Travis County Commssioners Court
December 23, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 14
On 14 it may be appropriate to go ahead and get the legal advice in executive session first. We have a couple of citizens to receive their comments. We'll move that to the executive session and we'll get legal advice and return to open court before taking any action. And we may want to take this back up in the backup review. 0
>> > we have just returned from executive session where we discussed item 2. Item number 14. We discussed the matter with legal counsel and got some legal advice. Anything further?
>> not from me.
>> we have a few residents who have come down to give testimony. If you all would come forward and give us your names, we would be happy to get your comments. Good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> merry christmas.
>> merry christmas to you all.
>> hi, I'm amy [inaudible] and I live in chimney hills north, close to the northeast landfills and I'm here again today to remind you my neighbors and I are suffering, the odors are continuing. I wanted to show some information about that very issue. You've probable heard and many of you that have been a commissioners court for a while know that from the e-mail odor complaints that we're sending you that b.f.i. And w.m.i. Have a problem. They publicly admitted earlier this year they both were causing the odors and now they are reduced to finger-pointing at each others. These landfill odors have not disappeared despite the massive amounts of air fresh eveners they are intoing into the air. Several nights ago I drove down giles road on a cloudless nighten there was no [inaudible] fragrance factory, aka, the misters. This misty fog hung in the air and was more visible from the lights along the road. It was rather eye-opening because I didn't realize that much fraig grans was going into the air t misters aren't working. Case in point, I smelled a gasy odor to the entrance of my subdivision around 7:45 Sunday night and recently smelled a musty burning smell on December 19th and on the 20th and I drove past walnut creek which meanders near the entrance of my community. On the 20th I detected a burning [inaudible] odor. Lovely at tuscan way and 183. Quhi stepped outside my car, the garbage odor was lingering in the air. We have a multitude of odors depending where you are. On the 6th of this month I drove past a northern section of the b.f.i. Landfill and the odor was off the charts. While the northeast landfills are potentially harming us and polluting the air with obnoxious and potentially hazardous odors, they are also emitting other pollutants. Did you know the air fresheners -- interfering with your ability to smell odors by coating your nasal passages with an in detectible film. A prominent constituent of many air fresheners is formaldehyde. This is a color less gas or liquid with a punk jent odor. It has been admitted by the e.p.a. To be a cause of cancer. Also found is a central nervous system depressant, also a kidney and liver poison, and one of the chlorinated hydrocarbons that is long lasting in the environment and stored in the body fat. Phenyl is also used. According to two environmental protection environmental protection agency studies on fragrance chemicals used in consumer products, the most common chemicals used in synthetic fragrances are petroleum distill lathes that have long-term effects on vital organs and health. These toxins are capable of causing cancer, birth deeffects, central nervous system disorders and reactions. We've had one lady in harris branch that the misters do causes her problems in that area. These chemicals are known to kill birds in low dosages. Please do not award scrts to old smelly landfills that can't control odors. I hope we do not leave here today with the impression that Travis County prefers doing business with companies that are polluting and distressing their neighbors. Please don't let b.f.i. Or w.m.i. Entice you into believing no matter what they've done that we will not be happy because frankly I'm tired of the landfills and tceq telling us how much they've done for us. I consider them both equally responsible for our problems. All the northeast landfills have done is tried to get tceq off their backs by unsuccessfully masking the a pooh triple digit odors. This does not amust me. I don't take this slightly. It's distressing. If b.f.i. Were truly good neighbors, I would not be here today, would i? Please vote against item 14. I understand what's at stake for the county, but if you are sitting on this end of the table, what's at stake for my life and my health? I would ask that you vote against any and all waste contracts with the northeast landfills until we can breathe clean air, enjoy our homes and have our lives back. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning. My name is trek english, and last week you asked that we bring some reasons as to why you could disqualify the -- this bid so that you will not incur legal liability. I would like to point out that in your own purchase bid, I think that's what it's called, section 5, it has a safety record questionnaire. If you look at the outline of this questionnaire, it addresses one particular section addresses for the [inaudible] to state whether or not they have had citation for violations of environmental protection laws or regulation within the past three years. And at your discretion, you determined whether or not to disfall phi the bidder. And it goes on and on and I'm sure you are all familiar with that section of your contract. However, if you want, I can read it to you. Based on that section alone, I feel that what you've been telling us for the last year, that you don't have the ability to close down the landfills or to enforce violation or what it is that you didn't have the authority to do for the last year, you know have a certain authority at your discretion in your own contract whereby you can disfall phi this landfill or bidder based on the fact they are non-performing. They may be in compliance, but they still have outstanding violations and they are in compliance with a level of operating procedures that are not satisfactory to the well-being and the safety of the neighborhoods surrounding them. The odors are still there. I want to know how many misters are -- all of you, whether it's tceq, the county, the city are going to accept before you start saying, okay, enough misters. These are not perfuming anymore. There's a oxidant that annuity tralizes the level. In fact, it's like the rain forest, as joyce said, as you drive down giles road. There is so much fog coming out of these misters, it's like a sprinkler system. That alone should give you indication there is a serious problem because you can drive down giles road and they will smell terrible. Not the misters. It stels terrible. It's a gasy odor and the misters are going full blast. So if that is not enough for you to deny this contract, I don't know what you need. And I realize that you are facing budget constraints and that amount of money may be a lot. But we're talking about 60,000 difference. And if you divide that by 12 and you divide that by 30 days, it's a very small amount of money per day to ensure the safety of your -- of your constituents. And your neighborhoods. Actually I had done the figure, but I just can't remember it. I actually did the figure this weekend, I just couldn't find it. But it's a very small amount of money per day that you would be spending. You could always throw out all the bids and rebid the contract to get a 30-day extension on this one and ask all the landfills to bid on it again. But something could be done. You need to show that you have some authority and you can exercise it, and this is the best time for you to do it. At least send a clear message to the community at large. Thank you.
>> thank you, trek.
>> we did discuss with legal counsel the matter that you raised, and just for your information, that language is supposed to apply to public works projects. So those are legal -- there's a legal question about whether or not the language would apply to garbage pickup. But we didn't resolve it, but that was the question.
>> okay.
>> that is part of a policy that applies this language to public works projects. The typical public works project would be some sort of construction, road project. And so there was a question about whether or not it really applies to garbage pickup by a vendor. We discussed the milk yakt without -- applicability without resolving it. Ms. Mcafee.
>> if you will give them to commissioner Gomez, she will pass them down.
>> thank you.
>> did you give one to clerical?
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> this is basically the same comments that trek just outlined. So I won't news read the whole thing -- won't just read the whole thing, just reiterate the inner paragraph here. That in the past you have indicated that you would try to enforce performance through contractible ordinance means. We feel like here is an opportunity to do so, as we just said. So from the testimony given earlier, it sounds like that another month could be given without an panic or stopping of service, that that is not a factor that weighs in. So all of these issues that we're raising, I do implore that the decision be put off and that the contracts will be beefed up to consider all these objections that we are bringing out. We do know that you are placing us in a catch 22. Our major complaint is that the waste management landfill is not being operated properly and that their permit requirements are not being enforced by the state or the county. When we took the record of actual odor violations to the state, they told us to report them to the landfill operators. Now the pre-bid document, Travis County requests that landfill operator to report on itself as to any legal citations. There is a problem there. The county has access to court documents that detail the potential health risks related to the performance history of this site. The county has been informed repeatedly by adjacent neighborhood residents of the many problems, health and safety issues. We can only assume that the county is not listening to its constituents or doesn't care. The county could have used this information to formulate for specific pre-bid qualifications and could have requested sworn statements to clarify the allegations or admissions in a legal record. We respectfully request that the county throw out all bids and explore strengthening the pre-bid documents. Clauses should be added with reference to future handling of waste for the county under its contract so that it's clear that violations of such provisions will fall under part 3, article 34, termination for default. Some examples. The landfill operators should meet all current federal, state and local laws respecting the operation of landfills to protect public health and safety. All work should be performed in a manner that minimizes the possibility of damage to the traveling public, the human health of the nearby residents or the environment. Under such conditions, the county should be able to terminate the contract without penalty, and indeed be reimbursed for damages or extra costs related thereto.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. Merry christmas. Waste management should be barred from doing business with the county, the city and the state. A well-documented history of bribery in san antonio is newspaper fodder almost daily. These guys are the original corporate bad boys. Their ethics in the county proud an enron-like stock meltdown which occurred on the good times on wall street and went largely unnoticed. The company was fined a slap on the wrist fine. This is almost nothing occurring to the environmental meltdown occurring right here in river city. Austin has one of the most -- has one of the most or possibly had one of the most toxic landfills in Texas. Unfortunately, there is a huge body of evidence that shows a constant migration of these toxic materials including benzene and almost every other chemical known to man. Away from the landfill so it possibly is not as toxic as it once was. In 1986, new laws were pass requiring state approved liners to be installed t date these liners were to be installed by was 1994. For some strange reason, waste management was granted an extra eight years to turn in their design, and during that time seriously substandard liners were approved by quick and easy letters to and from the tnrcc, aka tceq, which possibly means turn the other cheek on the environment quick. Now, this was a violation of law, yet we have done business with this company and are still considering doing business with them. Approximately four weeks ago we received information detailing the leakage above ground of toxic leech chait. This information was kept from the public for years. We were not warned to keep our children out of the creeks downstream. We have been sold down the river. Yes, folks, right here in river city. So an estimated 3 million gallons of toxic waste that was poured into open acid pits, an estimated 1 million gallons of toxic waste in drums were to be monitored by waste management and the tceq. Why were the monitoring wells around this site closed in 1995? It certainly was not because these wells were not indicating major problems. To the contrary, they were showing major problems. And perhaps that is why they were closed. These guys have not only sold us down the river, but future generations have been sold as well. Doing business with these guys is like doing business with the devil. You choose.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> judge, [inaudible] heard from the residents several times on this and at this point I would like to put forth a motion, and that motion is to reject all bids and we rebid this particular contract. However, we [inaudible] contract be 03007-0 oj for 30 days. But I would like for this to go -- reject all bids and we rebid. Now, I have been working for a long time and we've been hearing from the residents for a long time. This happens to be in my precinct, precinct 1. I'm their representative. And the law knows I'm going to speak in behalf of them. [inaudible] of the residents that preside in your precinct. I've been elected to do that and I'm going to continue to do that as long as I'm here. I've heard [inaudible] from this neighborhood group [inaudible] groups displawbth, harris branch, chimney hills and many others have come before us. I think we have to speak for environmental justice all across Travis County. I think to bring to it closure, I'm going to continue to work out to bring it to closure, whatever that takes. But as long as we are faced here with a situation whereby I feel that we need to send this out for -- we need to reject all of these bids at this time and rebid, but however extend the existing contract for 30 days for an opportunity for persons to have enough time to go through the bid process. So that is my motion, and again, we're going to bring this to closure. Thank you.
>> second the motion, but I would like to say a couple things about this.
>> thank you.
>> we do have an issue in this community, and it shouldn't object the backs of these people. I live in western Travis County and I will tell you if this thing were in western Travis County, it would be taken care of. I mean, I am convinced of that. That being said, we do have a major issue on our hand and we do have an issue of being fiscally responsible. After all is said and done in 30 days, I think we may come back and still deal with this same problem. But we need to send a clear message and I'm wimg to send a clear message to a giant corporation like this that what they need to do is they need to take care, they need to help take care of the residents thft community. I'm you convinced the information I have so far, and mind you I don't think [inaudible] 30 days yet, but the information that I have gathered so far, this issue could be taken care of by this corporation. And I think that they should take care of this. And I'm going to work, I mean, if it's the working with waste management to take care of this and if we do have to have garbage in this community, everybody understands that. But I think that we can work with someone like this. If they are the ones that end up getting this thing, then I will -- I want them to understand I for one am very concerned about this. And so I'm going to stand for my second on the points that I just brought up.
>> two questions. The first is are we authorized to extend this -- are we in a position to extend it one month?
>> [inaudible] he thinks that i'll need to repost it next week. To extend the current contract. But we have that option to do. We just -- he doesn't think we're posted correctly for today. Although it does say "or take other appropriate actions."
>> but that does take care -- but the motion also is including the rejection of all bids. We are posted for that it's a two-part motion, from what I understood. I would recommend from an open meetings act standpoint that you allow the purchasing agent to repost the issue for extending the contract, the existing contract for an additional 30 days.
>> I don't know if those motions are consistent though. If you reject all bids is one thing. If you extend the current contract and held in abeyance a decision, the bid before us, it's another. So they are inconsistent, aren't they?
>> they should be considered as two distinct motions.
>> if we reject all bids, we're not extend -- without extending the current one to give us additional fact-finding time.
>> can I ask a technical question?
>> let's get a motion before us. So is the motion to extend consideration of the bids before us one month if the vendor will agree to extend the current contract 30 days? Which is what would have to take place. The contract in place expires December 31st.
>> correct.
>> we need an opportunity to ask the vendor to extend the current contract until January 31st.
>> correct.
>> if you reject all the bids, we're throwing out the bids out and starting over.
>> you just need 30 days to rebid. I don't think that's what the motion was to consider the existing bids.
>> the motion was both of them.
>> yes.
>> it can't be both of them.
>> I think what -- maybe the commissioner needs to clarify what he means in his motion.
>> right. And I would like to reject the bid -- reject all bids at this time.
>> okay. The motion is to reject all bids. Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> any more discussion of that motion?
>> i've got a question. If we reject all the bids, how long is it going to take for you to start over and to do what I think is the necessary prep work as we've gotten a lot of good advice about what you would want to have in a process, how long would that take?
>> well, we could do it in 230 days. It -- 30 days. It would be a real rush. 60 days would be better, but we could do it in 30 days.
>> let's just do a what if. What if at the end of the 30 days you are not ready? What then happens in terms of this county's ability, do you have the ability to extend the old contract one more 30 days, is that something we have the right to do without their approval?
>> I believe we have the unilateral right to extend it. I think we have three options for a month. So we could extend it for 09 days if we -- 09 days if we need to do. -- 90 days. That's our decision t contractor doesn't have to agree with us on that.
>> final question is whose budget does this item come out of no matter what we land on?
>> talking about the moneys in facilities management, some of the moneys in t.n.r., Some of it is in sheriff's, some of it is in juvenile.
>> so four or five need to be prepared for increases.
>> they would have to [inaudible].
>> if we were to extend the 30 days, what do we think will get done during that period?
>> we would have to -- well, what -- the most time consuming thing will be is what we've put in that bid document. What changes will we make in that bid document. That will be the time crucial. Then we have to advertise it for 15 days, and then about a week and a half turn-around to open the bids, evaluate them and get the item to agenda. So we would really be pushing it in 30 days, but we could do that.
>> but you are assuming 30 days another bid.
>> right.
>> assume ing this motion passes. I'm asking for another 30 days, what would we do during that time?
>> if we don't reject the bid?
>> if we simply delayed action for 30 days, what would we have accomplished?
>> we would only be looking at this safety record question on whether it's legal to have it in the document and if it's -- and then get more information from them on what violations they have.
>> this is posted for a one-year contract with three one-year renewals.
>> correct.
>> at the county's discretion.
>> correct.
>> john?
>> john representing waste management. Judge, our bid response was completely responsive. First time we've heard anything about [inaudible] the safety response was after you all had announced that you were going into executive session, this lady here, I never saw the backup material. No one, not -- no one in staff, no one in legal and no one on the court addressed a problem with the safety issue to us before you all decided to go into executive session. We had no idea there was a problem of a safety issue in our response.
>> and I take responsibility for that, judge, however, it is their bid document this they submitted. They should know what's in their bid document.
>> we had no idea there was a problem with it, judge. [inaudible] responsively and truthfully and now we're being ambushed.
>> let me ask, in what we saw in executive session, there is an omission from waste management with regards to has there ever been an odor infraction from waste management, and that was not stated in the documentation that we got from you all.
>> if there was one of those, this is the very first time we've heard that complaint. If from is -- if that is in the bid, your statements, your words right now are the first words that waste management has heard complaining about that response in the bid.
>> were it not written though in part of what you all submitted the bid?
>> judge -- I mean commissioner, you all are claiming there is an omission. I have no idea. I've not seen the documents.
>> well, I mean, it's just strange to me that the company, you know, responds to a bid, there are criteria in there that you have to submit, and there obviously is an omission. Now, I mean, maybe it's somebody at waste management, maybe it's not you, john, but somebody had to have read that thing and said, okay, here's the things we have to do to comply.
>> judge, commissioner, I have not seen the document and the claimed omission. The staff hasn't shown it to me. And if they show it to me now, it will be the first time i've ever seen it and the first time waste management has ever seen it.
>> I'm going to try a substitute motion. When the judge is ready for it.
>> I just don't understand how someone says that they don't know what they need to do comply with. Now, maybe you didn't see it, john, but somebody -- there was a packet of information that goes, I mean, on an r.f.p. Or whatever, and you read it and say, okay, here are the things we need to comply with. Because some of the things were answered in the section. Is that not right?
>> correct.
>> they were.
>> we have had this. But no we didn't have this or yes we have this. So somebody read that. If you just maybe read over that and didn't see it. Well, but, for somebody to say we didn't know that that was part of what we needed to be filling out to comply with --.
>> I'm not saying that. No one has shown me an omission. No one has come to me and said this blank has been left blank. I don't know what the commission is looking for.
>> maybe something isn't filled out.
>> john, but -- [multiple voices]
>> the point is that I think you are very aware of what the residents have been complaining about for as long as i've been here almost. When this issue first came up. These same residents, this courtroom was packed with folks. I'm going to try to bring this to a close this year or next year at least. And because these residents have consistently come down and it's not that they are fabricating a lot of things, those odors are real. They are real. And -- [multiple voices]
>> what the omission is.
>> my substitute motion is that we give [inaudible] extend for 30 days, let's identity. If we need to chat, we can get the approval, let's do that. And have this matter back on the court's agenda four weeks from today.
>> second.
>> well, if we extend the contract, it will be through January 31st. And if we need to work on these issues, we can, and if we need to reject all the bids at that point, we'll do it. That's the substitute motion. That was seconded by commissioner Sonleitner. Any more discussion of that motion?
>> well, judge, yes, I guess what that does by you getting this extended, I don't know if [inaudible]. We'll look at that. I still would like to reject all bids. And of course, I think by doing that is correct I think if we have enough time to deal with the 30 days in that time frame, still dealing with the vendors within that time frame because they will have to be in conformance with what we're requiring them to do. So extending the contract --
>> under robert's rules of order, we'll vote on the substitution first.
>> that's why I make my [inaudible] done on that.
>> I thought you were done with your discussion. [multiple voices]
>> all in favor of the substitute motion. Show commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, daugherty, yours truly vote in favor. Show commissioner Davis. We'll have this back on the court's agenda a month from today, which should be one week before the other contract -- the extended period expires. Whatever details we need to work out between now and then, whatever modification language, let's look at that. And basically we'll either approve the bids before us, reject all bids or take any other appropriate action. Okay?
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM