Travis County Commssioners Court
April 8, 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 14a
We indicated that we would call up two items at 1:45. And those items are a 15 a, b and c, and 15 a, is consider the ax on solid waste ordinance issues. 14 b, consider proposed county ordinance covering waste facilities that are not type 1 landfills and take appropriate action. Now, yesterday I did get a phone call from mr. And mrs. Mcafee indicating they would be at the let you are on several -- legislature on several bills relating to landfills today. And this morning I got an e-mail from ms. English, I believe, [indiscernible] I don't see her name anywhere on here, but apparently that -- thoals bills are before the -- those bills are before the environmental regulation committee beginning at 2:00 today. And I see [indiscernible]. Now, there may be --
>> did you call up 15 a, b and c?
>> no, sir, 15 a and b.
>> [indiscernible].
>> I would like to do them separately. They are separate issue.
>> and that's why we posted them separate and that's why I read them like I did. So I have an objection to that. Now, if you want to vote on it, that doesn't bother me. And the reason is that [indiscernible] and what I知 about to say is I don't know that it makes sense to delay 14 a. Because I think we need to start moving on that sooner or later. And it's been delayed two months or more. What I will suggest is there be a working committee on 14 a and that the residents have representation. [indiscernible] and do some work and come back to the court before we take a whole lot of action anyway. On 14 b, though, my recommendation would be that we discuss first today, take action and have this posted again next week so that those at the legislature participating in that process will have an opportunity to come and provide impact -- input, rather. [indiscernible] it ought to be two to three weeks, during which time we can get opportunity to provide input and could be taken seriously before we take final action. But my recommendation is on 14 a we have the discussion and if we're ready today to take action. 14 b we discuss, not take action today, but have that back on next week to give those who requested an opportunity to be present that opportunity. After 14, we call up 15 a, b and c, and I turn to Commissioner Davis and how he wants to deal with it. That's what I have in mind. Well, there ms. Mcafee is. Did they postpone the --
>> no [inaudible].
>> should we just go ahead and act as though --
>> I think [inaudible] [no microphone on].
>> okay. 14 a. Which I read.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners. Back on I guess March the 18th, you -- the court gave staff a pretty clear direction to refine -- go back and take the existing scope of work that had been done and refine that, refine any potential costs -- or seek potential partners that could participate in an odor study and define those roles and forms of partnership that might come into play. Also there were, you know, definite directives to make sure any study would be scientifically valid, unbiassed and serve at a potential model for future use. I have gone forward and tried to do the best I could with those directives, and as recently as over the lunch hour passed out a memo that you can kind of follow along with just to kind of give you direction on where I知 at. The issue on the scope of work is somewhat challenging because I truly believe that for the county to move forward with this, we need to have someone who has more expertise than myself on board to do some work, investigations on the site with existing data and so forth to provide a more detailed scope to take forward and invest in. There are definitely local contractors, there's also a potential for ufppa and tceq being involved, not required, but those are all possibilities out there. We also had comments, detailed comments submitted to us related to the approach to the scope of work that I had given out. The refinement that I submitted to the members and to the public was after the 18th, it was March 21st, it went out by e-mail, and I received comments on that primarily just in the last couple of days. Hence the late delivery of this information to you. I apologize for that. Waste management replied with detailed comments. Bihad some fairly general comments. And t.d.s. Also had some very detailed comments. In the effort to sort of choose my battles with a limited amount of time, I responded to comments for the potential most affected landfills, waste management and b.f.i.s. T.d.s.'s I sort of put off, but those are before knew that table starting on page 2. In terms of potential costs, this premier phase 1 approach that I知 suggesting is one that i've had someone in the professional community that does this type of work say is about, you know, approximately a $15,000 item. Now, the caveat to that is if there is a work group associated with that, that was not necessarily factored into this equation and might --
>> let -- I知 really looking for expeditious resolution. I think we all are. Water quality, hydrologists, the ordinance, all of these things I think we really need for expeditious relief for this community. Now, I don't know -- I know the work group, Karen got involved in some stuff earlier as far as the ordinance is concerned, and that still was a question between the industry and some emphasis [indiscernible] only except for the fact that it's something that may have been delayed. And I知 really wanting to move forward with this. I don't really know exactly what's in mind because a working group as far as just doing the services and the work. I know [indiscernible], but there was some emphasis, john, according to what w.m.i. And b.f.i. Both said, basically they said what they want to do as far as participation is concerned. I think it would probably be a part of all this work we reference, but, again, getting the relief from the odors out there in the community is paramount and we would like -- and I知 looking for that remedy quickly. Expeditiously. Because these folks have been dealing with this for a mighty long time and I don't want any further delays than we can help.
>> right. If that's a question, the question that I知 reading out of that is is the work group a necessary component, why are we discussing it. My answer would be in the initial direction from the court, there was a anticipation of the development of that kind of a stakeholder group. My response is embodied in this document and in what I say, and that is responding to the court's direction. So whether you decide today to do that or not is certainly your choice. I知 just responding to previous directives from the court.
>> and I guess -- but I need to ask this question. In partialality, an unbiassed objective or viewpoint, how is this directed toward that not being biassed or what's the status of what we're trying the achieve here? Where is that [indiscernible].
>> if there is a work group put together, let's assume for conversational purposes that there is, that would be composed of residents or their chosen representatives, industry, as well as perhaps local businesses that are nearby. And the other suggestion I have in the body of some of my documents that I presented before is the presence of perhaps an expert -- and this could be at either mutual agreement or the residents' agreement or the court's agreement or what have you, that could provide a review of a chosen contractor. Most of the contractors -- certainly the better contractors that I have communicated with do have experience on landfills. Since waste management and b.f.i. Are the two dominant landfill operators in the country, these firms are going to probably have some level of project history with those firms. I don't have a -- I知 not prepared to present to you -- present to you today what that level of experience is and how much and if it was local or not. Local [indiscernible] don't have a whole lot, but their company does have some experience with these landfills. Doesn't seem to be a lot locally, but there certainly is some excellent efforts put forth by some of the consultants out there to try to help with this issue. And partialality as I see it would have to be direct by the court and built into a process that we move forward into or not.
>> well, I think it's --
>> I知 done.
>> I guess it's what we -- did did not hear any members of the court say we would not look for situations that were non-partial. I guess the experts, in other words, the experts that you are supposed to bring recommended by the court are not supposed to be directly connected with the operators of the landfills, per se.
>> that was the highest goal, certainly, to achieve. But I guess I知 here to submit to you today [indiscernible] that I think there are probably other measures that can be built into the system to at least, you know, do the best we can for impartiality and peer review that are not related to the industry. For example, u.t. Professors. I've had a few names casually submitted to me, but we haven't made a formal request for folks to give us that list yet.
>> [indiscernible] qualifications, how long will it take to make the decision?
>> I知 told by purchasing that if you put a formal r.f.q. Out on the street, you are looking at six to eight weeks after that package, that complete package is submitted to purchasing.
>> if we informally do it, how long will it take?
>> so simply choose a contractor based upon qualifications?
>> right. A week to 10 days?
>> yes.
>> talking about like r-sf?
>> or r.f.q. I don't know that -- just to receive the qualifications and so forth, yeah that is correct could be achieved in that time. We're looking at I guess in terms of the working group or committee, my thinking was that made all the sense because you need to get by step 1 or phase 1 to go to phases 2 and 3. Are we in a position to know whether e.p.a. Will assist?
>> yes. That's 2 the section of the document I would move into next.
>> can you go to tceq after that?
>> .
>> that's the last section before n. The summary. We from the judge's office submitted participation from the e.p.a., Of course the industry, b.f.i., Waste management, city of Austin, tceq and applied materials since they had been an active participant and are across the road there. We sent out letters on -- what was that date? March 28th. And we have received various levels of commit friendly amendment folks. Yes, [indiscernible] is willing to travel at their expense to determine whether or not this site is appropriate for the types of studies that they do. At least the working group that I have spoken to in that optical remote sensing approach. Now, I won't say that we have not had some comments that that perhaps is not the best use of our money. I never said that we had to choose that method. When I spoke to the uspca, they were very interested in this problem, number one. Number #- two, they felt like their technology and approach had some benefit to offer. So it was one of many on the list that I provided to you. They wanted to come and do that. I asked them to hold up before we do any scheduling of that until I received further direction from the court. And I think, frankly, it would be most beneficial to have that phase 1 sort of ongoing at that time so that we have our own local expert on board to help with that coordination process with u.s. E.p.a.
>> so --
>> I知 sorry?
>> they would like to assist, but we don't know as of today how they pay be able to?
>> well, I think that the primary role would be in -- as a potential component of the study itself, as a contractor in doing work out there for gas emissions. There's a possibility, I haven't asked them to do it, though, is that they could just provide peer review. You know, this particular group is pretty keen on doing research. That's kind of what they do. If this project is not one that provides them initial research value, I知 not sure that they will serve as a peer review -- in a peer review role. However, tceq and the e.p.a. Folks and I had a conference call, and tceq is very eager to have their participation, at least at the regional and operations monitoring operations staff levels. The letter that we sent went to the executive director, Margaret hoffman, and to my knowledge we haven't had a direct response yet, but I would expect we would get one. But to get back to your question, e.p.a., In my opinion, from what we've been talking about, would be one of the technical participants in the actual monitoring.
>> what role do you see for the contract consultant?
>> the contract consultant will kind of get down to the brass tacks of the study design, okay, picking up existing data that's out there already, picking up landfill design and operation information, putting all that together in one package, do some initial preliminary sampling of gases, looking at the operations perhaps finding point sources versus fugitive sources coming from the actual working phase or the cap. Kind of just reconnaissance level focus and then development of the full scope of sampling. It's such an investment in terms of the sampling and fairly complex in order to put that together and make sure that it fits right, that I don't feel good just launching into some detailed scope of work before that first phase of work is done.
>> john, related to the idea of this working group, spend just a few minutes talking about this. And here's my concern since we have been dealing with this for a number of months. You are saying that the group should be composed of industry, nearby residents, business representatives and at least one objective technical expert peer review. How do we ensure that whomever is picked from industry speaks for all of industry? How do we assure that somebody who is picked from the residents speaks for all the residents? Because what we're trying to get to is that everybody has [indiscernible] about how you do it, what's going to be measured, everybody agrees how you get there. What I don't want is somebody at the end says, and this is either from the residents' side or industry's side saying that person didn't speak for me and I do not validate anything that they come up with. So I知 trying to get to a place where we can all move forward on this, but take take away those kind of things where somebody says after the fact that wasn't -- they don't speak for me, they don't sign off for me. On either side.
>> yeah, I mean, that's just a challenge that's there. I don't know that I知 going to provide some magic solution to that. However, you know, in laying out that as a possibility, industry has come forth at least waste management in particular in stating this certain person must be on this group if it is to be in existence. And I would assume b.f.i. Would probably do the same. In terms of the residents, that's a very big challenge. As we watched the previous work group in action, you know, it was quite a burden on trek english and she performed mightyly, but I think there were plent of times, I didn't necessarily hear this, but there was probably folks out there in the same neighborhood or other neighborhoods that might have said, man, I wish x, y and z would have been added or said or what have you. I know from trek personally that she felt a great deal of pressure in that arena.
>> then I suggest an order of [indiscernible].
>> not at all, sir. She is a [indiscernible] in terms of her energy level and research capabilities.
>> [indiscernible].
>> and I guess my other concern is just how do we get past -- get pasted it. That was certainly my concern t last time we had a working group people going one side versus the other had more people on the group, therefore we're outnumbered. And I don't want those kinds of things to occur. I want everybody to have confidence in the system. So we're going to need to talk about some of these things before we get there so we indeed can move forward and this is a positive thing as opposed to get gets shot down after the fact. Because somebody feels like after the fact it didn't turn out the way that they perhaps --
>> well, I can tell you too from a staff person's perspective, we always welcome the input, but the formality of the work groups does take time, it's typical time in the evenings and requires a lot of coordination and so forth. Perhaps, you know, I laid this out, like I said, because it was an idea that had been bandied about. If that's not what folks want to do, if there's another way to achieve it, just perhaps a written comment process, that's certainly fine with me.
>> well, my concern is this. Is that a working group is fine. I have no qualms about that. But here we're looking for an expert to look at how we can remedy [indiscernible] out there. That's the whole intent of this. And I guess even b.f.i. -- not b.f.i., But I guess w.m.i. And [indiscernible] we have this same situation in kentucky. Trying to track down all those. And of course that was the situation whereby they didn't [indiscernible] as far as w.m.i. Responded to us about. I知 getting kind of concerned that we're looking for the remedy, but we're also looking for the source. And my whole point is having the working group to determine where an expert is going [indiscernible], but where the problem is, I don't see where the match is coming in. I don't see it. I cannot see what the purpose of a work group is when we're looking for the source of a odor and we're hiring somebody to do just that. You know, if somebody can explain that to me, help me. Can you help me on that?
>> I can certainly try. I think it was previously stated by judge Biscoe the goal is to make sure that the neighbors feel like they understand the process. I mean, this is a very technical process. And so if you have your expert there on hand who is certainly more eloquent and knowledgeable than somebody like poor me on this, can help that process along. Make them understand why a particular study design is structured the way it is. Why certain techniques are used and why others are not. Now, waste management's comment on their experience with u.s. E.p.a. In kentucky was very interesting because it contrasted generally with what I had heard from e.p.a. I haven't looked into that at all. I just got the document yesterday. But that is sort of an aside. I知 here to tell you this is a fairly complex area. And getting back to some of your original comments too about time, you know, if you want this done right, you don't want to do this, you know, overnight. This is something that you really want to take your time with and structure well. If it has to go into different seasons to account for -- that's why the [indiscernible] what the neighbors are concerned about is that you won't capture the worst times. Well, so, maybe it does have to take a little more time and the study design should have seasonality to it. So that would be another potential area that this work group could tackle. I知 not here to really be a proponent of the work group or the opposite. I知 just kind of doing my duty as was asked by the court. I think it could have that, but it potentially -- it will definitely add work for staff, it will add work for neighbors and industry and take time.
>> what would be the advantages of just hiring a consultant and then saying go out there and do phase 1 for us?
>> that would be a little more expeditious. It might be less expensive that's part of expeditious, I suppose. Because, you know, obviously --
>> [inaudible].
>> yes, sir, there's time that the contractor would invest no these meetings. That's the primary one. I think that a recognized expert in this field is going to proceed along their, you know, best recommendations and knowledge regardless of whether there is a work group involved or not. That's not going to alter what they do and how they do it. It will just sort of have a layer of additional communication for the constituents.
>> but will the group -- you expand the expertise and this might be the advantage of having e.p.a. Helping out, I don't anticipate them taking [indiscernible] visit to the site. But I would think that they will make experts available they could do peer review for us. Tceq is the regulatory agency.
>> right.
>> people whose job is to do this and probably just possess almost unlimited expertise. Then there are residents who have been actively engaged for many, many months. The other thing is I知 assuming that the b.f.i. Expert would know the b.f.i. Site more than anybody else. Same for waste management. The only two I have real questions about is whether two members out of the Commissioners court -- just assume it would be better for us to stay down here in the stokes building and out of the way and help that way. And make sure the contractor got paid on time. But like you, if a majority wants to go to conference committee, the other thing that I do think at some point you really ought to get value for phase 1. Otherwise you go to phase 2 dw with a whole lot of problems. And by [indiscernible] everybody goes here's how -- here's what we're looking for, here's what will be determined. I don't see the expert necessarily deferring to anybody else, but pretty much getting input. I知 assuming the expert brings a certain amount of expertise.
>> certainly. That's what they are there for.
>> and I think to the extent that it's possible to buy independence and objectist, then we on the to try to do that. Obviously if you can find one who has not done work at these sites, that's probably best from an object injectivity perspective.
>> I mean I think the main goal in choosing whatever expert we choose is that you combine those -- the knowledge and expertise in the areas of odor sampling and monitoring as well as generally accepted landfilling practices. I mean, that's kind of where you run into a problem in terms of finding somebody who is not had some level of involvement with those waste firms.
>> on my list here, what I would do is b.f.i. One or two. Waste management one or two. Travis County one. That would be either you or the -- I can't remember the gentleman's name.
>> keith perhaps or --
>> keith or -- tceq, if we can get one, that would be one. E.p.a., If we can get one, that would be one. Residents, one or two. Applied material one. Then the consultant. And if I said one or two, we get two, that would give 11 people. If we get one that is correct would be three less. Eight folk. I guess I would try to have a couple of meetings and after that get written submissions and then get the consultant and go to work.
>> [indiscernible].
>> I知 sorry, what was the question?
>> mention the city of Austin.
>> I don't know that I have one that is eager to participate. I知 assuming there will be a phone call direct. I didn't mention t.d.s. Either. Travis County would pay this consultant in full. And for those eager to assist financially, [indiscernible] could be a whole lot more costly. I think that's where they would have to come forward. And I知 not just eager to spend money, but it says if the consultant is beholden to the Travis County, he ought to follow the charge we give, ought to know who he answers to, and in return know where the check is coming from.
>> judge, in terms of was your thought that the residents, you know, counts are very important to people. If you say one or two on b.f.i. And one or two on waste management, if you pick one, well, then that's two for total for industry. If you pick two for each, that's four for industry, in which case if you have one or two and pick two for rents residents, that's two, and applied materials I would put that in is same category as residents/business. That's three. I知 just trying to make sure from the beginning that we have some equilibrium here. If we went with one from b.f.i., Ws, residents, a applied materials, at least one could say industry stakeholders and business stake hold or at least equal in numbers when they come to the table. I知 just wanting to leave think that through because I don't want anybody to have the appearance just because they count tallies that somebody here has an advantage at the table. I知 not trying to dictate anything here. I知 saying it out loud what --
>> but the fact remains that when I said one to two, I identified things being the biggest stakeholders one and two. If you got two for -- [indiscernible].
>> maybe they just designate a backup person, but I知 just worried that if we do two people on industry times two companies --
>> it won't bother me at all.
>> I want it on the -- I want the appearance of fairness here from day one that somebody doesn't feel like they are outnumbered.
>> well, missing my whole point --
>> perception.
>> I understand and I知 not knocking you, Commissioner. But it could be 50 people or 50,000 there. If the person that we're going to be hiring is going to be unbiassed and impartial, what difference does the numbers make unless the person really feels intimidated by those numbers. I think, again, if what I知 hearing, what john was saying, it's never going to be a vote on what he's to do or what she's to do, whoever the person is hiring as a consultant. It is just based on delivering information on how or what is going to be done as to have an input. I would think the group will have a vote to say well, we want it done this way or we want it done that way. What we're looking at here is an unbiassed approach, an impartial approach to looking at the remedy and the st. Louis to determine where those odors are coming from and how do we remedy them. Now, if it's anything out of the scope, then we're lost.
>> no, I mean you've got it. The thing that's to be considered throughout this first phase is that especially to the extent you have any disagreement from -- I mean and I知 only saying this --
>> I need to know -- we're looking at a person to give us an avenue to determine where the source of the odors is coming from. That is the objective in my mind.
>> well, right. Okay. I知 just giving you guys some background here. Let me finish. The issue here is that we've already had some statements from industry saying that -- and rightly so, they are very concerned what s. Are the goals, what are the outcomes, what will the methods be, and the citizens have had those same concerns. So if you are going through the process and the expert says we're going to do this, x, y and z because of a, b and c, and any one of those group members has disagreement, there you are.
>> well, see, that's the point I知 trying to bring up. If x, y and z is the answer to the problem of where the source of the odors are coming from, we should go with x, y and z regardless.
>> I don't have a problem with that. [multiple voices] I知 actually kind of corroborating your concerns about getting bogged down. But if you don't have the dialogue up front and you just kind of lay out the scope of a very expensive [indiscernible] after that point, then you pick your time for when you want your argument. You can work it out in meetings with the representation or you can just work it out in the newspaper, in this courtroom or however you want it worked out.
>> I just didn't want any persuasion from -- to become an obstacle that a consultant would have to adhere to because of the [indiscernible] by folks that are really not the expert. And the person you are hiring is the expert. I知 depending on this person that we're looking at as far as hiring as delivering an unbiassed definition to us as far as determining the source of odor at those landfills.
>> we all are. And I think the nice thing about having that person on board during this scope of the phase is we can decipher what the wheat from the chaf as far as the heat we might get. If we've got somebody who is a recognized, by definition, expert on these issues, we can rest assured that we've got the best advice as we move forward.
>> and my concern is that perceptions mean a lot. If we've discovered nothing else over the last 12 months, perception means something and I don't want somebody up front to say they have the appearance that something is stacked in industry's favor and vice versa. I知 just being real sensitive to all of the stuff up front, perhaps being overly sensitive, but I知 trying to read in some sensitivities here about some of this. And also knowing that at least the folks from industry, they are paid to be there and they are paid to do all of this stuff. And I realize the burden, whether it's one person, two persons, a thousand people on the business/residential side, that they have a different kind of a burden in terms of keeping up with whatever this working group is tasked to do even if it's just to provide input during the study phase. I mean, I知 trying to be sensitive to all these kinds of issues.
>> Commissioner?
>> well, call me whatever you are going to for always approaching this thing with a kiss, keep it simple, stupid, method. We're talking like we have no idea where this odor is coming from. This odor is not coming from jupiter. [laughter] this odor is coming from two massive landfills. I mean, for the life of me, I知 continuing to try to understand why we are prolonging the inevitable when we know where this odor is coming from. You can take 30 independent people, I mean take them from precinct 3 that has no interest in whatever, we'll go and find them and put them 50 yards from the working face of waste management and then walk them over and put them 50 yards from the working face of b.f.i. And say can you smell anything. Yeah. Okay. Then you take them and you take them to another spot and can you smell something? Yes. Once you identify that the smell is out there and that is where it's coming from, then it's a matter of how much of this are you willing to tolerate as a community or as that part of the community. There is a plant -- I think everybody is reasonable to the point where you go can you stop odor or can you not stop odor. And we know that some odors can be stopped because we've got living proof in this community where there is some -- where there is another place where odor is not the issue or maybe as large an issue or whatever. So I -- I知 just puzzled why we will go through the shenanigans of having this.
>> the stuff that you missed was -- first of all, I disagree entirely that you can put an untrained person on to a landfill and come out of it with a solution that this court has desired to achieve, which is not just does it smell and what direction is it coming from, what actual part of the structure of the landfill is causing this and to what degree, okay? There is actually different types of odors that come from a working face than come from gas extraction systems. Are there leaks from those gas extraction systems? This process should find that out. Is it just an issue of too big a working face? That's something that ought to be figured out.
>> [indiscernible] just say, okay, we worked with the open face being open. Now everybody cover the working face. Take the same people out there, do you smell anything. Yeah. Okay. Then you obviously have something that's coming out of the gas wells or whatever. I mean, I can't imagine that -- I mean, I知 missing something. I知 not saying you just say okay, you smell something, we know exactly where it's coming from. I realize you go through a little more detail than that.
>> a lot more detail.
>> but I don't think anybody is questioning whether -- where this smell is coming from. Do you think that anybody -- I mean i, for one, I don't question as to where the smells could be. Do you think this smell may not be coming -- these odors may not be coming from either of these two landfills?
>> no, my gut feeling is as a gross statement, yes, those are where they are coming from. However, you know, it's a much more intricate subject than that if you really want to get down to the solution is what I知 trying to tell you. That's the step you are missing. It's not where is it coming from. Unless you go -- now, I mean, as a policy premise, if you and the majority of the court does not believe that this body should take a role in finding that detailed solution, then that's -- that's a position you can take certainly. But I don't think that's what's being set forth here.
>> without finding out the specifics. I知 assuming multiple sources. Each of the two landfills or each of the three.
>> I was going to say can we call this -- there are three landfills.
>> unless you monitor [indiscernible] solution, including us -- exclusion. Including us. So the owed -- the big question is what's the frequency, what's the relevant strength. How bad they are. Right?
>> right.
>> then specifically where are the odors coming from. What's being done now, what else can be done to stop it. Right?
>> certainly.
>> I mean, so my thinking was, you know, we're saying this is a [indiscernible] but I知 hoping it is -- and specifically what kind of plan we ought to put in place to fix them and then trying to do it. And then deciding after we've attempted to do it whether we've been successful.
>> is that a $15,000 gig?
>> [indiscernible] 15,000 biewks you think after $15,000, the county -- you are going to be able to -- somebody is going to be able to say here's where it is, you don't have to spend any more money. Correcting it is [indiscernible]. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> if you will look at my little, old cried approach -- crude approach, that is addressed. The why's are addressed in the third phase. You have gone through your monitoring, detailed identification of the problems and then you -- you lay those out, do a cost benefit measurement that is out there in the open for the public to know about -- about okay, are you going to -- are you, landfill a or b, if there are defined problems going to take the steps necessary to invest in their solution. If the answer is no, about two or three times a week we are going to get to 79 parts per billion of h [inaudible], that's the limit for tceq, we can live with that, but -- then that's the answer, we don't have the answer right now.
>> the other thing that I am thinking is that after you do the monitoring, you figure out that you have identified specific sources, it is much easier to go to a specific landfill and say here are the specific things that you need to do [indiscernible] on these orders, that is easier to do than generally speak about -- [multiple voices] landfills in northeast Travis County.
>> right. So the other thing is that in addition to orders for the landfill site, there's a question of orders that migrate off there, right if.
>> right. Into the neighborhood, north of the landfills, south, I知 sure applied materials would want to know about those. In order to go there -- the order they go there, what level they are at when they arrive.
>> upwind and downwind monitoring is typically what's done so you know on any given day, depending on which way the wind is coming, what your ambient conditions are on the site. Just like you said, what odors are being brought to the site, consequently what are leaving the site.
>> I知 hoping this information will be a lot more specific after we do this than it is now.
>> well, I don't think -- I don't think there's any doubt that we will have more specifics about -- I mean, I would think if you are going to spend $15,000, that you would want some more specifics.
>> the other thing is if we really get what we have described here, I think 15,000 is a worthy investment for a public entity. And the reason that I would do that is that as to the consultant, I mean, I think -- he or she ought to know, Travis County is your boss on this project. But we want you to collaborate with these members that are a working group if we decide to go that way. The other thing is if we don't have buy-in in phase 1, I think that it makes it immensely more difficult to get phases 2, 3, 4 done.
>> yeah. At some point you need buy-in. So I say that we may as well start from step 1 working on that.
>> are we saying if we spend the $14,000 that we are definitely going to go on and -- and do the -- the thing that could cost anywhere from 40 to 200 -- I mean the most likely that it is we are starting down the path --
>> correct.
>> -- here of getting the meter started and then I guess, start looking back over here at this quadrant of the room, start asking, you know, we have a $200,000 ticket here. Is that -- is that -- because we will pretty soon get beyond what the county is willing to say we are going to spend these dollars.
>> I think that's for tceq -- where tceq comes in. Quite frankly if something is discovered during this, we get to the what, where, why, seems like they would want to take notice of whatever it is that we have found and then some of that may be theirs to say oh, by the way we are going to roll that into an enforcement order or some such possibility like that. Then it's not on our ticket, it's on somebody else's ticket. The tceq is driving that --
>> john, the apparently proposed shared cost of the expenditures, that would be available to -- to pursue this study that would be shared by the [indiscernible] on what conditions?
>> yeah. Both b.f.i. And waste management have -- have given conditioned commitment to financial partnering. The conditions are -- from what I have seen are not unreasonable. We want to know exactly what, you know, the goals of the study are going to exactly -- what the techniques that will be used are, we want to know what compounds are going to be evaluated, we want to know what the expected outcomes are. And then at that point, you know, be in a better position to make a decision as to what investment. So -- so, you know, to me as -- as business folks, which is what they are, those are fairly reasonable goals. Now, how that plays out in reality remains to be seen. But -- but, you know, 15,000 as a first step, then -- the way that I would like to structure this -- this Commissioner Daugherty, back to your question, is to come back, of course, before you guys, say, "here are the findings at this point, you know, here are the recommendations for moving ahead with the scope of work and the cost of -- associated with that, do we go, do we not go?" That the point we should have an answer as to whether we have that financial partnering or not.
>> we have more leverage if we have the e.p.a., Tceq in Travis County there, working with the landfills and residents.
>> certainly.
>> all of us pretty much working together. I mean, if I were a partner I would be a lot more likely to buy into the remedy if I have been part of the effort to more clearly define the problem. And if -- if the consultant comes back and says, well, Travis County, you have got this problem at your landfill, and in my view here's what you ought to do, and you know the group basically says this is good finding, it costs us, I would expect us to -- to meet our responsibility.
>> certainly.
>> at the same time, I would expect the two landfills to do the same thing. So I mean I知 -- everything that I have heard them say has been consistent with that.
>> right. And I mean i've got to say I appreciate you all's patience with me on this, it's not a straightforward solve it quick kind of a thing. That's why I am trying to build in the protection of this first phase where we make some fairly knowledgeable decisions. On larger investments.
>> cyd, do we need to hear a word or two about bringing this consultant on board? Expeditiously?
>> I did not realize that we were only talking about $15,000, we can go through an informal process and I can sign the contracts [inaudible] $25,000.
>> we are hoping john is real conservative on that --
>> 15,000.
>> -- real liberal on that, generous on that 15,000.
>> accurate, perhaps.
>> we should be fine.
>> thank you.
>> that will take how long do you think, john? That first phase --
>> I think what I知 hearing cyd say is we can make a formal decision, it needs to be based upon qualifications, some of which I have in my file right now, but I think a week to 10 days is fair to let some contractors provide us with additional, if there's others that are interested in providing that. Does that sound about right if.
>> we just -- we need to know [inaudible - no mic] we don't really know the [inaudible - no mic]
>> so we take a 10 days or so to issue this thing, r.f.q. Or whatever we are going to do.
>> to negotiate.
>> to negotiate. Then after that you anticipate that whoever it is might -- is that a 30 day, 60 day?
>> I would say, yeah, 30 days or -- or perhaps less. Now the issues, of course, is that a dry odor free 30 days where they -- you know, I知 not insinuating that they are going to do intensive monitoring, but they probably will need to do some checking around during periods of odor. Most likely that's a short-term process.
>> I can see, john, where I start getting a little uncomfortable with that, all of a sudden you have somebody that says you know what, I can give you this information, but it hasn't rained one drop -- or it's rained so much on us, it's whatever. So you know what, we need another $15,000 to come back and give you another sample period of this. Now, if we just can arrange it so that we get seven days of each of the --
>> I don't want to put undue fear in your mind on that. Based on my conversations with -- with contractors with this type of experience, they are already looking at documents, sampling documents from the past that have been created and saying I have some pretty good ideas already. So I mean I think if you get the right person on board, they can quickly move to -- to that next phase and make those recommendations.
>> historically, may is one of our good rain months.
>> that's very true.
>> in terms of trying to hit that window.
>> uh-huh.
>> not good for the construction, but it's --
>> being in the softball business, I can tell you I know when it rains, when it doesn't. You're right, may is a pretty good month.
>> we are trying to hit that window that seems to be where we have the most problems is the wet.
>> we have three or four people who would like to give comments on 15 a. A. 14 a, rather.
>> judge, I know this document is going to be requested. I only put about eight or 10 copies out there. I would be available to make more copies afterwards.
>> okay.
>> just dealing with the -- with the odors, emissions, at the landfills bringing on a consultant to help out the work group, composition as we had suggested. Good afternoon, my name is trek english. I知 quite impressed by all of your conversation and discussion on this matter. And I especially like what -- what Commissioner Daugherty had to say. It definitely makes my day. There seems to be one key point that we are not looking at. Actually there are many key points that we are not looking at, but -- but I think the residents are best at telling you what is wrong with the odors, what we would like to find from this study and also the type of odors. We are talking about at least three or four, if not six, different type of odors. Additionally, you have a wind factor right now, which is incredible, because you can literally have an odor, very strong odor on -- on one vet in your neighborhood. -- one street in your neighborhood. Within a minute or two it's gone, then you get in your car, go somewhere, it's right up the hill, right up the street. Or it's right on 290 as you come home, boom, it hits you. So I think that your consultant should know about this. One of the things that been a real, real problem since day 1 of these odors is no one has sat down and literally discussed these odors with us, including tceq. We have never -- they tell us we are going to do a study and they go on for a week at their choice. We never know which week it is going to be. They have never sat down and had a meeting with the neighborhoods. Literally, took input as to what people really wanted tceq to do for them. Or what we wanted tceq to find out. And that has been the biggest problem from day 1 is that while we are sending out e-mails telling you that it stipgs here or -- stinks here or last night was a horrible experience, two days ago on my way home it stunk, you still don't really have the real data that you need to get consultants to go out and do -- do a -- a comprehensive study of these odors. Now, I personally don't care if it stinks 50 feet from the working face. Not because I don't care about the workers, I知 not trying to be calculus about this -- callous about this, but they actually have a protection built in by osha, osha is supposed to look out for the workers and there's another -- another organization -- I can't remember the acronym so I知 not going to say it. Two organization that's look out for workers in conditions where they could be exposed to noxious gases or whatever. I知 not concern understand it's 50 feet from the working face or 200 or 100 feet from the working face. But there's no osha that comes to any house that says oh, yeah you can't work under these conditions. There's non-there to help us determine that it's not -- not -- a level of odor that is acceptable. I don't care if the level that they get is .00001. If it makes it so I can't live there or it makes it very uncomfortable for me to live there, there's a problem. The reason that you are doing this study, enterprising to do this study is because we can't live with the odors that are remaining right now. One day they come out, they really are strong. And the landfills need to realize that and they don't live there 24 hours a day. Especially the consultants that are going to be sitting at the table with us do not live there on the 24th hour a day. Most of the agencies, whether it's tceq, osha, whatever, are for occupational. Levels. For people work there two or three, up to 8 hours a day. They are not for people exposed them 24 hours a day or people exposed to them by two landfills. That is one thing that you need to take into consideration very, very carefully. You keep coming back the other landfill may smell, not smell, whatever. What you don't realize, it would be double in this area. What you need to look at is -- is certain level multiplied by two becomes a very nauseous level, being just an unacceptable level. That's what I would like for you to take into consideration. Now, I know some key residents that have had odors that are undescribable. At certain period of their lives or certain periods of the day or certain periods of the month, certain periods of the week. Those are the people that need to be present. Not necessarily at each meeting that we are going to have because that could turn out to be costly. But you could have 10 to 15 people, residents, that have been key people in coming forward and talking about the odors that would give a much better perspective to the consultants and to the e.p.a. As to what the odors are, where they are coming from, what -- at what time do they hit, how do they hit, how do they wake you up. These are things that need to be taken into consideration. Not whether or not we have a canister that failed, you know, in a certain area. And that's what -- why we smelled it there. I think there's more than that. As you brought out Commissioner Sonleitner, it could be a combination of things, not only the old landfills that's emitting odors because they are not lined, whether or not it's a malfunction of equipment. They could be two different problems there. And -- and that could only be resolved by explaining the type of odor that we are experiencing. Not by -- even on paper, you can't -- you can't describe what you really smell like. What you really smell. On that particular instance. I think that needs to be hashed out very seriously by the agency that's are going to take care of it -- that are going to take care of it.
>> one representative from the neighborhood or two?
>> one representative from the neighborhood or two. I知 thinking six to one. Because the landfill representative comes out is a lawyer. The lawyer is briefed by the landfills, the consultants, the -- their expert, and the research team that he has at his disposition at the firm to come up with what he needs to say at these meetings. So -- so one lawyer for the industry represents at least six people, six of us.
>> can I look at just a quick -- make just a quick comment on that.
>> the only specific recommendation from industry that we've had so far was from waste management who wanted steve jacobs who is their operations guy at the table. I haven't heard from bfi who they want exactly, that's just fyi.
>> so of the one or two, you prefer two.
>> yeah.
>> obviously --
>> three would be better.
>> [laughter]
>> okay. Anyway, I will -- I will stop right now, let others speak.
>> does this make sense or do you think that we are just wasting our time?
>> I知 sorry?
>> does this approach make sense to you or phase 1 or do you think that -- [multiple voices]
>> yes, actually I think that eventually you will see that e.p.a. Is going need to approach this in different -- I知 going to call them phases, but they are now corresponding to what john is calling -- his scope is very good, the phases he's talking about is excellent. What I知 talking about phases is that the phase of one area of a landfill is going to have to be monitored differently from another area of the landfill. Mainly because of the different phases that the landfills have gone through over the years. The upgrades that they have made in terms of lining and leachate collection system and gas collection system. Therefore I would think that there would be a different type of monitoring for each of those phases, which is one would be almost like a super fund site. Monitoring and the others would be -- would be as they upgrade and became more in tune with the latest -- latest requirement for subtitle d, the monitoring there may not be quite as -- as extensive as other areas. I don't know if I知 making sense.
>> okay. I believe so.
>> thank you judge and Commissioners, my name is joyce best, I live in northeast Austin. I would also like to speak to the inclusion of more neighbors on the panel than one or perhaps even two. Primarily because the neighbors are all working people who have jobs unrelated to the landfill or the legal profession or things of that sort. And these meetings and any type of -- of research that we do must be done on our own time. It makes it very difficult when only one or two people are trying to -- to pursue all of those things and we don't have any staff at our disposal who are paid to help us do that. So I do appreciate Commissioner Sonleitner's point that the -- that the neighbors are doing this as a -- as something that they are doing on their own time. So for that reason, it seems fair to me to have more representation from the neighbors, even the businesses, who would be included along with the neighbors are -- have their own paid representatives who have access to other people to help them do this kind of thing. I do think as trek said that the neighbors do have a great deal of significant data to give to the expert, that would be another reason for more inclusion for the neighbors. Early on, before we knew there were going to be well over a thousand complaints before we got to this point, some of us began plotting on a map where the complaints were coming from, different things like that, trying to sort out some of the -- of the problems so we -- we have a caseload over a period of time, after the first several hundred complaints -- ... But we do have a lot of data, as trek mentioned there is not just one type of odors, there are a number of other types of odors. I think it would be helpful to have a greater representation from the neighborhoods.
>> can we ask the same, judge Biscoe question. Do you think that this is a worthwhile endeavor in terms of going through phase 1? Do you think that it's right the -- the right track.
>> I think it's a necessary first step to follow up. If you are going to get into the -- into the later parts of the -- of the effort, I think step one is important.
>> my name is melanie macafee. And on the odor study, I feel that -- that the odor study I have to say that I feel like -- like Commissioner Daugherty, that I think this is un-- unnecessary and a -- an extra expense of money that is not needed. I feel exactly the same way he does that -- that --
>> I thought we would get to this opinion before this conversation was over. You don't think we did?
>> what I wrote before I heard all of this today, on just the odor study, I had read the report of bob and I agree with his comments on the potential sources of the odor. I would like to read the comments from the other landfill operators. That I have not seen. My fears that will -- this will lead us down a trail of more delays, more frustration and more lost time. I feel like most of the odors come in the cold, we are obviously not headed for the cold. I can see this dragging on for another year. I知 very frustrated. We will all learn about all of the scientific pros and cons of odor studies and we will have to struggle through the many, many issues to determine if this is done fairly and accurately. I知 talking about consultants. I've talked to enough at this point to know that there are environmental consultants and there's industry consultants. So I think that it's almost impossible to get one that we are both happy with. So I -- I just -- I feel like it can't be done. All we want as a group is a letter, similar to the one that you wrote, judge, 10 years ago, that the northeast area close to our landfills have problems, that they are no longer appropriate locations for such a large volume of trash, and that the citizens have paid the price long enough. How much data do you need to know that there is odors out there that have been out there and that there are lots of problems. Do you really need to spend $15,000 plus to come to that conclusion? It seems kind of nutty to me. It feels like a subsidy. I feel like -- like you are asking the industry that you are paying for problems they have. Just -- just an analogy that came to my head was if there were two businesses playing real loud music, and it was a nuisance, I mean, would the city or whoever send in people to study it to determine which one was causing the problem, they would probably both get violations and they wouldn't go through all of that. There's a problem that needs to be taken care of. For the county to be spending money on problems of the industry, should take care of, seems -- seems wrong to me. It doesn't seem like it should be taxpayer money for something that the industry has caused and the industry should take care of. So I don't like how that comes out. The timing, I already talked about that, but that seems total off. The consultants. I would like to get a copy of -- of -- I think later when we get to the item b, I will probably address this a little more. But -- but we feel like we have not come back and said things at certain points because we never feel like we are on the -- we know we are in -- where industry is coming from. When we are sitting here at the table is when we find out what industry has said. We are in the dark way too much. I guess i'll stop here.
>> so the answer that you are looking for today is -- is for me to take my letter, change the date, and let the new precinct 1 Commissioner sign it --
>> I知 easy. When we go and get our -- when the landfill goes to get a permit for expansion, your letters are there stating what you said before. That's right.
>> okay. For the residents who sent e-mails to us, complaining about the odors and saying we want to you do more to remedy these problems, what do we do? Just refer them to a 10-year-old letter?
>> no, it's -- you tell them the truth. How many letters that you have gotten, that you think there is a problem and you don't support expansion of -- which is what you said in the letter -- of the northeast area landfills.
>> but that didn't get rid of the odors, though? That didn't fix the odors. If the landfills were to stop operating tomorrow, the odors would still be there, wouldn't it?
>> I can promise you expansion is not going to get rid of the odors. We are facing that, too.
>> this -- this item -- we are really trying to figure out what should the county do or not do and -- as to gas emissions and odors at the northeast landfills. And -- and in my view this is my response to -- to -- now -- [indiscernible] earlier, maybe weather affects that, too. But for those folk, I mean, I just see at some point, well, let's let the county get more actively involved, what should the county do? And we've had a lot of discussions, I don't know that this would have been our fault. I have been ready to move myself the last five or six weeks. I was ready to move early January when I went on on for the first time. Others caused delay.
>> personally, I think if the county had not given their contract to the landfills and taken a strong stand against the landfills, that that would -- would have appeased the neighbors.
>> now I -- the e-mails that I got according to the orders of the contract didn't affect the odors one way or the other. You can argue that in time the -- the waste from the county will be added to the waste of others, I fear, I don't know whether the new waste is causing the odors or the bad waste. In my view at some point in order to respond to those who sent e-mails -- we needed to take some action to try to address them. And what's before us today is -- is -- the best owe owe we -- the operators are indicating that they will contribute fair share financially. But I知 thinking there is some value in having this contractor work for the county exclusively on phase 1. And phase 1 in the grand scheme is a small amount of money. That contract that you mentioned is 48 -- saved us $48,000. I made a mental note of a reserve in the am of 48 -- in the amount of $48,000. So 15 from that still leaves a little bit. I mean, I just think that residents will -- [indiscernible] coming down periodically, but still sending e-mails, still want --
>> I feel like there are so many unbelievable problems in end counts tering -- encountering this that it's going to be a waste of time, money, effort, in that hiring of the consulting, when you are having the landfills pay for it. Yeah, they are going to have demands, all right. I just think that -- that it can't be an unbiased study with them paying for it, making demands on what can be done and not done. I feel like you are doomed before you begin.
>> but I知 thinking if we get with e.p.a., Tceq, the landfills, the residents, businesses out there, the county, consultant, if there is a fix, we can come up with it. And then we try it and if it doesn't fix it, then we know that. We don't know that right now.
>> look how much success we've had with tceq. We are obviously -- I mean, we -- to say that we are going to go hand in hand with tceq, you know that's not going to make us feel very happy or feel represented. We have worked with them for a long time and gotten no help and no relief. They told us we need to -- to grow up to have odor. So -- with the e.p.a., We have went through tremendous effort with the e.p.a. And it's --
>> I found that -- [multiple voices]
>> I found [multiple voices] that notwithstanding the county's historic absence from this area, the county ought to do more. And in my view, e.p.a. And tceq ought to do more here, too. Right along with Travis County. We don't want to let them off the hook. You all didn't let Travis County off the hook. Right? This item is posted, you all are down here. I知 thinking working on these landfills, we ought to bring them into action, [indiscernible] possibility, same as ours. What I知 saying, though, if we make this effort, I can live with the results. Right now, though, I don't know that we have done the necessary work to be able to say "here's the situation right here." In order to get to that int, I think that we have got to follow these steps. In my view, 15,000 bucks would be a small investment for us to get to where I think we need to be to start for -- for the county to start taking a firm, final position wherever it is. If there's specific things that really ought to be done, and -- in this -- and this collaboration believes that, my guess is we get out there and give it the best try. If we don't solve it, the problem, then have to live with that.
>> what about the timing? Are we going to live through another year of -- of odors since the timing is off?
>> I知 going to suggest we move as fast as we can.
>> well, can he can't bring -- we can't bring winter back.
>> I agree we have a problem there. If the odor goes away because of the weather, it says to me because of that we may have to extend the other phases. So I mean I do agree with that. But we would rather wait and get a good answer, right? Even if it takes a little bit more time. I don't know that we want to wait until the fall to do what we are -- what we are discussing today. It seems to me that we ought to go ahead and get done what we can within the next few weeks. And then if the facts are such that we need to wait until the weather changes, then I think we may have to do that.
>> I was under the impression it wasn't simply a matter of cold weather, it was --
>> rain.
>> it was the rain stuff. The thing about winter is that that changes your wind direction. Drastically, a lot of that stuff is then coming out of the north and may swing things in terms of where you will wind up smelling it. But I thought it was more the super saturation conditions that we had last -- was it a year ago November where it was the most unbelievable rainfall that we had and it could have been in combination with what was going on with the cold weather. But I thought one of the factors was rain. And we will at least get to test that piece of it. The only other thing is that I do, I want to let you know that I do hear the frustration from your voice. But let us presume for two seconds that the -- that the two landfills out there decide they are not going to do any more expansion. Your strategy seems to be fight them on the expansion. What are we going to say if they decide -- let's say for two seconds we don't want to do any more expansions. They've still got five, seven, 10, 11, 12 more years of capacity out there even if they never go to tceq for one more inch of capacity. And i've got to be able to tell those folks out there who right now are dealing with the smell right now on the capacity right now and the capacity that's been there for goodness knows how long. That's where I知 trying to get to in terms of the whats and whys and the where because -- because while I know that you may think that you have precision as to where it's coming from. I can't tell you if it's quadrant one of b.f.i. Versus quadrant four of waste management and, you know, quadrant whatever of the old Travis County landfill. We need to have prevision in terms of what's going on, where it's coming from. So whoever is responsible and I put us in there as well can get to the business at hand. And I know general direction where it's coming from, northeast Travis County. But we need to be more specific about where it is coming from and you all have done a very good job of educating us about is it the new working phase piece or part of the old landfill that's already been filled up and it may be because of the general core of how it was done the way it was done all of those many years ago. So we need to know that.
>> I just find it interesting that the county is paying for the bad operation of two landfills, that's just --
>> see, the county has done this before. When there was this thing called the tank farm over in east Austin. One could have made the argument that was industry's problem. They were the one that's contaminated all of that land over there. But for the county to be able to make its case, which was a compelling one, they had to take the step up front and spent an awful lot of money, this is before I was on the court, but they spent a lot of money up front and they controlled what the results were and they controlled the process as opposed to saying well, it's industries to do, somebody might say, yeah, right, industry is going to get it cleaned up, uh-huh. You have to have that perception that those who have, we hope the public policy interests at heart will be there advocating on behalf of the public.
>> the consultant study costs more than $50,000. Litigation was about 150.
>> the county paid for all of that. It got cleaned up. Got done.
>> melanie I lived there 10 years ago, but what I understand from the situation the letter that then precinct 1 Commissioner wrote and sent to tnrcc, tnrcc did not give a whole lot of weight to. If you just send --
>> I am sure it wasn't because of who sent it?
>> I understand they gave it a whole lot of weight.
>> wait wait.
>> I think she was actually referring to a letter endorsed by and voting on, a resolution or something like that of the whole Commissioners court.
>> I think the legal observation that I would make [multiple voices] if you send a letter back about -- backed by $15,000 worth of data, tceq will give that more weight --
>> compare apples to apples. That's almost like Commissioner Davis who is outvoted on the court send an letter versus the entire court sending a letter. That obviously is a difference.
>> if it's one of them or all five, I can tell you from the legal perspective, tceq, the hearing examiner is required to base his decision or her decision on evidence. If there's no evidence supporting the letter they can't give it any weight.
>> right.
>> if there's data supporting the letter, they have to give it weight.
>> what I understand from the tank farm issue was that there was no head way that was made when it was -- when the studies were of just gas. They didn't make any -- any head way in that until -- until actual -- underground water contamination was found.
>> just mentioned the odors and the odors actually that -- that the emissions coming from the -- the tank farm, which was of course at that time benzene, xylene, toluene, those were emissions coming from those trucks that were gathering fuel and of course distributing throughout their jurisdiction. The emissions that were coming off with the wind and all of these other kinds of things, the tabc -- Texas air control board, tacb, was actually looking at that and of course they did erect a type of capture devices to capture that emissions, those emissions that was coming from the deal, they never could produce any accurate data in those twices that would -- devices that would suggest that the problems that was being experienced by the adjacent community was due to those emissions from the farm. But of course the -- the tests and the crux of the matter was the contamination that was being deployed into the underground water.
>> right. [multiple voices]
>> that actually was off-site. It actually had migrated, the plume of that was where by the [indiscernible] was a lot, off the 52-acre site, where the six gasoline storage tanks at that time resided. It was the migration of those things on the underground water table and things like that that actually was the captured situation to determine that the contamination was -- was actually prevalent and present in the water --
>> that's underground [multiple voices] not odors.
>> we spend money to conduct scientific study to gather evidence. That's important, I think, yes.
>> good afternoon judge Biscoe, Commissioners. Once again, I知 here again and therefore I wanted to -- to -- i've been listening to a lot of comments being made. I, too, agree that there should be more input from the neighbors in the actual area that live there 24/7 a day, going in and out of their homes actually in the vicinity. So I understand that the consultants will be there to gather vital information that need. But I do agree that we need to have more input from the residents that will help pull this criteria together that you need to base your decisions on. I think it's a very important part. Because as I have always said, the neighbors are expressing their concerns about these odors. The generation of them, where they are coming from and I -- I realize that -- that some of this is stuff that may have been unprotected from years ago, more that's added to it and the expansions that have been going on. But I still feel that it is better that if you have more from the residents to input in on this -- to be able to provide the consultants with the additional information as they conduct their studies. And answer questions or -- at least be there as -- as to show we are trying to help to come to a successful conclusion, but it's going to take this kind of -- you know, we are going to need to set the precedent for the future decisions that are needing to be made. So i, too, agree that we need to have additional or more people than just a 21:00 ratio or whatever, you know.
>> -- 2 to 1 ratio.
>> did we provide a similar input opportunity if we were to have a meeting there in the neighborhood where people with -- -- with information could come deal directly with the consultant. Tom and john.
>> I really think that the more information that you get from the residents that actually live in the area and businesses or whatever that can provide the consultants with this information, as they conduct their studies, you will get an accurate, a little more input than what, you know, you have right now and you are just getting the consultants and just forming this committee and going on what's on paper. You can actually hear what is actually being said by these residents and what concerns them.
>> if we give the residents an exclusive audience with the consultant, do we achieve the same thing?
>> I think it would give them more of a background to understand where we are coming from. If they are independent consultants that are trying to get at the heart of the problem.
>> that's what I知 thinking. I mean being on a working group is one thing. At some point it gets unwieldy. I知 wondering if there were like a town hall meeting where no elected official would come, but tom and john and the consultant would be there. Residents would come, basically.
>> anything would be of help to set the precedent for the -- for what's coming before us. You know, as we go along through this. Because I think that it's real important. I mean, nobody likes to wake up to those odors, nobody likes to go to bed, nobody likes to have them hanging on your clothing. You certainly can't enjoy your quality of life, you know, so it really makes a difference.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> hello judge, Commissioners, mark macafee. Well, I知 concerned about the layout of the working group, I don't know exactly how it would work out, two routes to go, you were trying to get a show of hands. I知 trying to envision us being on -- in the majority here. And even if we had two and the landfills only had one each, with the stament of industry represented, how he's already mentioned how tceq seems to be very -- see things very much from the same side as industry, I don't see us coming out with the majority. Any which way here with only two -- two representatives. You think there should be more neighborhood representation here. I think [inaudible] should be representatived. We have got a lot of good information from bobbie gregory in the past on these working groups. And john thank you for -- for good work on that. It looks like a good start.
>> let me tell you what I知 expecting from this, listening to what everybody is saying. The thing that I have got to do in making a decision is I need to know that I have objective information. That does not mean that there's going to be a vote. I don't expect a vote from the working group. To say -- to say, you know, this side outvoted this side. That's not going to help me make a decision. What I would prefer to have is the working group that comes up with a study that leads to objective information. That means it comes from everyone who is on the working group. And then I can -- I need to be assured that that information is objective so that the -- so that the decision that's I make are going to be -- make good public policy. I can't -- I can't depend on -- I mean, I just can't have something where one side outvoted the other. That doe't help me get there. And so it doesn't really matter -- can we just maybe late out the rule at the ground rule at the beginning that this is not about one side outvoting the other. That we are going to have to rely on good data that we can -- we can rely on or that I can rely on. That's certainly what I知 looking for. If we can get that point, if we have one or two from the industry, one or two from the neighborhoods, then the other groups. I think we can get there. But -- but I知 not looking for one group outvoting the other.
>> I guess I知 concerned if it -- if in determining the scope of the -- of what we are going to test for, for instance, if we are going to test for benzene, you know, who is going to determine what the scope is? Is it this working group that determines what constituents we are testing for? Because -- because you can bet if they are worried about -- if industry is worried about certain, a certain constituent, they are going to not vote to have that be part of the testing, so you won't be getting good data if we are too -- if we have too high of representation from the industry. I think that we will get a lesser.
>> it means that we will just keep on going until those contracts run out or until the capacity runs outs. We will be here 10 years from now, still trying to work this stuff out. Talk about frustration.
>> I think the answer to your question there is the Commissioners court.
>> is the Commissioners courted going to determine the whole scope if.
>> I would look to the working group to give us recommendations even if there may be split decision. I don't want to use the word voting because Margaret you are right. We are not looking for votes on these things, but I would certainly be looking for input and the final column of this I think is with the people who hold the contract which is another good reason as the judge laid out that the county ought to control this process because if we do, then you really do circumstance vent that kind -- circumvent that kind of thing if somebody doesn't want to pay for x. If we control the process, then if we choose to ask for x, then that's what we get as opposed to somebody else saying no, we don't want to pay for that and therefore we are going to -- we are going to not participate or pull our funding or whatever?
>> yeah.
>> I still that two representatives is pretty small. Even if there's only one from each of the landfills.
>> only because I think it would be a working group that will get some work done. If it's real big, it is unwielddy.
>> we could cut some of the landfill people.
>> it's not about cutting anything out. [laughter] that's the same thing as voting and leaving somebody out.
>> so:.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else to give comments before we get a motion? Let's take item a for a moment. My motion really is to approve on the implementation of phase 1 of john kuhl's draft, and -- that we put in place a working committee to work with a hired consultant, that this consultant is brought on board using phase 1 as a scope of service, and that john be -- be directed to -- to prepare an appropriate statement of qualifications that will formally [inaudible], if you do that can we have a consultant by next Tuesday, or do we need to take two weeks from today?
>> joe?
>> two weeks?
>> just to allow them time to get their materials to us.
>> and for purchasing to be able to do its end of this, there is a little bit of processing.
>> I second that, judge. And -- with the caveat that --
>> he's not finished yet?
>> you still have some more motion.
>> yes, sir.
>> that we have it back on the court's agenda on April 22nd, '03, which is two weeks from today. That the working group be made up of one representative from b.f.i., One from waste management, one from Travis County, one from tceq, if they will agree, one from e.p.a., If e.p.a. Agrees, two neighborhood residents, one from applied material, and the mediator, expediter, expert consultant, that's 9 people. On the working group.
>> okay.
>> that one motion is that the consultant be directed among other things that this is not a voting opportunity, but a working group designed to provide input. That further we request that the consultant -- take additional steps to solicit input from -- from stakeholders and other interested parties outside of working group meetings. That after the first group meeting, the consultant determine whether the meetings are productive, along with john and tom.
>> okay.
>> second that.
>> okay. I think that's important to indicate up front so -- I mean, I知 assuming every time we have a meeting, it's an additional cost, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> if they are productive, I say we eat the cost. If they are not, then I think we ought to make the call as it goes. The cost is pulled out of this one, I thought that I would try separate discussions. That's the kind of long motion, though.
>> that's all right. I just wanted to make sure that the things that cyd had mentioned earlier, as far as the r.f.q., Can that be done in the timely manner to have this back on the Commissioners court agenda on -- in April. I知 kind of wanting to make sure that is the case so all of the i's will be dotted,ty's will be crossed. I was concerned with that with the timeliness, and would things be appropriate during that time when we come back to the court's agenda?
>> ms. Grimes,.
>> cyd grimes, purchasing agent. We are going to work with john. They have already been doing some research on who might be qualified in the area. So I don't think it will be a problem because we are doing an informal process, we don't have to advertise in the newspaper and go through some of the formalities that always take us four to six weeks to get it done. So we should be able to -- I mean, the main part is to get our scope of work very clear on what we want and negotiate the price. So I don't think the time will be a hindrance at all.
>> okay, I wanted to hear that. Okay.
>> thanks.
>> a clarification, is the intent that these representatives be self selected and indeed that if they need to send a backup person because that particular person can't be there that particular night that they also be allowed to designate their designated backup, just so that everybody has the opportunity to fully participate.
>> uh-huh.
>> also the timing of those meetings. That was another issue. Maybe needs to be discussed also because last time I think there was some concern about meeting during certain hours of date where -- where the working group couldn't come together as a whole. So I think it was maybe suggested to have a meeting in the evening other in the middle of the day for an example. Because of the -- because of the need to -- to have adequate representation at evening meetings, more so than noontime or --
>> that was the motion, there is a second.
>> seconded.
>> seconded by commission.
>> my nor discussion of though motion.
>> are we anticipating that the b.f.i. Would -- e.p.a. Would let us know, neighborhood would let us know who the neighborhood people are, is that the intent?
>> the intent really is for the consult tan and john to work together to make this happen.
>> all right.
>> okay. So they can --
>> okay. We are not going to sit here and have to approve names. I guess is where I知 going.
>> [inaudible] I知 thinking when that first meeting is called, assuming we get a few days notice, these entities will take advantage of the opportunities to be represented.
>> okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The second motion is that we authorize up to $15,000 to pay for this contract out of -- out of the -- allocated reserve. The contract provide that another action by the court would be necessary to exceed that amount.
>> second.
>> obviously if negotiations point to a figure higher than that, john, you have to come back to the court to get that approved. So -- so that implies or intention to try to get it done to that or less.
>> certainly.
>> that was seconded by Commissioner Davis, also. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything further on 14 a? That one only took an hour and 45 minutes.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM