Travis County Commssioners Court
December 31, 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 18
18 is to approve 30 day extension modification number 7 to contract no 00 t 0046-oj, waste management of Texas for refuse collection.
>> good morning, my name is drake english and I'm here to talk about this contract again. I understand the reason for the 30-day extension; however I have a problem with several things. One of them is that question number 2 did not belong in this contract. Somehow I reviewed the local government code and I honestly do not understand why this particular question does not fit into this contract. I think it's very appropriate, and I think the fact that they did not answer truthfully is a basis for disqualification, a very strong basis for disqualification. I think an attorney coming in here and screaming that you didn't tell him when he's being paid to review contracts, I find that very ironic. We can give you a list of things they didn't tell us. And we were having meetings on a regular basis with them and they still didn't tell us. So I think they're not justified in coming here and screaming that there were omissions from the contract. The fact that they didn't want to sign off on the additional language is another reason as to why there's something terribly wrong with their behavior. I mean, if they're not going to use best industry practices, I think that there's something wrong that they don't want to even follow that. I think you need to review the prices on this contract. There are things here that don't sound right. If we're looking at a contract -- from what I can see, from between 14,000 and 9,000. And some of the prices in this contract are strange. Some of them need to be just per unit, and they weren't multiplied to one bid -- one bidder multiplied it by the amount of months and the other bidder didn't. So you have amounts that are just -- just do not jibe at all in terms of the bids that were given to you. There's also -- there are amounts where a dumpster fee is higher than a pickup fee for the garbage. They will charge you 25 dollars to pick up a load, but they charge you $64 for a dumpster fee. So I'm not sure. Since I'm not the purchasing agent here, I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but I would ask that your purchasing department review this bid very carefully because I don't think that the amount that was bid is -- truly reflects the actual costs to you in the long run. And so I'm kind of concerned about that. And I'm willing to sit down with anyone. I don't think you need my input. I think your purchasing department is quite adequate in figuring this out. I think you're sending the wrong message if you just award a contract for this cheap. I understand that this is going to be a bad year for everybody, and I understand that we need to save money, but, you know, awarding a contract because it's cheap to accompany -- to a company that is causing so much grief and harm to so many people, I think you are just ignoring the whole problem here and decide well, we're going to save money no matter what and tough luck, you guys, you will just have to endure it. These past two weeks have been really bad for us. We haven't sent you a lot of e-mails because -- well, basically I don't think it does any good any more, but we have been corresponding with our legislators and they have been responding to us. So I just want to tell you that things are not just getting better. And I think that you need to seriously send a message in telling them that the other -- they ought to clean up their act and do better with what they're doing or they need to start thinking about relocation. If they can't control what they have right there, they need to go. They need to go somewhere else and do it right. And that's what I'm hear to ask you to do, to just spend some time thinking this thing over. This bid has to be void. If they didn't answer it truthfully, then the contract void. If the amounts that they were given here are not accurate, then this contract is void also. I'm talking about the new bid, not this contract that you're extending today, but the newer one. I think you need to look at it and do what's right, what you've been telling us for a year, that you needed something, a contract that you could enforce. Well, this is it. So thank you very much. And I hope you all have a happy new year.
>> thank you. Commissioner Davis, anything?
>> I cannot support this. There will probably have to be a separate motion made.
>> move approval of item 18, respecting that, commissioner, but it is the 30 days that will allow us to properly work our way through this issue.
>> second.
>> we did vote last week to allow 30 days for us to review some issues. And my statement was that the issue of whether or not picking up garbage at the county is a public works project had surfaced sort of at the 11th hour. That the short questionnaire that had been completed, questions had surfaced about that, and we agreed to take 30 days to look at those issues and have it back on the agenda for action. So if nothing else I think we committed ourselves last week to take 30 days. This just basically formalizes that decision. If we don't have a contract extending it 30 days, it basically expires today.
>> today.
>> so this is what we actually voted to do. But the issue that you raised or issues that we will look at in the next three weeks rather than four weeks.
>> those are valid concerns, but I don't want you to feel at all that those issues are not going to be looked at. I personally know that I'm going to look to see that we get the proper answers from legal and stuff like that to see where we are on a legal aspect as far as contract law is concerned. A lot of other things that we really need to examine. I think there are some good cross-examination given because of the criteria that was part of this particular contract was not in my mind answered appropriately as far as the question of question or no answers. So there is I think some wiggle room probably. And I will not know that until it's investigated thoroughly by legal on what grounds we have to stand on. I think 30 days is probably a good -- is probably a good jumping off point to address those kind of concerns. But again, I -- my whole motion last week was to reject all bids; however, that didn't fly. I probably could have done the same thing in the rejecting bids process, but that's another story.
>> it may help the county attorney's office as well as the commissioners court for any members of the court who have issues that ought to be looked at to get those to the county attorney's office, specifically tom knuckle, right?
>> right.
>> so when we have it back on the agenda we can go ahead and look at those issues, deliberate on them, take whatever action we need to.
>> yes.
>> can I make a comment?
>> yes, sir.
>> trek, I want you to understand that I don't think that this thing needs to be settled on technicalities. And I agree of. I mean, which you saw me ask the attorney last week why there was an omission in answering that particular question. And we do have some legal questions that we have to address here. And I realize that I probably have, you know, the energy to spend because the colleagues have, I know, spent a lot of time on this. And I respect everybody on the court's attitude about what's going on with this landfill. But I think that you know that I am interested enough in this subject matter that I really need enough time to try to get my arms around it. And ultimately there may be things that happen in this that -- I will give you my word that I will exhaust every opportunity to try and help -- to try and help you all. This is a large corporation that we're dealing with, and I think that they are -- I think they're smart enough and they're certainly capable enough doing the necessary thing where, you know, y'all perhaps can co-exist. Now, if they're not willing to do that, well, then, they're basically creating a situation for me that I'm probably going to allow myself -- align myself with commissioner Davis because I do think there are ways that we can make this thing work. And I give you my word that I am working diligently and with, you know, some of the legislators as well, but unfortunately this thing is not going to happen in 30 or 60 or 90 days, but it is right up at the top of my list to assist and to see what I can do. So don't give up. We do have a pretty big responsibility to take care of some immediate needs that we have. And unfortunately, I don't want to see us get into their attorney says this and our attorney says this, and really where we are is we're in ambiguity. And, you know, that's the reason we have attorneys. I mean, one person has this opinion, another person has this opinion. So bear with us. I mean, I think that everybody shares your frustration and what you all are living with, but give me some time especially and let me work with this thing. And I appreciate your concern. And I for one understand how difficult it is to have seemingly a very huge number of people that continue to come up and spend their time and their efforts to like something that ought to be something we ought to be working on. So I appreciate that. Give us some time and we will -- or I will continue to work on this, but thanks for coming.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, daugherty and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, commissioner Davis.
>> yes.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM