Travis County Commssioners Court
January 14, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item A1
We indicated that we would call up a 1 after the consent items. A 1 is to
discuss contract award for refuse collection, number B030007-OJ and take appropriate
action. [papers shuffling - audio interference] we will need to discuss this
in executive session. Should we take open court comments before executive
session? It would be the advice of counsel -- why don't we do that. If there
are comments that we need to hear, this is the time to give them.
>> just give a brief background.
>> we issued an invitation for bid on October the 21st. On
November the 12th we opened those bids. We solicited nine vendors, two bidders
responded, waste management and [papers shuffling - audio interference] disposal.
I briefed the court on staff's recommendation to aboard to lowest bidder waste
management. I also at that time brought to the attention of the court that
we included the safety questionnaire in the document that would allow the
court to consider the safety record of bidders. At the time of court we were
not sure that we had all of the information that we needed to look at the
low bidder. We received that information last week and have reviewed it. And
waste management does indeed have more than the one allowed e.p.a. Violations.
In discussions with the county attorney, it is -- it was agreed that the court
could use this information to disqualify waste management as a responsible
bidder. If you all so choose. Additionally, as bewere going back through --
as we were going back through our documentation, we find an error in the bid
tabulation, which did affect the final numbers. As a result of the recalculations,
waste management's estimated bid was 104,047. Texas disposals bid was 151,974.
Now we have a difference between the two bidders of $47,747.
>> what was the region for the error by waste management?
>> actually, it was my staff -- it was my staff's calculation
of the bid. We called both of the bidders for clarification and it had to
do with the number of pickups. It appeared that it was -- we just made an
error in the bid document. So on clarification, that is the difference now
between the two bidders, 47,400 -- 47,447.
>> on January the 10th, we received an update from -- from
waste management?
>> yes.
>> on the -- on the number of e.p.a. Violations.
>> yes.
>> and they were disclosed accordingly to the number of violations.
>> correct.
>> there was a total of four it appears.
>> it appeared to me that there was six. There were three
letters and a couple of letters had two alleged violations in it, so by my
count there was six.
>> for a total of six [inaudible]
>> some of them were in the letters, commissioner, on the
-- there were two -- there were places for two separate violations in one
alert.
>> okay. Okay for -- okay, all right, I see what you're saying.
So you told them -- okay, I see what you're talking about, for a total of
six rather than four.
>> refresh my recollection on the one e.p.a. Violation, where
does that come from?
>> it comes from what was --what was tnrcc at the time, I
don't have it in front of me. Tom might have it. There was the odor issues
that the citizens have been complaining about, there was some leachate issues
with some liners, there was some testing on the well, there was --
>> you made reference to one e.p.a. Violation, I'm not sure
that I understand it. What's the context of it?
>> I think more accurately stated, it's a Texas commission
on environmental quality/tnrcc violation. E.p.a. Hasn't cited them for any
violations. All of this stuff is municipal solid waste, which is ultimately
regulated at the federal level by e.p.a. These particular citations came from
the state agencies, to be more precise, it's a tceq slash tnrcc violation.
>> but our policy simply references violations, right?
>> correct.
>> it doesn't say at what level --
>> environmental regulation.
>> environment, right.
>> state, federal or local.
>> state, federal or local.
>> you got that.
>> anybody else to give comments?
>> can I ask a real quick question of sid. Sid, do we have
the ability, since this is like a combination of group a, b and c in terms
of packages of -- of components, do we have the ability to break that apart
or is this one of those altogether kinds of awards.
>> I would have to look specifically at the bid document,
but normally we have a claim -- a claimer in there that says we can award
by line item if it's in the best interests of the county.
>> I have noticed in terms of certain segments, they are
reasonably together where there is really a human among gows difference, that
-- humongous difference, a technical term. In the parks group, I'm suspecting
because it is so far reaching and the distances.
>> right.
>> if you could just check on that between now and whenever
we get to the conclusion.
>> okay. It's all or none?
>> it's all or none, isn't it?
>> all or none, thank you.
>> all or none.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> any other questions of the purchasing director? Good morning.
>> good morning.
>> thank you for allowing us to speak. I wanted to remind
the court that several years ago in 1998 and 1999 when the city of Austin
was pursuing a garbage contract with wmi, some members of this court wrote
letters to the city asking that the city take into consideration the problems
at the wmi landfill when considering the issuance of their contract. That
was before there were any neighborhood complaints about odors. Tom thing that
has changed is that we mow have more documentation that wmi's site has a lot
more problems than we knew about even at that time, in addition to the odors.
I have heard some representatives of the landfill talk about that they are
trying to be responsive to us and open houses and the like that we don't participate
in. My personal experience has been about nine days ago, I called the number
in the Austin phone book for wmi and was routed to san antonio. I asked for
the number of the individual in Austin with whom I needed to speak, was given
that number, I called the number and left a message saying that I needed information
about contacts and so on. That was nine days ago, I'm still waiting for the
return call. So -- so I think the -- the impression that the landfill is giving
about being responsive to neighbors is not entirely factual, at least from
my standpoint. I would ask you to please take into consideration the fact
that their site has a large number of problems that do have a series impact
on the neighborhoods. And we think it is not in the county's best interests
to do business a company that has such a series impact on the surrounding
area. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning. My name is trek english. And I want to thank
you for being here. This -- this contract really bothers me in that the --
the safety questionnaire is very clear, as to -- the question about their
compliance record with the tnrcc. And if -- if that was omitted or if they
lied on it, they should be disqualified, period. Now the e.p.a. Or the tnrcc,
the tnrcc only regulates basically federal rules. Exceedianss of leech --
he'dance of liners and leachate are federal rules, clean water act, clean
air act. They also have exceedances of methane above -- above the lower exposing
levels. We are talking about a level higher than [inaudible] percent which
is when they have to notify the agency. In fact they have levels above 10%
and at that level they should have notified us. Because at that level the
risk of explosion is very imminent. Yet they failed to do so. I'm not talking
about 10 years ago, two years ago, I'm talking about a month ago or two months
ago or three months ago. Just in the last couple of months, as soon as we
get the records from tceq, we will let you know the exact date. We have been
trying to get the records together. Unfortunately you have this hearing faster
than we could get e records. The problems are still continuing. This problem
line that you are looking at, I realize it's a lot of money when you look
at it, but I think these rates that they are giving you are just to pay their
hauling companies. The disposal rates are not included in that. That's what
they have been doing over and over and over is just bidding the contract so
low to -- to obtain enough money to pay their hauling company which is longhorn,
not actually have enough money to put into the standard operating procedures
that they use to -- to dispose of the waste. Maybe it does look very low,
but that doesn't include what it costs to take care of this waste that you
are giving them. I think you need to look at this very, very carefully. Because
if they keep repeating this, with every contract, everybody gives it to them
because we are in hard times and they don't get enough money to really --
to really cover their operating costs, then we are suffering greatly because
of this. And we are not the only ones anymore. The -- it's -- what started
as just a -- just a square mile is now going to what, five, six miles beyond
the landfills and you are new working on it almost as much as some of your
other projects which you shouldn't have to, the city is working on it, tceq
is complaining they are spending too much time on this, nobody wants to look
at it realistically because they are not good operators. Unless you give them
the message that they are not good operators, things will never get better.
This will give them the message. At that point maybe you can start working
on other projects much more important. Have them face their own reality, which
is they don't really care about their own operation. They are great at giving
money to schools and whatever, you know, maybe to buy their -- their silence,
I guess. Whatever it is their intention is for giving money. But if they really
and truly are serious about their site, they should apply that money to make
the site better so that people could co-exist with their operation. So --
so thank you very much.
>> thank you, trek.
>> hello. Melanie macabee. I just want to talk very briefly
that in -- I just sent everyone an e-mail regarding the -- the ordinance and
contracts. And in -- in so doing, I went over through all of my files of the
entire experience in working with the commissioners court, and it really brought
home the fact, all of the documents and all the papers that we have brought
to you over the last several months, we can't even begin to list all of the
violations and concerns that we have brought to you. I would encourage you
to go back yourself. And look at all the -- all the injustices that we see
that have happened over and over and over again. We could literally bury you
in odor complaints. We are not talking about one or two you have received
them. It should be very clear to you of the extreme violations and the unbelievable
numbers that we are talking about. We need to look very closely at the past
year or two and consider all of that. Also it appears to me that -- that the
discrepancy in the amount of the two different bids should be a big, red flag.
That if there's that much discerebral palsy panes between the two I would
think that that is not typical bid procedure that you did coming through this
court. That they varied that much. That should tell you that is something
that is going on. That should be a big cause of alarm for you that they are
that low and that there is that much difference. So I'm not going to address
that and talk about that verb -- to not address that and talk about that verbally
as to what might be going on, is a disgrace. That should be looked at. And
not just -- obviously not for their good operating practices. So -- so I would
like to see that addressed.
>> judge, we did -- we -- I did talk toll disposal about
the difference in their bid. Of course we cannot verify anything. What they
said is that it just costs them more money, that's their cost, Texas disposal's
cost of doing business, particularly in going to the far reaches of the county,
picking up trash such as at pace bend park, those places, it was an issue
that we looked at, we do have wide ranges in bids sometimes. So it's not anything
that we can confirm or verify. But we did ask the question and Texas disposal
said that's their cost, that's why it was more expensive. To answer commissioner
Sonleitner's previous question, we can work this on a group basis if we so
chose, we have that right in our bid document, so we could award it by group
if the court so chose to do that.
>> these are annual amounts?
>> I'm sorry. The bids that you gave us are annual amounts?
>> yes. It's an annual amount.
>> what was the amount for -- for the year that just -- the
year -- the year that expired December 31st? [one moment please for change
in captioners]
>> I don't have that in my backup? Anything else? Anything
further in open court at this time.
>> I believe waste management has comments. [one moment please
for change in captioners]
>> and a number of those issues t hauling company, which
is a separate operation, has a separate management team, did not, to my knowledge,
receive any n.o.v.s last year.
>> did not do what now?
>> did not receive any notices of violations. The one included
in the fifth document is actually a storm water violation for the landfill.
The attachment is a later which addresses areas of concern. Those were related
more to the hauling company operation than the landfill. The actual hauling
company operation did not receive a nov last year. Probably looking back,
we should have checked no since this is a refuse collection bid and was more
of a line collection operation as opposed to the landfill.
>> was the hauling company, hauling division, is that still
a part of w.m.i.?
>> it is a part. It is part of waste management of Texas,
but as a separating operating management team.
>> but it is part of the w.m.i. --
>> waste management of Texas, yes.
>> right. So they are not separate and distinct. In other
words, they are not subcontracting out to anybody, this actually is a part
of your company.
>> yes, it is.
>> all right.
>> can I [inaudible]?
>> are you done?
>> yes.
>> I had heard this argument before recently about their
hauling company not being under any violation. You notice who is here today,
the company itself, not the hauling company. Mr. Joseph, I believe you represent
waste management. You don't represent longhorn. You are being paid by waste
management. Mr. Jacobs, you work for waste management. When we asked to work
with you, you worked with waste management.
>> correct.
>> so I think this is really a sham trying to, you know,
put the blame or put the [inaudible] on the hauling company saying they don't
have any violations. The hauling company doesn't put garbage in the creek.
The hauling company does not create the odors. The hauling company does not
create the leachate in the liner. All of these were federal violations. And
storm water runoff, all of that is caused by the company. You know, you may
award the contract to a hauling company, but I don't think that's really your
intent. Somebody has to put the garbage somewhere, and they are the landfill
company who ultimately takes the garbage, and I don't think they should be
allowed to hide behind their hauling company.
>> anything else? Then let's discuss this matter with council
in the executive session. And -- which will be under Texas government code
1.071, which authorizes us to have an executive session discussion and consultation
with legal council. We'll have that discussion and return to open court and
take some action on this matter. .
>> > we've just returned from executive session where we
discussed item a 1 involving refuse collection for the county. We got two
bids from vendors for this contract. The only question that we asked was what
was the amount of the '02 contract for service, and that answer is --
>> $78,000.
>> $78,000. And we have the bids in the amount of $104,047
and $151,974.
>> I have -- I have 151,794.
>> it's almost 152,000, he's correct.
>> I have 974. 151,974.
>> the purchasing backup says 796. -- 794.
>> 151, 794. Okay. All right. And with that, I would like
to make a motion.
>> okay.
>> I move that we disqualify waste management systems as
a non-responsible bidder for ibf number 3077-0 j, and that we award the next
-- the next lowest bidder this contract, Texas disposal systems, in the amount
of $151,794.
>> I second that.
>> any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Show commissioners
daugherty and Davis voting in favor. Voting against, show commissioner Gomez
and Sonleitner. That motion fails. I move that we award the contract to the
low bidder, waste management, subject to a post-award modification that deals
with the orders; that we delay execution of the contract for one week to get
staff -- to give staff an opportunity to get with waste management and to
hopefully agree on contract language dealing with the orders at the -- odors
at the facility.
>> second.
>> move that the county judge make himself available on behalf
of the commissioners court to help achieve that language, and if we need a
meeting, I will make myself available this week. If not, you all just get
that to us for review by Friday of this week. Any more discussion of that
motion? All in favor? Show commissioners Gomez, Biscoe and son lighteder voting
for. Against, commissioner daugherty and Davis. This will be back on the agenda
for execution of the contract next week.
>> how much of a window do we still have in terms of the
extension?
>> until the end of this month. So we're in good shape.
>> two more meetings. Okay. Thanks.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM