Travis County Commssioners Court
May 27, 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 14
We indicated this morning that we would call up the item regarding the solid waste consultant. At about 1:45, number 14. 14. Discuss and take appropriate action on request to award contract for professional consulting services for the landfill odor/gas emission studies, rfs s030115-dm. (tnr) (judge
>> good afternoon.
>> we sent out the proposal and we received two proposals from two firms, evaluation committee scored them and we are recommending that a contract be awarded to urs corporation. They are a local firm. They have very good qualifications and experience. We do not have a signed contract. Tom nuckols with the county attorney's office has written it, we have overnighting that geament to them tonight. We -- that agreement to them tonight. We can ask you to approve it and sign it when it comes back or we can bring it back next Tuesday if you so desire. John is here to answer any technical questions. This part of the contract, if you recall, covers phase 1, which is to go out and do the -- the assessment and determine methodology that's we would use. We have negotiated a not to exceed amount of $15,000 for this phase 1. The other part of the studies look quite a bit more expensive, between 100 and 200,000, the plan is to come back to it after this phase 1 to give you more idea of what the full study would cost and let you make a decision at that time as to how you want to proceed.
>> can you just give me in general language the reasons why this particular consultant is recommended?
>> do you want to talk to that?
>> I would be happy to speak to that, john kuhl, environmental officer. It was pretty much unanimous across the board with the panel, the scoring panel, that we actually had two very good proposals. They were really, you know -- there really, was not just a fatal flaw with either one of them. However, I think the key and most telling part of the proposals that were different for us were the line item costs that we looked at .we did not ask for a full proposal, but in the event that we do proceed to the monitoring phase, the second phase, we wanted to have an idea what the teams or the firms you know, would have on a unit basis for these types of services. So the urs costs were appreciably lower, anywhere from 30 to 50% in each of the areas that we asked for. That was the primary reason. The other reason was that there was, I would say, just a bit more direct history with b.f.i. And waste management on that particular what we will call the zephyr team, had one particular key person there that had actually started their career and worked with both firms for the majority of their career before going to consulting. So those were the two primary elements that directed our decision.
>> zephyr team is the team not recommended.
>> that's correct.
>> but again a very good, you know, technically able team, just those two elements were weighed in urs' favor.
>> okay.
>> john? Judge, were you finished ?
>> yes, sir.
>> john, one of the concerns that was expressed by the neighborhood folks that have been going through this process, also [indiscernible] study, was that they wanted to assure that -- that whoever was selected, whatever firm was selected that there -- that they would be unbiased and I partial, what was determined, as far as assessing, looking at this, how was that determined that this particular acquirement by the neighborhood folks was achieved?
>> there was actually a requirement within the broader context of qualifications and experience where we asked them to quantify what their level of experience had been with the two -- well, actually landfills in the Austin area and in particular the ones that most likely will be looked at the closest to b.f.i. And the waste management facility. We asked for that expertise and qualification at two levels, both on the project team and team manager or project manager level as well as on a corporate level as a whole. Urs has had some experience with those firms. On a consultant basis. But you are looking at a very large firm, 25,000 member firm world-wide and -- and of their gross revenue, I think they quantity fighted it at .1% had ever been billed to those two particular landfills. The -- the team involved here hasn't provided services to these landfills at all, with the exception of the project manager has done one, you know, like a thousand or $1,200 overview valuation of the work they were doing some years back. But they don't have any appreciable experience with those landfills, that was the way that we approached it, Commissioner Davis.
>> okay. Secondly, john, since there has been I guess a work group, set aside to -- to look at this with several meetings that should be conducted, with the different stakeholders and players in the particular advent of determining the source of odors, things like that, from the 290 landfill sites, will this particular firm be able to work with the community and also the industry as envisioned toward a work group, work session or whatever you would like to call them, throughout the community, did they have any -- did they have any qualms about that?
>> no, not at all. As a matter of fact that was another big deciding factor for me. Urs's project manager, I feel, is -- he's an international expert on gas emissions and odors and so forth and I think that he will work, he will function well within the group dynamics that was -- that was a key ingredient for me.
>> [indiscernible]
>> right. It's built into the --
>> it's part of their performance. They have to meet with the community and get them involved. So it's part of the contract with them.
>> okay. Thank you for those answers, I appreciate that.
>> anything else from the court?
>> judge, so obviously what -- what we are being asked to do is to -- to sign-off on a $15,000 study that's going to tell us that you need to spend 100 to $200,000 beyond this 15,000.
>> we don't know.
>> not necessarily.
>> so we -- we could get something back from this study that would tell us that, you don't have to spend any more money.
>> right.
>> that's -- that's possible. You know, I -- unlikely, you know, I don't know what odds that I would put to it, but we specified in the request for services that, you know, to the extent that they find any obvious, you know, no brainer solutions that they come forth with those recommendations within that $15,000 first phase. So -- so I think there's -- there's some possibility of that happening. But I also want to remind the court that we -- you know, those numbers that you saw there, 100 to 200,000, I mean, I'm parroting back what I had found in my original research on this and to be honest with you, that -- those numbers could be dramatically higher than what ends up being recommended. It just -- it all depends upon the nature and the severity of the problems and the techniques that they use to do the monitoring in the next phases. If they are necessary. The other reminder is that we may very well not be the funders of those phases, especially given that the tceq is likely to require such monitoring of these firms, landfills, rather.
>> my understanding was that the county would fund the first phase and we did cap it at 15,000, unless they come back to us and say we really need more services and additional services would cost x amount of money. On phases 2 and 3, we would expect the operators to pick up the cost.
>> would this firm especially be -- potential my be somebody that could also bid for phase 2. Does this organization also have the capabilities of saying, (who is sell) guess what, we can tell you everything that we need to know for 175.
>> yes.
>> hum. Would they give you a percentage -- you know, because, shoot, john, no use your putting yourself on the hot seat giving me a percentage of what the likelihood of coming back with a lot more in depth study, because I think we're all pretty much of the mindset that for $15,000, they are not going to be able to say, you know what, this is where this is, this is what this is. We know that we are going to get something. Could they give you that? I mean, would they say yooun 75% chance of you are going to have to spend more money to really get what you ultimately want out of this thing? Would they be able to do that for us? I would suspect so.
>> and we don't have anything in the contract that precludes urs, that is right, isn't it? Urs from being able to also compete for an additional step 2 study?
>> no. As a matter of fact, I wanted to make sure that whoever we started with, you know, actually did have a potential to finish with us. And I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand, what you need to understand is that there's a certain amount of -- of economy of scale that's built into that. That's has we were thinking. We wanted to have somebody who would -- who was certainly qualified from the get-go to be able to look at this in a full perspective. You know, just like any other services, these guys' licenses are on the line. If fraudulent behavior occurs, we will detect that and, you know, it will be over with. There's no assurances that they are going to go with any more phases for anything with us.
>> what -- what do you think our chances are, could tceq force the industries to say y'all are the one that's have to do this? Or nobody says they have got to force them to do that, right?
>> well, just based upon the draft, agreed order that I have looked at, I think that it's -- I think that we are virtually assured that they are going to have to do a monitoring program.
>> why would tceq be doing that right now without us spending $15,000 if that's what the case is going to be?
>> well, there is a process going on right now within that agreed order regulatory arena that is key to the negotiation, I guess that you could say. There's no -- there are no assurances of when that will be done. I have asked the staff in the legal division there at tceq and as I recall, I mean, this court sort of made the statement that they were willing to try to push this process along and made this investment to that end. It's just -- it seems a bit open ended otherwise right now.
>> I just don't want to see us get in a spot, I'm sure nobody on the court -- where we 7 spent $15,000, only to be told, you know what is this yes, there is an issue here, we have got to spend x amount of dollars to do this, we find out that we can't force the industry to do it. And even if we do force them to do it, that we can get the neighbors happy with the fact that okay, well, these people are being forced to do this, which means that they are going to have a lot to say about it. Which immediately comes back to us, you know, Travis County, you are the one that has to spend the 100 to $200,000 to do this, that's what really frightens me. Maybe those things won't all come together and work that way.
>> just one -- I guess one last thing that might give you a little con slayings -- consoleiation, in the past, the last item that we had in court, I had attached, a little update where I was giving the odor study update, we attached the draft agreed order and it does have the technical requirement language that I'm speaking to. If you can't get your hand on it, I would be happy to bring that to you, you can see that it looks pretty certain that -- that it's going to be a requirement that tceq forces upon the landfills.
>> okay.
>> can you refresh us as to how long this piece of the study is going to take? And at what point -- assuming that it takes that amount of time, what window of opportunity is going to be here for this court to decide whether to proceed on with phase 2 or maybe tceq will be at a place where they proceed with -- with different phase of this.
>> yeah, let me -- let me try to address that. I -- I do not think that phase 1 had an actual time limit. We were -- we were looking at that. And sensitivity working with the neighborhood --
>> part of the phase 1 study is essentially a search much the literature and the records and the history on these sites, correct?
>> sure.
>> I would think when the consultant looks at that history, it's going to pop up that the complaints spike at certain times of the year and I would certainly think the consultant would say, ah-ha, I need to wait until that time of the year and do some of my own site work at that time.
>> right. Well --
>> right, I guess what I was getting at, I don't think that we have a 90 or 120 day troirment finish phase -- requirement to finish phase 1 built into that. But we do discuss in the body of the request for services that seasonality and duration are important elements to this and we are not going to just accept some accelerated billing situation for folks to get paid. We are going to make sure that it is adding the problem on point,, you know,, we all have our concerns, we've seen it drying up, constantly the odor complaints are drying up. It may be that we say, look, you know, you need to -- preserve 50's 75% of your budget until September, October, until things start to -- because part of what we do expect them to do is onsite reconnaissance, which include some really small scale sampl, this, that -- sampling, this, that and the other.
>> are we at least going to have benchmarks in there related to things that are not tie into seasonality. I'm thinking because of that research that needs to be done, certainly we wouldn't want that to be open end and for us not to have some expectations within some reasonable time period as to something. I just don't want this to be something that has no lock-down of any kind of benchmarks and somehow gets lost and it's just kind of out there and there's really no sense of anybody having any sense of closure on this.
>> well, we -- like I said, we do not have hard and fast benchmarks built into phase 1. There are benchmarks again, kind of hark contending back to the tceq agreed order, the proposed agreed order language, there were benchmarks there, I don't have them memorized, I apologize, but they have to submit, I believe it's an odor monitoring plan within, I believe, 60 days of the effective date of the agreed order or something to that effect. Yeah, I know it sound terribly open ended at this point. But we have to sort of walk that line between being too open ended but yet hitting the seasons right. So, you know, that's kind of just where I have to leave in it a gray dispoan for ya.
>> my -- gray zone for ya.
>> my question is I thought I remembered seeing a proposed order related to b.f.i. Was there a proposed order related toll [indiscernible] attached.
>> that has not come out, unless you know something different, tom. The draft came out, b.f.i.'s draft, that is, and waste management, you know, obviously knew about it, kind of got in there and began discussing theirs because they anticipated, you know, sort of a similar -- similar draft agreement, agreed order to come out and thus began some negotiations that are still ongoing right now between -- between b.f.i. And waste management, both. This is, I suppose it's -- it's pretty much the way it goes. It's a common practice that -- that these things are negotiated.
>> several other consultants indicated an interest earlier. And did not submit proposals. Do we know why?
>> part of it was we had a fairly quick turn around. We had a 12 day turn around or something along those lines. But also there were, you know, the way that our request for services was structured, we laid out a variety of sampling techniques that was pretty extensive, I mean, not every firm out there could even satisfy those -- those requirements and so aside from, you know, teaming up with other folks or what have you, it just became a little bit more challenging for them to respond. The other element was that we said not only do we want somebody who has expertise in -- in odor and gas emissions, but we also want somebody who has expertise in landfill design and engineering and so forth. Typically the odor oriented firms out there don't necessarily have a broad engineering backup. Urs does. The zephyr -- the zephyr approach was a teaming approach, they were able to kind of get all of that together in a short amount of time and were successful in putting out a very, you know, good proposal as well. But I think it was the combination of the time frame and the levels of expertise required that kind of cut the playing field down.
>> would anyone else like to give comments on this item? If so, please come forward.
>> good afternoon, my name is joyce best, I live in northeast Austin. I would simply like to make the comment that it is true that we have not had the new rous complaints about odor that were -- numerous complaints about odor that were previous leapt at one time. In my own neighborhood yesterday morning at about 11:00, there was a definite garage odor, yesterday was memorial day, garbage odor, fortunately I am not one who was having an outdoor event. I'm sure some were. As it happens, although it had been cooler in the morning, it began to warm up after the rain, the odors came and then as it got even warmer the odors went away. So we are still experiencing these kinds of events, probably as we pointed out in the summer it is -- it is not as bad. As nts colder weather. But we are still experiencing them, so -- so this is definitely something that would need to be taken into account.
>> maybe we just need to keep heaters out there. [laughter]
>> yes, my name is treb trek english. I don't have much of a comment to make at this time. I don't know exactly what this study is going to entail as john called it, recognitions, so -- reconnaissance. It's a french word. I can't say it. And -- oh, it is,.
>> say it right.
>> and -- and so until we find out exactly what is going to be on the table and what the consultants are suggesting we will probably have comments at that point. I would like to, however, I can't pass this opportunity to say that -- that I can see why the state is so broke, you know, when -- when there's an opportunity to find a polluter, and obtain quite a bit of money for violations, when a company can probably weigh their finds and until they accept the amount that is to me unacceptable. Because we don't have that luxury. If a judge gives us a fine, none of us can go and tell the judge I don't like the amount that you are fining me, so I'm going to sign this order. That unfortunately doesn't go that way. I think the corporate people should have the same -- should not have a different or better advantage as to par laying their violations away, at least the amount of them, the amount of their fines, that's it.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. The source of this money is --
>> is that t.n.r.?
>> I think trying to find -- fund it internally. The shortfall, we will deal with it later.
>> move approval of the staff recommendation. Also move that we have this back on the court's agenda next week for the court to look at the contract.
>> second.
>> I think it's better than having the judge sign it, since we have not seen i. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> judge. I need to make a correction to what I said. It is out of reserves. The reserve money.
>> I thought we had chatted with t.n.r. About trying to pick it up and deal with it later?
>> kind of what we did to facilities this morning.
>> could be, I wasn't in the part of that conversation, but I just remember what the discussion in court was.
>> we will give it some more thought between now and next Tuesday.
>> do you want to us bring that --
>> make a mental note of that.
>> do you want us to bring the contract back or --
>> the motion is to bring it back to the court since the court hasn't seen it.
>> me either.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner yours truly voting in favor. Voti against show Commissioner Daugherty.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM