and them select ago site, particularly the language change that came out Friday afternoon after 5:00 p.m., allows them to diligently try to -- I think the word is make diligent efforts to -- diligently attempt is the word to find a site. If they don't find a site, language was changed Friday afternoon that you had to buy a site for them. Now, there is no restriction on where that site is. There's no agreement drawn up between you and b.f.i. On where they could select a site. They could literally say, okay, we went to heap ranch. The heap ranch, which is across the street from our facility. And we asked them to sell the site. They don't want to sell us the site, but that's a perfect location for a landfill. Soil-wise, it is an excellent location for a landfill. We want to you condemn a thousand acres in the middle of the heap ranch, directly across the street from us, and there's really nothing that I can see the way the contract is worded where you could keep from doing that. It would meet the setback restrictions that you are ignoring in these contracts with the 1500 feet from different things, soil conditions are there, but my brother and I would be competing with a landfill that had subsidy by the county on whatever they negotiated. Within your contract there's two major things that need to be negotiated later. One is the condemnation and how you go about finding a site. And another one is the odor control procedures. Now, they tell you they will use best management practices and then they will tell you later what else they do. That should be incorporated into the contract now. They also tell you they want you to go find them a site if they can't diligently attempt, if they diligently attempt and fail to find a site, and you will have to go do that. Just picture yourself sitting up there on that dias condemning 1,000 acres or whatever the size of the site is anywhere in Travis County or outside Travis County. There's nothing that could keep you from being faced with a situation of having to either let them out of the contract to close the landfill in 2015 or condemn a site. So I think you need to be very, very conscious that the details of the condemnation and the site selection are not worked out. It says in the contract they will be worked out later. From a competitor's standpoint that's a huge thing because we're competing against someone who could go in and say we want to you buy it and because it's further away, we want you to sell it to us at half your price. There's nothing that could keep them from doing that and then you just argue. You could argue for 22 years, for that matter, on whether it was a fair deal or not. There are -- there is a request and a suggestion for a restrictive covenant. If a restrictive covenant is entered into at this stage, then there's no opportunity to argue about whether you are going to condemn land in the middle of the heap ranch or something like that. A restrictive covenant goes way beyond filing a contract that you would sign here. In a contract, I am told by my lawyers that the restrictive covenant is only as good as the contract itself. If you fail to meet your obligations, your unstated obligations as of yet on condemnation efforts, they could get out of the contract. There would be no contract to enforce. Certainly not on a restrictive covenant consideration basis. The condemnation that I?ve alluded to again goes do an entire site. On Wednesday the contract that came out had -- it was out parcels where b.f.i. Had to go at least find the major parts and then you would deal with putting some pieces together. The change that came out on Friday, they wouldn't have on to buy an acre. They could come and say we want this 500 or this 300 or this thousand acres. Oh,, you are not interested in buying it, we're out of here and your contract is null and void. The arbitration issue is also brought up. Arbitration is not restricted to anything that's in dispute. They can arbitrate on anything. Whether there's a dispute about it or not. There's no provision in the contract where legal fees will be paid to -- by the loser. Arbitration could occur time and time and time again about something that was in dispute allegedly in default. Default is not even on defined in the contract. You can have alleged concern, you can have concerns and alleged -- I?m sorry, I forget the exact words, but it's not clear whether someone is in default and what default requires -- you know, actually is and what you have to do to get out of default. There is no cure period. Most contracts say if you don't pay your house payment, you have 10 days to pay, and if you don't pay, these certain things happen. There is no cure period defined in this contract. Literally the arts could go on -- arguments could go on for years on whether what is in default, whether you as the county or the operator is, what a reasonable cure period is, and whether they cured it. So that could go on for years beyond the 2015 or any other period of time. Same way with attorneys fees. There's no requirement for torpbs fees to be paid. And which can be at the discretion of a judge often in a district court case. It's not generally, as I understand it, done in binding arbitration unless it's in the agreement where the losing party pays the attorneys fees. One thing that was mentioned about capacity, and I?ve not -- I?ve seen it, yes, I?ve not seen it, I?ve not reviewed the beck report. I?m not sure how accurate it is, it's probably fine. I just wanted to point out that waste management has a permit pending in Williamson county now that's almost through the administratively complete stage that will add 49 million tons. That's more tons than remains in capcog per the document that they showed you. So whatever the 26 or 19 or 13 years remaining left, it's double that if the Williamson county is a total of 65 million cubic yards, 49 million tons is approved. There's no question we've invested millions of dollars in buying property and operating a facility where we can expand. We can triple the size of our landfill if we sought to. Please understand there is a huge precedent you're setting here if you approve this the way it is. Right next door to the b.f.i. Landfill is the waste management landfill. How do you say no to waste management to a 75-foot height increase? How do you say no to t.d.s. For that matter to a 75-foot height increase? The best management practices were addressed. There is no definition of best management practice. I don't know what that means and I?m in the industry. It's in the eye of the beholder.
>> well, bob, I guess in listening to the testimony, in fact, listening to mcaffee in his last statements and others that suggested that the contract, if the Commissioners court changes, for example, and as legal described to us that both parties agree the contract is -- can be manipulated to whatever those both parties agree on at that time. But as bob -- as mcaffee suggested, that he would rather roll the dice, and that's because of the things that he saw and the things that a lot of folks are seeing in the particular contract we have before us. So let me ask you this question. Because I don't support the contract at all, I don't care how it's written because it involves expansion. The only one I would support is the contract to close that facility when the capacity expires. That's the only contract I will support. But saying that and hearing this community, and you being of the industry, do -- and saying that all these things that I?ve just put before you with the two parties can agree then this thing can become something that none of us may be here to even do anything about because it may be a whole new Commissioners court up here to make that decision. So the contract itself can be manipulated to the advantage of the parties who agree on that. So the question I?m asking you, are you suggesting that these things that you have put before us now is something that should go in the contract? Or are you just spelling out the things that you see in the contract that was missing? Or should have been included.
>> I am recommending things that should go in the contract, and I?m doing this with full knowledge that t.d.s. Was offering a contract two years ago when waste management was doing the same thing and there was a lot of discussion going on about how one contract would affect the other one. And I?m just reminding you this agreement that you are doing here will have a significant impact on the other landfills as they expand. And in a way, I?m telling you --
>> only if a contract is entered into.
>> well, if a contract is entered into.
>> and to answer your question --
>> and I guess knowing that, and I?m going to let you finish, knowing that, that's just con continuing continuing epbtd on -- contingent on if this court decides to approve a contract.
>> and this court or any future court can change the contract t contract can be changed by the parties involved. Part of what I?m doing is just to -- many of you have asked me my opinion on issues regarding solid waste through the years. And I?ve given it to you. This e-mail came to you primarily because there was so little time to get it together from Wednesday and Friday's changes in the contract. So yesterday morning is when it came. I?m hoping you saw it. Obviously mr. Gosselink didn't see it or perhaps mr. Nuckols didn't see it because there clearly are a lot more issues than what mr. Gosselink was representing. I just wanted to point out that when other -- when these other landfill deals come before you, bear in mind -- in other words, I?m telling you, I?m going to tell you I told you so, and please don't take that wrong, but I?m going to tell you I told you so because this is having a huge domino effect on the other landfills. Please take it seriously. If you are going to enter into a contract that you think is binding, either know up front that it's not or know that it's -- or make it so. Think about whether you really do want to do a condemnation of a very large tract of land, and please put in the contract just the simple word "greenfield," because right now there is no restriction on the site location. They could ask you to select a site next door to their landfill or next door to -- five miles, one mile from their landfill. At least it should be a greenfield site. There's a lot of at least that I?ve mentioned in my comments.
>> the county has to agree.
>> I?m sorry?
>> the county has to agree that the site is an appropriate landfill site.
>> if you don't agree because there are no -- requirements. All the details, and someone said earlier the devil is in the details, that's true. Because all the details of that arrangement --
>> if we don't agree --
>> if you don't agree, the contract goes away, the way I read this.
>> if we don't aagree the obligation goes away is what the language says. [multiple voices]
>> the way I understand it, judge --
>> it asks us to acquire a site and we do not think that's an appropriate landfill site, we tell them no. We don't believe that's an appropriate landfill site and this contract requires nothing of us beyond that.
>> I don't think that's the case. And I put it in writing, and like everything I give you all, you put it in writing with my name on it and my company name on it and my reputation is on the line.
>> what paragraph?
>> it's in paragraph 12 in the contract.
>> well, tom, what's your interpretation?
>> I agree with you, judge. [laughter]
>> I release you from that obligation, today, tom. [laughter]
>> let the language speak for itself.
>> I thought the language read that way was we have to agree that whatever request of us to acquire a certain site, we have to agree this is an appropriate landfill site. And if we disagree with that, we didn't have the responsibility to acquire it. That was the intention from the beginning and we really thought this language captured that. If it does not, then I agree with you, our responsibility goes way beyond what we thought we were --
>> I?m not a lawyer, but I?m pretty close all the mess I?ve had to put up with through the years, but I?m not a lawyer. And I?ve had two other lawyers tell me their opinion on that and it's the same. And I encourage you to flesh it out before you finalize an agreement. Little things, like for instance it says in the contract they won't sell the land or the landfill. Within the definition of the landfill includes the permit, but there's no prohibition in the permit to sell -- I mean in the contract to sell the permit. A permit can be transferred into someone else's name and that person would not be bound under this. There is no financial penalty --
>> even after November 1st of 2015?
>> before -- well, before or after -- yes, that's correct. In other words, after --
>> 2015 is supposed to be the drop dead date. No matter who it is, no solid waste management related facilities on this tract of land. At that time there's a great deal more flexibility.
>> who owns the permit has the right and opportunity to take that permit and amend it and do things with it. If you are binding an entity that owns it in the name of b.f.i. And that permit gets transferred to another company and there's no restriction on transfer of that permit the way we read this, then b.f.i. Would be bound, but that other company would not be bound. There is no financial penalty in here to either one of them. If it finds itself into another set of hands. I encourage you to take our comments, take them for what they are worth and analyze them and do a valid contract. That's my recommendation.
>> on the thing you talked about, you don't even say the word "greenfield" under the idea of the possible use of eminent domain. Have you to read two paragraphs. Go to the previous paragraph under number 11, in order for the county's obligation under paragraph 12 to arise, b.f.i. Must meet the following benchmarks covering acquisition of a appropriate green fields site for a type 1 landfill. Then also under c of that, it talks about filing an appropriate permit application for a greenfield landfill. So the concern you had that wepbgd be forced to use eminent domain for something not a greenfield site, have you to read the two things together. For 12 to happen, you have to get through 11 first, and it does indeed say greenfield site, twice.
>> 12 it -- 12 becomes effective when they are unable to take action in 11.
>> no, in order for the obligations under 12 to arise, you have to get through 11.
>> no. You would not file an application on a site that you hadn't found yet. Applications are very site specific.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i apologize for taking more time, this is trek english, I would like, there seems to be -- on your part, on all of your parts, this -- there's plenty of things here to enforce, plenty of language here to enforce in this contract. Where is the language? There's language that they don't cure, it's not timely cured, it's considered not to be cured. So if they don't cure it, what happens? How long do they have to cure it? Where can you tell me that you have gotten forcement language here that you can go after that because it's not cured in time. How much time are you going to give to cure? Also I?m really shocked, I would like to know who put this language on number 6 in the red line copy that you sent on Wednesday. It says: suddenly, if the maximum height and footprint of -- shown on exhibit a, it's the last paragraph by the way. The last sentence I guess of the paragraph 6, no, sorry, 5. If the maximum height and footprint on exhibit a are exceeded, Travis County may subject to tceq approval require b.f.i. And giles to remove and dispose of site any waste that exceeds those limits. Of course that was changed again on Friday to -- to -- that they will dispose properly.
>> we agreed because there were several ways that you could dissuppose of excess waste properly and consistent with tceq requirements. Not only in one way, but several others. The property really means legally consistently with tceq rules.
>> first of all, judge, I?m sorry, but it doesn't say according to tceq. It says subject to tceq approval.
>> properly is supposed to mean that, properly. If you look it up, hopefully it will mean something close to what I just said. But the thing was you wouldn't have complete flexibility. Properly would mean basically there's more than one way to do this legally. More consistently with tceq standards. And properly is supposed to pick those standards up. That was in the intention. We only had one way before. Whereas properly kind of still leaves it --
>> why are we looking at them exceeding the height. Right away that's a breach of contract should that possibility was raised by somebody who gave comments just like you.
>> what about if they exceed the height?
>> yes, ma'am. If they exceed the height they need to get out immediately.
>> their point was if they exceed this height, then what happens? I said what do you think ought to happen, they put the language in there. I put that in the other draft, asked tom to put it in the other draft.
>> if they exceed the height all that they have to do is remove it, you are not going to go after them.
>> properly remove it. Properly.
>> but when I speed on the highway and the cop stops me, if I tell him oh, I tell you what, I?ll put my foot off the pedal, I still get a fine, judge. I still get a fine.
>> in my view that -- in my view there's nothing in this contract to relieve a landfill operator from any tceq requirement. See? This came up because not a resident but another landfill operator, suggested this comes up, here's what you ought to do. I?ve's position was that's fine, but there are other ways to legally and consistently with tceq standards remedy the problem.
>> I would like them to explain to me where they would put it. If you reach maximum heights, where are you going to put it where you are not going to exceed the height.
>> can you do that in 30 seconds.
>> if for example we exceeded the height on the upper tier of the split level site, we could push it into the lower tear -- lower tier of the split level site if we still had a cell operating there. We wouldn't have to put it out on the roads, we would put it on another place on our landfill.
>> then if that other place was full.
>> then it would go off-site. It would have to be someplace else, some other proper place.
>> if there is a place on the site where you can lawfully do it, consistent with tceq standards, you would do that. Otherwise you would move it off-site. Properly was supposed to pick up those different possibilities.
>> rather than [indiscernible] put it off-site.
>> right. Why go off-site when you can legally do it on site was the question. Rather than being punitive, we wanted a remedy, basically. We wanted if you exceed it in a certain area, exceeded the permit, then we wanted you to remedy that by putting this same waste in an area where you could too so under the perm. Moving on -- under the perm. Moving on quickly. We are supposed to be in executive session and come out. If you all want an answer today, right, one way or the other.
>> I want to do --
>> no, no, no, no, hold on a minute. Hold on.
>> do you not want me to talk.
>> mr. Gosling is recognized then this gentleman, then Commissioner Davis.
>> all right.
>> then I will announce the executive session.
>> I have one more --
>> and Commissioner Sonleitner that's four. Then five. Number 6 is I will announce executive session. Yes, sir?
>> judge, I believe your reading of the contract is correct. The language that says if the site is deemed acceptable by both Travis County and b.f.i. Protects the county and puts b.f.i. At risk, if we come to you say we like this one, well, we don't, I believe that's the end of that debate. You are right. You have discretion. You also have the discretion to say we want to enter into an agreement with you about how to handle condemnation before we ever get a chance to ask you. So we are going to try to negotiate all of the terms that mr. Gregory is concerned that we haven't yet negotiated before your powers of eminent domain will be invoked. Can even be asked to be invoked. This baby is complicated enough. We really didn't need to try to do that, too, at this time. You are -- the county is fully protected on that issue. On the issue of legal fees, that would be all right. You all have sovereign immunity, we don't. If you want to agree to pay us legal fees if you breach, b.f.i. Won't object, we felt that was of benefit to the county. So you have the ability to get legal fees under a breach of contract action against us and we probably don't against you. Just as a matter of Texas law. The idea that the default is some special category, it's called breach of contract. We had plenty of discussion in here, if you breach, we breach, what happens. On -- on the idea that -- that we should have a restrictive covenant, remember our agreement with you was based upon a negotiation and based upon the fact that you would keep your end of the -- of the obligations in the moa just as yours is based upon belief that we would keep ours. For for any reason you did not and we had a restrictive covenant, then the restrictive covenant would survive and the deal would be over and we wouldn't get the benefit of the agreement we reached after two years of hard work and nonetheless the restrictive covenant would be in place. We find that to be -- more than is required, filing this agreement satisfies all, I think, appropriate requirements. Moreover, I have told you today that we have agreed to put into our application document separate and apart from this agreement, a promise to leave by 2015. That seems to me to be complete answers to the most important questions raised by mr. Gregory. I would like to agree with in gregory to this extent. When I apparently left the impression that I had reviewed all of mr. Gregory's comments, I -- I did not realize that, you know, they were 40 pages thick. I rather was discussing the points that the judge had brought to our attention in the final negotiation where he said these are additional points that I am proposing based upon input that I received from various places, one of them was mr. Gregory's comments. We accepted almost every one of those changes, that's what I was referring to. I was unaware of the voluminous nature of this at the time that I was referring to what I did. So if I misled anybody in that comment, that's the basis for why I said what I said.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioners, thank you for your time, I?m jerry acuna, I chair the solid waste advisory commission for the city of Austin. I originally came here as a bystander and observer. By after listening to some of the proceedings and hearing some of the testimony I am going to respectfully ask the Commissioners court to reconsider this agreement. Historically speaking, I?ve -- we can go back 20, 25 years and there was a -- there was a time 20, 25 years ago when these two facilities served a purpose, a wonderful purpose. They were landfills. They were outside of population zones, they were -- there was no minimal traffic out there. They were there for a reason. And thank goodness they were there. Since that time we now have a major population explosion within those areas that concerns us. As a solid waste advisory commission we, as Austin, Texas, for the most part make up the vast majority of all of the garbage that is going into this facility. Yet, we have a cap cog region that includes 11 counties. I think the term racial, environmental racism was -- has been made or stated on numerous occasions here, I feel everybody from West Lake Hills to east Austin to downtown Austin is a part of this racial environmental racism. Here we are Travis County, there's 11 counties that consist of cap cog. Travis County has five of those six dumps, I will use the word dump because that's probably the appropriate term here. We as a -- as an advisory commission asked city council to please please, please, please refrain from sending any garbage to the northeast facilities until they met certain requirements. We as a city are looking to have these two facilities relocate. They have outlived their purpose here. I am asking you, Commissioners, please to reconsider this document, reconsider entering into a partnership with these -- with b.f.i. And eventually with waste management in their expansion attempts. If there's any questions at all that you commissions would have of me as a lid waste advisory commission chairman, please ask me to share those, but we are working on alternatives to minimize solid waste that is going to any landfills, period. I?m hoping that we are successful in putting together plans that will minimize the need for future landfills around or massive landfill expansions in the future. Thank you folks for your time.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, thank you, judge.
>> tom. If eminent domain, condemnation, come up several times. Travis County does -- well we do have the authority to condemn and -- for public purposes, public use. But that eminent domain, let me ask you this legal question. That has to be done within the boundaries within Travis County; is that correct? Is that correct?
>> it depends on the purpose of the condemnation.
>> but we have condemnation authority outside of Travis County?
>> in some cases we may.
>> may, may. Not can --
>> it depends on a lot of different things and I would be hesitant to say too much more outside of executive session.
>> all right. All right. Then fine. With that. So I -- secondly, recycling, alternatives ways of dealing with our waste stream have been presented. I went to the settlement deal, of course persons on this Commissioners court also attended that meeting when we dealt with recycling, looking at different ways, how we could economically save ourselves from these monstrous landfills as far as dealing with the waste stream that comes in there. I think this ought to be considered. I don't think we are doing enough on that. I have heard comments on that today. Thirdly, I would like to find out -- this is from a request that I made earlier, when I was not recognized to roll this item for another time and of course I -- I feel -- I feel very disturbed about that from the -- from you, judge. And because I do know that Commissioner Gomez when she's asked to roll items and regardless what it was, Commissioner Daugherty several times, also Commissioner Sonleitner requested to roll an item, they got their request was -- was granted but yet I made one and it was denied. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. But since that was your call, there has been a request to look at this, give it some time. In the spirit of that request that I made earlier, I would like for this to come back to the Commissioners court in three weeks. So that's another request that I?m making. Again --
>> is that in the form of a motion? We will get you some action on it?
>> well, judge, I guess we have never put anything into a motion as far as rolling items.
>> are you asking me the same request you made this morning?
>> pardon? You denied my request this morning.
>> are you making the same request now?
>> yes, I?m asking that --
>> I?m denying it again. But -- [multiple voices]
>> based on what, though? Based on what?
>> based on the fact that three weeks ago the whole court said this item will be back on the agenda today. It's back on the agenda. Based on the fact that we have been looking at this m.o.u. Probably for the last 12 to 18 months. Based on the fact that every time a member of this court has out of the clear blue when we have told numerous residents to come down at a certain time, we have said well let's discuss this item at least, maybe we won't take action. Based on the fact that when we go into executive session and listen to tom and come back out here, we may decide we are not ready for action today. Maybe next week, maybe two weeks, maybe three weeks. Based on the fact that I think that the request is completely inappropriate now as I think it was this morning. After executive session, it may well be that we ought to -- stho that's your opinion.
>> you asked me the opinion I am answering.
>> let me respond to you when you get through answering.
>> let me finish. It may well be after executive session after discussion we decide to delay anyway. The five of us ought to decide issues like this by vote. If you put it in the form of a motion it may pass.
>> but I know --
>> but if you are asking me my opinion -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> it didn't go in the clear blue, judge.
>> if your comments -- I?m going to ask Commissioner Sonleitner. -- if you are finished.
>> it wasn't a clear -- clear blue decision.
>> I will be quiet, go ahead and have your say.
>> be quiet then. There wasn't a clear blue decision as you just stated it was. It was something that came about because of the -- you heard comments all day long about the particular agreements that came out, the ones that came out at the last minute, da-da-da, in the urgency of the residents needing more time. They asked this, by god I?m going to listen to the constituents that asked me to request this. Now --
>> I have listened -- -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> wait a minute, now, you had your say --
>> I have listened more closely than you.
>> I don't think so.
>> I do.
>> but anyway, that's your opinion. Now, they requested because they didn't have enough time to go through the agreement, with all of the different agreements coming out, they didn't have time to go through this, out of courtesy sure I could request that, I did.
>> I denied it.
>> you denied it. I think out of courtesy, otherwise, why should we have any member of this Commissioners court request for something to be rolled and they get theirs and I don't get microchip. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise we shouldn't have a rule. We shouldn't have a rule, it's a courtesy agreement, judge. We have all agreed that. We have done it. We will continue to do it. Based on whatever reason they have and they haven't stated the reason why they asked for it to be rolled.
>> they have never denied the rest of the members of this court an opportunity to discuss the item even when they thought action should not be taken. Even when they were not present in this meeting, on a matter that involved their precinct --
>> I beg to differ with you.
>> the discussion everybody has already agreed with.
>> I beg to differ with you. You are making an exception here in precinct 1 as Commissioner.
>> no member of this court has --
>> I disagree with you.
>> been disrespectful about asking me an opinion -- you are disrespectful --
>> you are disrespectful to me.
>> the simple way this morning, now, get your motion, three members of the court may support it.
>> we'll see.
>> why -- why should we have the roll --
>> we are not making any progress. Finish what you are saying --
>> I move that we -- I move that we get at least three weeks on this particular item to come back for the Commissioners court, a lot of questions need to be hammered out, a lot of things that need to be done, I am requesting three weeks from today's date before it comes back to the Commissioners court. That would be August the 30th.
>> is there a second? Is there a second?
>> I have a substitute. How about one week?
>> one week? If I can't get a second, for three weeks, Margaret, I guess that I will have to settle --
>> I will second one week.
>> I can't get three, otherwise the motion will die.
>> we still need to have the executive session discussion. Your motion is one week, Commissioner Gomez seconds one week. Discussion?
>> well --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we have never had to vote on nothing like this before.
>> what are -- [multiple voices] I?m in favor -- I respect your --
>> it really looks tacky.
>> I think we ought to vote one way or the other one week. We have never had to do this before. All in favor of the motion, show commissions Gomez, daughterty, Davis, yours truly voting in favor of one week postponement, Commissioner Sonleitner? Abstaining.
>> not voting for or against it.
>> recognize Commissioner Daugherty.
>> I wasn't through yet, judge.
>> the judge recognizes Commissioner Daugherty.
>> two quick questions. From b.f.i. The height increase that we are asking for on both side, the 795, the 770, if we were good to go to the 14 acres and 11 acres instead and not do the height, would that give you adequate room for expansion or do you need the height? You need the height?
>> when we lost the 25 acres we raised the heighten feet to compensate for that. If we went back to those areas, we could only drop it by 10 feet.
>> okay. Does -- does the industry have the ability to sue tceq or is tceq sovereign immunity.
>> sue them for what? For depend flying their application? Yes, absolutely. An applicant who is denied a permit by tceq can appeal that to district court. And get it overruled.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> just a couple of things to kind of wrap up a few points. There was questions raised about what's the definition of timely. I am struck by how when Travis County needed to cure a little situation at our own closed landfill, we needed a flexible definition of the word timely because we needed to be able to meet, we needed to be able to authorize a cure, we needed to have that take time to actually get done. So I think timely means timely. You have to allow sufficient time for the cure to happen. I don't think anybody means timely means whenever. It does mean that you have got to allow sufficient time for something to go through an appropriate process and we have been on the receiving end of needing a -- you know, more time on timely when we were dealing with the tceq ourselves. Related to the recycling that has been brought up a couple of times, too, was -- i, too, was at the cell when -- when -- meeting, that the macafees very kindly hosted. I remember seeing what -- what absolute horror was on people's faces when neil sellman said if we really put in a huge recycling program out at northeast, those northeast landfills could stay open until 2025, maybe even longer. And we are all like oh, gee I don't think that's really what people were looking forward to is the idea that we could perpetuate the northeast landfills oh, another 25 years. So okay I?ll leave it at that. There was a question raised that somehow this is not a binding contract to anybody beyond the people who are signing this. And I?m not a lawyer, either. But I listened to my lawyer and under 21, it seems pretty simple here, this contract shall be bonded upon ... Successors and assigns and shall be a covenant and restriction running with the land that constitutes the landfill site and adjacent land owned by and it lists three very specific sites. By deed and volume number within our deed records. It furthermore says giles, sorry if I?m saying it wrong, giles and b.f.i. Represent that no other person or entity other than themselves currently possess says any interest in such land that would allow them to dispose of waste or operate a transfer station at the landfill and agree that such covenant and restriction shall bind all future holders of any interests in such land. I?m not an attorney. But I think that says it goes to the next person if indeed there's a next person involved here. Related to what our e-mail reacts and people from all of these meetings that have had, I will tell you that the e-mails that I have got, because I made special note when they came, people said their preference was no expansion. I get that. But they also said in those e-mails, if ya do need to enter into a contract, we want it to be a performance based contract so that we can lock in best practices, they wanted a date certain when the landfill would close and at that time this was the one piece that we didn't really have closure on, was no transfer station. So in the e-mails that I got that said my first preference, no expansion. These are all things that I think have been appropriately dealt with related to performance on the odor, litter, all of those other kinds of issues, a date certain to close and no transfer station. And finally, I just -- a number of people have said it. Reacting to that there is indeed a huge explosion of growth going on in this particular corridor of the and I -- mr. Harrisston, how could anybody miss that there is a landfill or two or three out there, how could anybody miss that there is a landfill and yet developers are platting that land, bblg those homes and wow people are buying them. You on is it that people are seeing that there's an investment to be made out there and people are investing in property where at least for everybody today it perhaps was probably not that way when ms. Klotz and some of the others were long time residents out there, it wasn't that way then, today how is it that anyone can miss the fact that there is a landfill out there and yet people continue to develop and to purchase and repurchase houses out there. I?m just saying I?m perplexed. I just amazing to me that people would continue to go on out there knowing that we do not have resolution today on all of the pieces. I will say it again related to wm, there is no way and know how that I would ever agree to anything that talks about the linkage of the b.f.i. Site to the w.m. Site, nor a w.m. Site to another w.m. Site in terms of as I call it filling in the valleys. No. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
>> we will call this item up in executive session. Under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 8:51 PM