Travis County Commssioners Court
January 27, 2004
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.
Items 17 & 22
Why don't we pull up two items regarding waste management that -- that was sort of end twined and -- and 22.
>> 17.
>> 22 consider and take appropriate action on request for twelve (12) month extension (modification no. 4) to contract no. 03t00074oj, waste management of Texas, for refuse collection. 17 is -- on I understand just in case we need it. There is an issue with 22?
>> [indiscernible] [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> we received the signed modification to the -- to extend item no. 22 at about one minute until 9:00 this morning. We had asked for waste management [papers shuffling - audio interference] contract with Texas disposal in the event of any other safety violations, we asked waste management to sign another safety questionnaire. And there are some questions that I think maybe somebody from waste management can address. It looks to me like there may be more safety violations. But I'm not an expert so I can't address that.
>> would it help to get you and tom -- the assistant county attorney working on this? To get with waste management and try to work through those?
>> okay.
>> over the next 15 to 307 minutes?
>> uh-huh.
>> -- 15 to 30 minutes. Lotto us know and that may be a better use of the next 15 to 30 minutes for us.
>> okay, thank you.
>> judge, before they leave, is it -- [indiscernible] make a report to us, is there anything that would suggest that -- that if -- if the violations of substantiated, things of that nature, whatever is being discussed there, that -- that we could -- we could go in the direction of -- of -- well, I'm going to wait until you get back to ask questions.
>> yes.
>> let me wait until you get back. For that answer. Thank you.
>> judge, what did we do with 17?
>> actually, if we continue 22, 17 --
>> 17 was the backup. Situation where the waste management contract expires I think in -- [multiple voices]
>> we will call that item up within the next 15 to 30 minutes.
>>Let's call back up item no. 22. See if there's an update on it.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> basically on this issue what we had was a driver independently on his own had dumped some of his portalet into an open field. The following day after a check in process, we discovered his tickets didn't match up. We did an intense sraoeupbt with the driver, discovered what ha happened, retraced his steps, contacted the owner after also notified the regulatory authority, tceq, we cleaned up the field, according to his specifications and also that of tceq, and in the report that we ga there the comments from the tceq, it says it was cleaned up to the complainant's satisfaction.
>> when did that occur?
>> April.
>> where? Was that here in Travis County?
>> I'm not positive on the address. Let me look at the complaint and see if it's on there.
>> was this the hauling of our stuff or the hauling of somebody else's stuff?
>> well, it could be a combination.
>> but are these portables that belong to Travis County?
>> it could have been some. It depends on how the route was run. Different customers, different locations.
>> tom's got the language of the contract modification from last -- the court agreed to and basically it says failure to respond to any violations would be cause for termination. We felt like that this should be -- the court should be advised of this and make a decision. In our very short review here, it appears to me that they did respond and take actions as they were asked to do. And I could recommend going ahead and making an award to them. If the court decides not to, there is a cost of about $45,000 to go with the second contractor. Of course, that always figures into --
>> could you back up?
>> yes, sir, if the court does take action to terminate this contract, we do have the contingency contract, however, it will cost about $45,000 more next year for these services.
>> what I need to find out as far as the violations, I have not had anything I guess come in from tceq at all. I'm just going on hearsay from hearing this morning. My office hasn't seen any documents at all. So I'm kind of concerned about that. And if -- let me ask this question. If we were to roll this for a week, what would be the impact because I would like to make sure that I have all the proper information before me to ensure that violations had not been administered by waste management as far as what we are looking at as far as this contractor is concerned. Of course, we have visited that before, but as a courtesy, I would like one week to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed.
>> the only thing this will run out before the contract.
>> well, that's --
>> Commissioner Davis, I share your frustration. I was not happy with my own staff this morning that this item was at the last minute.
>> yeah, that's kind of --
>> I was not happy with waste management for getting us the safety bid at the last minute. However, this is the situation that we are in. As we got to this, you know, we kind of asked who was supposed to be policing them, and I guess, you know, I don't know that it was supposed to be my office and obviously we didn't until the last minute. We're taking it on good faith that they are being honest with us. If you would like for us to question tceq, we can try to do that this week. I don't know if you have a work session posted for Thursday.
>> I'm asking for a one-week delay.
>> the contract expires Saturday. That's the issue.
>> but even if it expired, we have two contracts here. We're looking at item number 17 and then we're looking at this one. Is there anything to preclude us from having someone as far as item 17 is concerned to continue the collection of Travis County -- is there anything to prohibit us from doing it while I do a one-week investigation?
>> the problem is there has to be an exchange of -- help me out -- containers. All those containers have to be switched out with the other contractor. That's prohibitive. We couldn't do that easily.
>> well, and again, I'm not trying to put the blame on anybody where it should rest, but, you know, here we are Saturday I think is when this contract actually expires, and of course this information coming to us today is not timely at all for me and anyone else that may have information that suggests that there may have been other violations. And if so, then we are left in a situation. Is there any way that -- I guess maybe I need to take this to executive session because I think I can ask or request certain things that may not be -- well, I think I can request certain things as far as this contract is concerned and that may be an executive session item, but, again, I don't know. But I do know right now we're between a rock and a hard place if there are actual other violations other than what's mentioned here and also the documentation that we do not have at this time. I have not had a chance to review any of this documentation which I think is unfair to the residents of precinct 1.
>> tom, do you have the contract?
>> yes.
>> can we go into executive session at this time to discuss this with legal council.
>> I would like to do that, judge.
>> it would make sense to go ahead and get it over. We have two items contingent on this. The rest of the agenda looks -- I have learned not to say slim. It may be a better use of our time just to get this resolved.
>> tell me if this is an open court question or i'll wait three seconds to get an answer, and that is is there any other extension of the old contract that occur for a week -- is there holdover provisions is a better way to say it?
>> I would have to look at the contract.
>> at this time we will convene in executive session to receive advice of counsel on item number 22, and to the extent that it becomes necessary to discuss the backup item number 17. 17 is approve 12-month extension to contract number 03 t 001070 j with Texas disposal systems, incorporated, for contingency contract to refuse collection contract. I'm calling up 17 just in case we need to ask counsel legal questions in executive session. We will discuss both of these items, get advice of counsel, but will return to open court before taking any action.
>>
>> [executive session]
>>
>> we have returned from executive session where we discussed with legal counsel item number 22 and very, very briefly number 17. 22 involves the request to extend for one year the contract with waste management of Texas.
>> judge, I would like to move that we do not continue the contract with waste management under the existing contract of 03 t 00740 j. I move that we discontinue that 12-month extension with waste management of Texas.
>> is there a second? That motion dies for lack of a second. Move we approve a one-year extension contingent upon at the appropriate time waste management advising us of any communication from the Texas commission on environmental quality relative to the possible violation that was called to our attention today and that further Travis County be notified of any violations or notice or citations pursuant to the contract executed about a year ago. So that we can remain basically posted on developments. The contract language is not placed on any party responsibility for monitoring, and this motion is intended to require that waste management call to the county's attention between now and the expiration of this 12 on month extension, if this is approved, any citation, violation, basically tracking the language that's in the current contract.
>> second.
>> clarification, judge, would that be -- anything that occurs within Travis County?
>> actually the language is a whole lot broader than that. I'm especially interested in Travis County, myself. The language is broader than that, right, tom?
>> yeah, it doesn't contain a geographic limit. So if it happens right across the line in bastrop or right across the line in Williamson, it would be covered.
>> I'm just making sure we have clarity on what we mean so that if it comes up, it's not that we weren't clear about what we mean.
>> I would mean Travis County.
>> I'm specially interested in Travis County because representatives here would obviously know about that. It may be more difficult to get timely notice of violation in another county.
>> it's tough enough to get them to notify us in Travis County.
>> what the -- what the existing contract talks about is anything associated with this landfill.
>> that's the intention of the motion.
>> that works for me. So if per chance there was something coming from burleson county, but it was coming to landfill in Travis County and something inappropriate occurred elsewhere, it would still be something we would need to be told about because it affects the landfill in Travis County. Are we talking about only the hauling contract in terms of something inappropriate occurs that comes into Travis County? These are questions that keep coming up, whether it's about the hauling fees or the landfill fees.
>> well, again, the language basically says if it's associated with the landfill, it's relevant to this contract. Whether it's the hauling epbt entity or the landfill entity.
>> if other violations have occurred that we have not been exposed to from w.m.s., If there are other violations out there outstanding that we have no knowledge of at this time, can that be grounds to terminate this existing contract with waste management, inc., Tom?
>> yeah, the special language we worked into the contract last year would apply to anything even if we don't know about it today.
>> okay. So if information is brought back next week to us or the week after or the month down the road or whatever, and if there are existing violations that exist and they have not been addressed and have not been reported in the time frame of this particular contract, what you are saying is that that is grounds for termination of this existing contract. Is that correct?
>> yes.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, I just wanted to clarify that we do have a signed modification; however, tom is going to revise it and add that language about reporting and everything. So we'll have to have them re-sign it and we'll bring it to you for signature. But I just wanted to make that clear that we do need to change this form and that I needed to let them know that also. We'll need to re-sign it, the other language.
>> judge, could I ask waste management to -- could I ask a question before we go of waste management? Or do you want to vote? Mr. Harrison, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> mr. Harrison, to your knowledge, is this the only infraction that you all think that you've had in the last year that has been reported to tceq?
>> to my knowledge, yes.
>> to your knowledge. You know, this is really a difficult subject. You know what you've got sitting up here. You've got one person that doesn't want you in the garbage business at all ever again. You got some of us that know that we've got to have garbage picked up. You probably have all of us at a spot where this subject matter is wearing us out. And even though I'm impressed that you all were the ones that went out and found this through going through your tickets and that you all were the ones that basically turned yourself in to tceq, I sure hope that there are no other infractions. We have probably something within our system that we need to straighten out. Waste management is not bound to call us whenever there is an infraction, nor is tceq. So it really is up to Travis County, I suppose, to call each month and to say what's happening with waste management. What's happening with waste management. And I would only hope that you all would recognize that this is such a big deal because part of me wants to second a motion by Commissioner as to what's going on here because we always seem to never really be able to get this thing off of high center and to move on, and, you know, I just want you to know that if there are other infractions, that I'm going to be very difficult to move with regards to probably voting to not extend, you know, another contract with you. So I just would like for you to take that back. That's how close I am, you know, on this. But, you know, we do have a contract. It look like that you all have basically complied. But what drives me crazy is what really is compliance and what really smells bad, I mean, for lack of a better way to put it, then that -- and that bothers me. So whatever you have to do to take that back and to let everybody know exactly where I am at least on this thing. So I appreciate -- and I hope that you don't have any more infractions and I hope that you say, well, I didn't know about that because that's going to -- I don't know what position you have over there, but I mean when the question is asked about where is it and you have to start trying to find out where it is, I mean, you know, please come prepared to at least give me the comfort level that the left hand really knows what the right hand is doing over there because, you know, we're trying to help and we're trying to move this subject along, but you sure put us -- or some of us, you put in a tough spot.
>> I understand, Commissioner. And we're taking, believe me, actions accordingly.
>> Commissioners, we are going to add the language they are now responsible for notifying us.
>> and mr. Harrison --
>> yes, Commissioner.
>> -- Commissioner Daugherty may have made the statement about me not wanting you in the garbage business. That's not necessarily true. I just want to make sure both those landfills are relocated off 2890. So I'm real -- 290. So because of the residents and the quality of life initial that area, have I nothing against landfills, believe me, I don't, it's just the location of these two particular landfills out there that's caused a lot of problems in this area, and hopefully in the near future we all will be looking out at the possibility of moving on down the road or moving somewhere else. So, again, I just wanted to let you know it's nothing personal, and it's not. It's just that these are considerations, concerns that the residents whom I represent out there have brought to my attention, and of course I'm trying to come to closure on it. En of course, hopefully we can work together and bring this issue to closure hopefully by relocating. That's the bottom line. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Davis, I'm sorry, I did misstate that. I did not mean to imply -- I knew that's not what you meant and I apologize. He realized you were in the business and I overspoke so I apologize to Commissioner Davis.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? So Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly in favor. Voting against Commissioner Davis. Move approval of the contingency contract in 17. Seconded my Commissioner Sonleitner. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. I
Last Modified: TUesday, January 28, 2004 6:44 AM