Travis County Commssioners Court
February 3, 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.
Item 27
One item left on the agenda, number 27, and it is to consider and take appropriate action on solid waste management issues. A is phase ii order study recommendations. B proposal by cap coto assist with regional landfill study. I'm asking the court to give direction on a and b either without direction. C, d and e for discussion. I believe those are a lot more meaty than the first -- than a and b, and basically directions about how to proceed on c, d and e. On a, last time we were in court we left court with the impression that we would get with b.f.i. And negotiate a memorandum of understanding dealing with phase ii. And since we were in court that day and approximate following -- following discussions with resident, landful operators, fire sells and whoever else would talk with us, I guess, we have kind of concluded that it may not make sense to proceed with the monitors at this point. I guess the big question is whether we would get enough benefit to justify the investment. Staff was a little bit dividet. I don't know that I ever got it in position one way or the other. But my recommendation today is for the court to acquiesce to the decision basically to drop the phase ii monitoring part.
>> judge, I agree with that. I move that we do that. And based on the conversation that i've had, to discontinue that study, but with that motion, I would like to also ask staff the initial amount of money that was moved from the general fund was very -- I think was $15,000, but I would like to ask staff at this point how much of that money was used that we -- if the court decides to abandon this particular study.
>> that was for phase i, which was to essentially design the study and it's all been used.
>> it's all been used?
>> no more money in the $15,000 total?
>> correct.
>> okay. Wanted to know was there anything else, because I wanted to make use of if there was for something else later. But I would like to go ahead and make that motion.
>> second.
>> is there anyone who believes that the phase ii monitoring part of our part of our three part study should be kept in place and we ought to pursue it?
>> judge, I just have a notation on something that you sent us, you said b.f.i. Doesn't disagree but wants to set the record straight and I wanted to find out if they still didn't want to do that or whether we let it be unsaid? I'm just going off of what I see on a memo.
>> as to the reason for that statement, I did not mean that b.f.i. Wanted to set the record straight in court today.
>> that's how I interpreted it.
>> this is as good a record setting place as any, I guess.
>> yeah.
>> certainly weren't going to set any records on when we were going to finish this meeting.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners. I'm paul gosselink and representing b.f.i. Here again today and with me is ray shulz the design engineer and lee kuhn, the district environmental engineer. We are in agreement that the odor study, while I think it was a good idea, no longer needs to be pursued in order to reach any kind of longstanding agreement with the county or with the neighbors. We believe that part of the record we wanted to set straight was we believe that we have figured out how to control our odors and we are not a current source of odors and I think that has gone into the evaluation of this -- of this matter. And I wanted to make sure that no one thought that we thought that an odor study was inappropriate because it would find us doing something wrong. That's not what we thought. We felt that we would pass the odor study.
>> the other reason for that notation where I think I indicated in the backup, staff and I were investigating with the b.f.i., Trying to get in place a memo of understanding consistent with our last in court decision when we started having the second thoughts about the feasibility of stage 2 and we kind of went to b.f.i. And encouraged in a it be dropped; is that -- am I correct on that? That was after we had met with the residents and discussed among ourself.
>> yes. To reestablish the record. Yes, I mean, we went through -- I think we started around thanksgiving, whenever it was, we went through the holidays and had many, many decisions and essentially came to lagger deds over certain detail of the design of the study, not from what was laid out by the consultant in the first place, but, you know, some of the I guess requirements that b.f.i. Placed on the study design and, you know, it's very long and detailed story that you don't need the brain damage over, perhaps, but we would be happy to go into it, if you would like to. It's just that we felt like when you looked at the reality of the situation as it occurs now, what the big picture direction could perhaps be for these issues, it was best to move on.
>> yeah. I felt that in view of the last -- of the court's last action, that is sort of a proven proceeding with negotiating a memo of understanding, I thought that the state court should take the formal action of sort of reversing that position, recommendation.
>> okay.
>> there's a motion and second to reverse it. Anymore discussion?
>> paul?
>> yes, sir.
>> paul, I want to make hour that I understand -- make sure that I understand what you're saying. Do you think that there are still odors off of the landfill in the northeast area? And if there are odors, are you saying that none of it is b.f.i.'s, it owes all waste management?
>> I think I can answer that this way. I really seek to only speak for b.f.i. Waste management's representatives are here.
>> okay.
>> I'm not aware of odor problems continues in the area, but I'm specifically not aware of b.f.i. Being the cause of any odors, and certainly not of any nuisance-level odors associated with the gas collection and control system. And that's our understanding of the facts. I appreciate that everyone can have their own opinion as to that, but that is our understanding of the facts and I think we could factually back that up. Probably will have to ultimately, if we ever get to the tceq or the permit application.
>> I'm not trying to pin you down, but I'm just -- it's my opinion that there are certainly still odors in that area that come from landfills. Now, I don't know whether it comes from b.f.i. Or whether it comes from waste management, but I didn't want us to -- because I do think -- I mean regardless of what we do, there are a number of years that I think that, you know, landfills are going to be in operation in the northeast. And we're going to continue to have odor, but as i've always said, I think that I understand there are odors whenever you have as many cubic feet of garbage that you have, you know, raw garbage that you have put on a site. So I just didn't want there to be the impression that -- that there are no odor issues out there, because there still are odor -- or there were the last time I purposely drove down blue goose and giles road, yeah, you're rite, I cannot tell you whether they were from b.f.i. Or waste management, but I just wanted for the record to be set straight that I think there are probably still odors today if I were -- maybe not today, but within the next four or day f five days I could drive out, I have to roll my window up because I'm not on the landfill and i've got the odor -- or there still is odor out here, I understand what you're saying. So thank you.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. The second one here is a little bit more delicate than that. What happened after our regional summit on landfills was that we did go to the executive committee of the capital area planning council and asked them for assistance with conducting a regional study. With an eye toward determining appropriate sites for landfills and the central Texas region, and I do think we recommended looking at Travis County, hayes, caldwell, williams son, bastrop, an one or two more and we left the executive committee meeting thinking that would in fact happen. In our view the recommendation that goes befer the executive committee at its next Wednesday, February 11th. I think I said February 10th. That is our meeting, the 10th t committee meeting is on the 11th. That recommendation is that cap coset aside $11,000 roughly and they hire a part time person at $10 an hour to do what we think is about one fifth of the work that needs to be done and what I'm asking for here is authorization to represent the Commissioner's court a little bit more than Commissioner Daugherty and I normally do at the executive committee meetings and tell them that we appreciate their offer of assistance, but we think it's all sort of what we need. Melinda tells me -- melinda I chair of the committee -- that the committee did not spend $11,000 -- 10 or 11,000, right?
>> capco didn't bring a proposal to the committee for grand to do landfill siting at all. They made a decision to handle that component of the study, the executive committee asked for in house.
>> okay. But how much money is unspent of the total state money?
>> there's a little more than $10,000 left over after this year's grants were awarded.
>> it's that 10,000 that I'm targeting. And basically I think our recommendation ought to be thank you for what you plan to do and we accept it. But in our view we need another 40 to $50,000 to get the job done right. The scope of service that melinda handed out a few minutes ago and this is exactly what was with the committee, right? That staff did not approve of, but basically it's give us this $10,000, we will get with -- we will generate 30,000 more to come up with 40,000 to get the job done. In my view, what we ought to be looking for is a list of potential landfill sites in the region. These would be the other counties that i've mentioned including Travis County, and then, you know, I have to make sure they -- that they know that, but in order to come up with something reliable on which we plan to take official action, it seems to me we need something a bit more substantial than we can get from a part time intern. And I'm not sure I really know the reason that they low balled it, because when we left the executive committee, my understanding was we would use a professional consultant to do a study similar to the one done in north Texas and the one in the denton area was touted, and I think we got the 40 to $50,000 figu from roughly what that one cost, right?
>> yes, sir, from the consultants that have scoped those project joots had $11,000 left over and that's exactly what it was going to take to do the job.
>> the other thing I was hoping is they would discuss this landfill study first, because normally you get a whole lot more from regional participants than you have money to fund. So it's county time sensitive because I think if we wait until next Tuesday that won't give us much time to share with -- I do think we ought to let the executive director know what Commissioner's court's think and we'll ask the executive committee for.
>> okay.
>> and with that, the last meeting that I recall attending with capital, it was discussing then doing the summit, the summit landfill, by the way summit that we anticipated in, the discussion at that time that was put on the table about hauling fees of counties that may want to entertain that who has helped them with their particular financial obligation for the county. At that time I brought up a question about fort bend county, I think, that is contracted with the b.f.i., And there is a hauling fee connection there that they use for their landfill, in fact where they generate revenue for that particular county. I still have not heard anything lately and I guess this study will help us determine that from the regional counties that are involved in this, is that still a possibility of counties still maybe wanting to entertain that from the elected officials and things like that. Now, I haven't heard anything and I would like to ask staff have they heard anything, or either the residents who are anxiously awaiting to relocate those landfills, the possible incentives that may be available, do just that, especially folks that are around there now. So I guess the questions are still is there a possibility for things like that that may be still available and maybe still need to be considered in this overall point in looking for a relocation for the existing 290 landfill.
>> I can take a stab at that Commissioner Davis, if you would like me to.
>> pardon me.
>> I can take a stab at that.
>> please.
>> sometimes you ask me to get answers. Now, as you ask it again, I don't have the exact financial figure in front of me, but, yes, the answer is definitely yes, I think in the case of fort bend county they had been in the process of citing ordinance and actually got into the negotiations with b.f.i. And captured that expansion area that they were seeking as an acceptable site in their siting ordinance. They allowed that expansion to go forward in return for negotiating somewhat of a host fee, I believe -- I don't know if it was a gross tonnage or per ton arrangement, but there was definitely a fairly lucrative financial agreement that was reached between industry and the county. Now, my understanding is that that expansion cell or those cells have not actually opened yet, but when they do, there will be, you know, some revenue that is generated for the county.
>> is that accurate enough? Does that capture...
>> does that... Is the b.f.i. Representative here?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> right. Okay.
>> of that, jim, you need to be corrected on exactly host fee. Okay. Well...
>> those are the types of arrangements can be negotiated. Williams son county has something along those lines as well. They own the site and waste nagement operates it, so, yes, I mean that -- if you decide to get involved in that -- at that level, those kinds of arrangements can be made.
>> okay. Kind of made possibility that particular arrangement is available, I guess is my concern, that if exposed to the fact that could be something used by counties that are interested.
>> my motion is that Travis County take the position that we appreciate capco's assistance and we accept the $11,000 and spend as they see fit, first, but secondly that we request that the approximately $10,000 left over be used to help Travis County acquire professional expertise to do parts of a regional landfill locating study that we don't believe their part will cover. Travis County be the administrator of that contract. And fourth, that we would basically assume responsibility for generating an additional $30,000 or so to give us about $40,000. And actually, I would ask b.f.i. And w.m.i. To contribute about 15,000 apiece and my thinking would be that on the regional landfill study, we are doing it basically for the benefit of Travis County government, Travis County residents and the two northeast Travis County landfills. The other thing that I think is real important here is that if we don't do a reliable study, we're wasting money and time. And also my fear is that if the study is not reliable, we will end up with Travis County beings -- being the only county that is seriously considered for locating landfills for the region's future. Part of this regional strategy all the time was travis now accepts regional waste and we ought to be more regional in our landfill orientation and perspective.
>> I second that, judge. And I second that based on this, and also I guess is it -- well, let me say this: would you accept as a friendly that suggestion of maybe within the study having it placed on the table to suggest that there are other counties that have host capabilities and that may be an incentive for someone that may need the revenue of the county, especially adjacent in the capital area to maybe look at that an entertain that? Will that be similar or friendly?
>> that's fine with me.
>> all right. I would like to second it on that regard and especially to interject into that the option of host fee possibility and...
>> I second that motion.
>> for the record I guess I should indicate that neither landfill has committed $15,000 and I just thinking that they have been so reasonable in the past that when I share this with them, the whereas and the wherefores Commissioner Daugherty and I will be able to persuade them to come around.
>> I'm sure he's not going to like this especially since he's not here, but I wouldn't mind talking to him about this, and that would be why pds wouldn't also play in sharing the cost of this study even though he's not nortast, if this is a regional issue, given that we have three of them in Travis County. I mean I would certainly like to talk to bob gregory about is that -- is that something that you would consider. I mean, because what I really want to get away from here is the -- it's not partisan ship, but you've got some fights going on out there and if we're going to open this thing up, because what we're really looking for is a solution to help Travis County so that Travis County is not the total recipient of so many counties' garbage being brought to us, and I -- you know, I wouldn't mind discussing that, you know, with bob gregory. I mean that would help everybody. I mean, you know, those are the three, so I don't -- I don't know that I'm making that a motion but I mean...
>> that's friendly. That is friendly to me.
>> okay with you, Commissioner Davis?
>> yes. I don't object to that.
>> okay. Judge, before we vote, I would like to ask the residents a question, if possible.
>> yes. Anymore discussion by the court? Anybody else who wishes to give comments on this motion? This dealing with capco, saying basically thank you for your great assistance, I believe additional work needs to be done, please give us the 10,000 that you have left over, we we'll supplement that up to an amount that we any is appropriate to do additional work on the study. By the way, I mentioned just me telling them that. If you support it, then we will do it together.
>> uh-huh.
>> you need to have a second for your motion.
>> at capco?
>> trek english, judge, I have no problems with your motion. It makes sense to me. I don't know if it's appropriate, but I think even the residents would like to contribute if it were to lead to some landfill solution for the region and we're talking 30 counties now. We're not just talking really just a [inaudible] and I think -- I the we need a solution. I think the expectation is there, that they are going to be odors because of the amount of waste that is being handled right now in the northeast Travis County sector, and because of that, the orders there, they're not gone, there were still owe doors, very strong odors last week, there were still strong odors two weeks before that. We don't make it a point to drive around to smell odors. We've got more of a life than that, but in order to deal with this quality of life issue, and to secure the capacity for the region for perhaps next half of a century, I think that what you're proposing makes sense and I think that the residents would love to contribute anything they can. Even if finances are needed to alleviate our situation.
>> thank you, trek. And I -- I understand that marbry huffman, the director of tceq, would maybe like to relate that they're also willing to assisting in relocation of the 290 landfills. But I ask representative stek to be here today, unfortunately I understand that he was -- is attending a meeting, wouldn't be able to be here, but I understand that his representative is supposed to be here. Is representative steck?
>> I'm here.
>> okay. Could you come up and have a word, because I know he said he's been following this and he is also adamantly -- he's the state representative. He may have a lile more pull than we do on things.
>> he September me to take notes and I wasn't really advised of the contents of the meeting but I will most definitely relay this to the representative.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> pap pol jiez.
>> you're doing a rel goodjob. I thought you were with the state of Texas. [laughter].
>> thank you.
>> he looks so young, too.
>> welcome to you.
>> we appreciate that. I guess what I will do -- what we do after the meeting next week will be to report back to the court. We have no way of knowing what the executive committee's position will be. We'll know by next Wednesday. Yes, ma'am, ms. Mcaffee.
>> melanie mcaffee.
>> talking about tbs, I know that it's a strong interest of the county and the region to have some competition, just one idea that I don't know where it might take me, but since I have done a lot of research on studies all over, there are other companies besides just those three. If I were to do some additional research of companies that might have like tbs strong environmental records, would the court be open to those companies also coming forth?
>> and contributing to the cost of the study? I mean I certainly have no problem wit. -- with it. I guess at some point we have to figure out exactly what it is we think we need. We've come close, we think, in the written focus service sector, melinda and others prepared. Then you basically try to cost it out. And I'm -- I was just thinking that if we generated about $50,000, we should be able to cover it. But I was thinking ten from capco, and if we get 10 more, that leaves 30, but certainly -- I mean as long as we do work that needs to be done, I'm satisfied. And, you know, if we have more partners willing to help, I don't know anybody that will balk at that. I do think we ought to get the best information and recommendations we can in a relatively short time, you know, and at an affordable cost. Factor all that this is where I'm headed.
>> this may be way too far down the road to ask this question, but let's just think positively ahead. If a site were found that would be one site for one company, how in the world would you -- where do you from there? I guess the two --
>> I'm looking for two sites. Not my call. But I just as soon that the landfills would want to be...
>> then to bring in tbs, are you looking for three, find another one?
>> I know tbs has a long time capacity where they are, but I'm -- depending on what we do, once we put a change to our course and start -- we set precident for doing something a little differently, then my guess is we would want to be even handed and assist those in a similar position in Travis County. But if you are looking for two sites in the region, that is a whole lot better than looking for two sites in, you know, one pocket of Travis County. The broader the area, the more potential sites we have, the more ewe have to work with, and I think as you go through your process of elimination or reducing that comprehensive list, then you ought to have something a whole lot better to work with, but i've always thought we look for two site.
>> yes. Preferably where no growth is taking place.
>> so what if you find one site?
>> [inaudible]
>> I thought you said we would be optimistic. [laughter].
>> let me say...
>> take that back.
>> I mean, there is no way that we are going to find only one site in the geographic area that we are looking for. And what we really need to be asking, and maybe we need to ask this at the executive committee, if there are 30 counties that are involved in contribution of garbage, emean that is certainly not asking a lot -- you can be a poor county and afford 1,000 or $1,500 so that you don't even go, you know, to the landfill people and say, "here is what we're looking for." I mean I certainly wouldn't have a problem looking somebody square in the eye and saying if you send your garbage here, would you put a couple of thousand dollars on the table for us to find -- because I think we probably could find multiple sites. I mean, there are some of those county, I mean, that have lots of real estate and the densities aren't anywhere near as great as they are in Travis County because we're an urban county. So to me that is what we're going to need to look at is identifying multiple sites, because I'm not just trying to -- if I'm going to go through the shananiganso going through this, let's say what are we going to do with it for 100 queers. Technology could be such that landfills are obsolete. I don't know that that would be the case. That would be my intent and I would like to see -- I mean, I don't know, maybe, have you floated that by any of the other counties before?
>> no. That's why I thought it would be easier for the other counties to urge capcotoco use state solid west money. I was hoping to get around nine individuals by just pointing to a fund that the committee controls and this study is consistent with the solid waste management purpose of capco, so I thought it would be easier to get a little more than what they're recommending, and I thought the executive committee left steck with the impression that we want this done. But I mean I would -- my recommendation would be if this strategy does not work and we found out next Wednesday, our fall back position would be, the court would have to address this separately, we go to the individual counties and ask for a contribution toward a fun to finance this. I think that -- the other thing I think that, you know, anti pation -- anticipation to contribute to the last that ends up in the landfill is a good thing. I mean and... Those are my views now.
>> we'll find out. I think you and I can go armed to the meeting with a number of questions and I think that we'll get some help out of that. I mean we put, you know, the program on before the end of the year where we had the seminar, because you put together, I think that we -- we heard loud and clear even though we didn't have 30 counties represented, we certainly had a number of them, and I think everybody was a little sheepish in the room when they really saw where the landfills were. I mean, you know, there are probably people in caldwell county or bastrop county or wherever that doesn't even know that they don't have a landfill. They just know their garbage gets picked up.
>> and put down.
>> and put down. I think they can be somewhat sympathetic. I'm encouraged by going to the meeting and hopefully coming back with lots of responses.
>> why is the net just thrown out widely and see what comes of it, then you can narrow the choices. I would throw the net out there widely to the 30 county.
>> yes. I had thought of more than half in central Texas. Capcoserves up to ten. My thing was we would try to find suitable sites in the region. Now, Travis County is sort of the hub so I was touching the counties that touch Travis County.
>> and then if that doesn't work, out wider?
>> doesn't bother me.
>> okay.
>> why don't you look at transportation costs and...
>> right. I was trying to be as realistic as possibility at the same time. Trying to get those interested because they should be interested where their waste goes.
>> we'll throw the net out.
>> I think...
>> anymore discussion of b? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, the next one really is a sort of head's up. Siting ordinance which we placed on hold probably about a year ago. We reached a kind of a ladies and gentlemen's agreement with the landfills that they would hold off on filing applications to expand and we would hold off on the siting ordinance covering type 1 landfills and I think we also excluded type 1s and type 4s, but I have been told both are actively considering filing applications, but they didn't say when, though. This ordinance is to put the siting back on the radar. I think what we did agree was -- and y'all correct me if I'm wrong -- the landfill operators would let us know before they filed the applications to expand, we would let them know before we adopted a siting ordinance that covered type 1 landfills. This is a more head's up, I guess, than anything else.
>> I guess I need to get kind of a head's up from tom knuckles, if at whatever point we go down this path, how much time and energy is this going to consume out of the county attorney's office in terms of what work has been done and what work would need to be done? Because that is laying the predicate for my next question.
>> given that so much has been done over the past couple of years, there's not really a whole lot more to do unless you want to go back and reinvent the wheel, so to speak, on the ordinance. We've got an ordinance in place, if it just comes down to adding the type 1 through 4 landfills in there, that's not very much work at all. If you want to go back and look at receptors and receptor distances and sort of reevaluate the whole thing in light of landfills, that would involve more work.
>> where I'm going is that as we've seen over and over again on this issue, this sucks up a lot of time and energy, not only from the county attorney's office, but over at tnr and john, believe it or not they have other clients besides this particular item and I know i've got one or two things, private public partnership, if I don't see that as an agreement out pretty soon, and I don't want to get it pushed back because once again we've allowed, you know, opened the door and all of a sudden we don't have any attorney time, but I think -- we all may have our own version of the well's branch agreement, we need to get out of county attorney's office before we open that door and if we can kind of tie up some loose ends on some projects so that the appropriate time and energy does get dedicated to this but we don't have a lot of other things that are sitting there waiting to come out of tnr and the county attorney's office. Because we've got bond projects and other kinds of things that are on hold because of the amount of time this thing has already taken. And that is just my little project. I'm sure others might have things that they would like for get out of.
>> I think joe can probably tell us a little better about in a.
>> because I -- yeah, I mean i've devoted a lot of time to this, but are there some things that need to get out of the barn?
>> campaign is moving along, I can't say the landfill has blocked everything. I mean we're continuing to do business. Sometimes it's not time that it's getting out. It's a struggle to keep everything moving at the same time. I think the landfill ordinance itself is probably from tnr's perspective, probably less time than the landfill siting study. It's going to take a level of commitment probably way greater and getting the ordinance settled and out the door. I can't spoke for the tom, but I think tom has a pretty good perspective on the additional work needed to complete the ordinance and I think he drew an accurate picture of that. I didn't think we would take a lot of extra time for tom -- and tnr to finish that effort. And I understand your comment about the other contracts and there are multiple contracts out there that are in one state or another that need to be finished.
>> the other one out there, we're fixing to hit the new round of applications to the bcp for federal grant money and that is huge and there's a trip to washington, d.c. At the end of the March. There are deadlines specifically related to -- trying to pull more 37 million we've already pulled down to the bcp. That is a big deal item.
>> you've never been to western dc, right? Don't even think about going this year. That was just mentioned. Commissioner Sonleitner is not...
>> no, we're going to hold Gerald's plans to go to dc this year.
>> those are my two big ones. Melinda's time related to bcp and everybody's else on bcp and the private public partnership document.
>> yes. On that regard we have a draft contract that is in the hands of the attorneys of the private parties.
>> are you finished, Commissioner?
>> yes.
>> tom, I guess what I need to ask y'all in that regard, because where were y'all when we left off? I think the judge illustrated it pretty clearly, but we end up adopting a solid waste siting ordinance that exempted -- took out the language that covered landfills but there were two -- you know, several versions, versions with the language and a version without the language, and I -- I feel that that since we already have invented the wheel, in other words the language that actually includes landfills was in the ordinance, how much time would that take to just bring that back as far as what we have looked at and reviewed on several occasions? What kind of time would we -- what kind of time would be invested on your end to reintroduce that version that included landfill coverage in the ordinance itself?
>> Commissioner, it's on the computer. It's a matter of, you know, pulling up microsoft word and clicking on print. If you want to go with where we left it off. I would give you one thin to think about, I think it's what y'all were thinking about when we left that off and sit is this set of receptors and this set of receptor distances appropriate for a type 1 municipal landfill. I mean I think you reached the point where it was appropriate for the sludge and compost sites because they don't take a lot of acreage and you can have a fairly restrictive ordinance and still leave those people land in Travis County where they can go site a facility. I don't know that the same can be said of a type 1 municipal landfill because it requires so much more acreage. So if you're about to embark on an effort to go look at sites for type 1 landfills, be aware that if you adopt the ordinance, then you may be narrowing down the number of sites that are feasible from day one. So that's one thing to think about.
>> rite. But I guess my whole point, though, is having the regulation or having the ordinance in place, and also looking at the possibility of proposed expansion possibilities that they are probably suggesting now at the current landfill site and I don't think any -- none of us would be willing to go there as far as allowing expansion. So that's something that I really -- and I think the landfill operators were in good faith I think wanting to see where we want to go as far as the landfill regulations, as far as what we were going to do from Travis County before they submitted either apply for expansion permit, and I guess I need to ask them, the landfill operators, what are they pursuing? I guess at this point i'll be more comfortable to see the direction I need to go if this is really the case and right now I don't really know if this is the case or not, so I guess if I can hear from those persons it would be appropriate to see exactly what they're trying to do and hopefully still under the auspices of moving out of the existing location. So if b.f.i. And w.m.i. Would maybe come and make some comments on that, I really would appreciate it. The two 290 landfill operators.
>> you're asking when they file the applications to expand?
>> yes, sir.
>> are y'all in a position to...
>> is that anything that can be disclosed at this time? I don't really know. But we need to have some type of understanding here. I guess the first person, though, is that do you have -- the first question is do you have any objections to the earlier, and I guess you didn't have any objection to the earlier motions of the county getting involved with other counties to assist you in the relocation efforts to a regional concept to move out of the 290 landfill site. Is there any objections on y'all at this time to do that?
>> no, there is no objection to seeing if there's some better way to relocate, to locate a new site, and that can involve relocating from where we are. We have no exception to the concept at all, sir.
>> if my memory serves me correctly, in the solid waste summit we had a few months back, it was disclosed at that time that a greenfield, in other words a new landfill site would basically take about five years to go through the permit process and also the acquisition of property. Is that basically pretty accurate? And I remember the statement being made at that time from 5 to 7 year, is that basically accurate, through the whole process?
>> I -- I -- I'm a lawyer who spends a lot of time permitting landfills. The fastest it's ever been done is three years. The longest is fourteen. If it's uncontested, it's five to six.
>> okay.
>> if it's contested it's 8 to 10.
>> okay. Okay. Could you repeat that real quick, I'm sorry, I didn't write that fast.
>> in my range of experience, permit a landfill between 3 and 14 -- it takes between 3 and 14 years.
>> okay. And the reason I posed that question to you was because my next question is going to be the possibility of you applying for a permit to expand and if that is the case, then is there anything that you can share with us on that particular...
>> let me clarify my last answer. The three years have always been in the nature of amendments to existing sites.
>> oh, okay three years...
>> when you try and find a greenfield site, the first thing you have to do is find it. The second thing you have to do is acquire it.
>> right.
>> then you go through the business of attempting to evaluate its geologic and other environmental features and you go through the business of putting together the application. Then you go through the business of the public notice opportunity for public hearing. It is common to have a public hearing, which is like a trial. It's also common for all of the decisions in that process to be appealed. It's very uncommon that that process takes less than six years. Most likely closer to ten. Scwoo okay.
>> okay.
>> the question on the other end as far as the permit.
>> we're in the same spot we were a year and a half ago. We are honoring our commitment to the county to not -- to forbear from filing anything in a continuing effort to try and figure out some way to reach an accommodation with the county and all parties. As we said a year and a half ago, we could have filed our application then. We had no present intention to file the application unless we're forced to.
>> okay. How much life capacity, and I'm sure it varies, do you have at that site without expansion?
>> concernly permitting capacity is 6 to 7 years.
>> 6 to 7 years?
>> yes.
>> all right. And with expansion capabilities, how much would life -- additional life would that be?
>> it of course depends upon the volume of the expansion that we pursue and the waste volume that we receive in the landfill, but we're planning on ten to 12 years of capacity being pursued under the expansion that we're currently considering.
>> so an additional five years that...
>> an addition of ten to 12 years on top of the existing 6 to 7 years.
>> so maximum probably 19 years? If you were to go with the 7?
>> that's correct.
>> okay. Does that hold true for both landfills? B.f.i. And also w.m.i.? The same question.
>> we can only respond for b.f.i.
>> okay.
>> I guess -- I guess let me direct the same question to w.m.i.
>> john joseph representing waste management and steve jacobs.
>> john?
>> was the question number one would we support the second motion, the effort of the county to try to locate greenfid sites?
>> yes.
>> the answer to that is we'll be happy to work with...
>> for the regional vote to move?
>> no.
>> to relocate.
>> we will be happy to work with the county to come up with locations for greenfield site.
>> yes. Greenfield site, right, which is a new site.
>> that's correct.
>> greenfield. For those folks that are viewing this, green field means a new landfill, a new site totally. Also can you tell me what is your capacity that your current site without expansion life capacity?
>> just a second, Commissioner. My name is steve jacobs with waste management.
>> how are you doing?
>> doing fine today.
>> good.
>> currently, once again, as ray said earlier, a lot of our capacity when you give you years is based on what people send to us so I'm going to give you a range, right now from your last capacity survey we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 years currently permitted at the Austin landfill.
>> 10 to 12 years? Okay. With the possibility of applying for an expansion, how many additional years would that application as far as life factor be as far as expanding.
>> the parcel of land that we have been looking at and that we have talked to most if not all of the Commissioners about is still in the preliminary design phase so we do not know exactly how much capacity we could get off of that piece of property. We would estimate right now somewhere in the range of ten to 12 years as well. It's very similar size piece of property that we're on now.
>> so the 10 to 12 years is on top of the existing capacity?
>> yes. And once again, that is a very preliminary estimate. We have not done any of the technical work that is required for the permit.
>> okay. Okay. I basically -- the court members may have some questions of you gentlemen.
>> I have one.
>> yes, sir.
>> go ahead, sir.
>> any idea when you may file your application to expand?
>> the first portion of the application -- first off, if I could, we have actually been working through some of the preliminary permits which john joseph's group has been working for for over a year now.
>> okay.
>> the first parts, parts one and part 2 of the tceq permit would possibly be ready to go in in the next two weeks to 30 days at most. We have not made a decision as of yet to submit those to the state but they would be basically ready to go in and that is not the technical portion of the permit application, it's more or less the land use application.
>> the land use application constitutes filing an application to expand, though?
>> yes, it does.
>> with the additional -- if your permit was granted for expansion, the total number of years of capacity that you would have there would be approximately I guess 24 years with the current capacity that you have now, plus the expanded capacity that you are suggesting; is that correct?
>> once again, Commissioner Davis, we don't have the technical information in order to accurately determine what capacity you could have in a landfill. You have to do sub surface geotechnical work, soil borings and the like and we have not done that portion. That's what happens before parts three and four are submitted. Once we get those started, then we would be able to sit here and tell you exactly what capacity we would be generating with the expansion.
>> okay. If the county is successful working with the capcoand all of others involved in finding a new site for both the b.f.i. And also w.m.i. Landfill operators on the 290 east site, and that was done expeditiously, would you have any objections in jumping on board in an expeditious matter to get out of the 290 eastland fill site? Would you have any objection to that?
>> , that is a decision that has to be made by those higher up in the process than we. I think that -- I know that we're willing to work with the county as we said earlier in that endeavor, but I don't think that we are in a position right here right now to answer that question.
>> okay. That's fine. I understand. And I guess my next point, though, is that -- and I guess maybe I didn't understand your response when the judge asked this question. When are you going to safely file your permit or what is the timeliness of that, and the process before granted. I know you've got experience through that process, you know, the public hearings and all the other things involved. My point is when are you anticipating on doing just that.
>> yeah. As I told the judge, Commissioner Davis, our parts 1 and 2 of the tceq permit would be ready to submit -- the earliest would be in about two weeks and the latest would be about 30 days.
>> okay. B.f.i., What about you?
>> the same answer. We -- we have no intention of filing our application at this time. If we are obligated to in order to protect our rights, we will, but we don't have a time frame.
>> bob...
>> if we were to file -- if we were to basically host to adopt a siting ordinance covering type 1 landfills that would put greater pressure on you to file the application to expand?
>> yes, sir, you would -- I believe you would force us to file an application in order to outrace your ordinance.
>> you would have more discretion if we do not -- well, up to the time that we in the case that we are moving toward adopting siting ordinance for landfills?
>> yes, sir, there's clearly more discretionary ability on our part and negotiating ability if we're not under that gun.
>> sorry about that Commissioner.
>> that's all right, judge. That was -- that was a question that I was -- that -- and I guess -- and I guess I would like to hear from the residents. I think a lot of stuff has been uncovered at this time from the two landfill operators, but I think I need to hear from the persons that are being affected by this because it has just appeared right now that what we're looking at. We're talking about if the expansion -- the permits to expand are granted and I guess even under certain conditions by w.m.i. On that design and other things, we don't know, we still could be talking about a mks mum of 25 years at that -- maximum of 25 years at that site. Current site. 24 years to mike, I guess. And then along with b.f.i., If your permit is granted and things of that nature, we're talking about 19 years at the current site, so it's almost like it's not undermined but then again maybe undermining the relocation evers. That's why I asked this question: if the county moved in the direction of relocation and we find a couple of good greenfield sites and relocate down on the road to those site, would you be willing to discontinue your life expansion capacity on your current capacity and also your expanded capacity if tceq does grant to permit? And I think that is a very important question. Are you willing to do that?
>> we -- we are willing to talk to the county very seriously about exactly what you have in mind.
>> okay.
>> and I guess b.f.i., I guess you offered that earlier, but I think that it's no advantage unless you guys are willing -- unless you operators are willing to cooperate and I guess I need to...
>> judge, let me -- as we stated earlier, we're more than willing to work with the county in the endeavor that you're imbarking on, but we are not in a position to answer the question that you asked earlier if we're willing to accept that.
>> I understand.
>> that is a decision that has to be made by the corporation and...
>> okay.
>> please don't misunderstand us. We're happy to of ourselves in the search but we can't make that decision right here or right now and I don't believe b.f.i. Or anybody else can.
>> it would be good if you can get that information to us from the corporate...
>> I think that has to be made through the process. I think that the determination of the life of this landfill is a corporate decision and I think that where and to what extent waste management locates another landfill is a corporate decision and both of those things have to be made not in this room. They have to be made by the corporation.
>> right, but I think -- scwoo we're willing to work with you in that regard.
>> that's good. I'm glad to hear you say that and I'm not putting up a barrier on the things that you're saying, but what I'm saying is that we can place those kind of things on the table as we are discussing them today so we can go the direction for you to bring these particular landfill to closure on 290. And I guess I really would like to see what the reside didn'ts are saying after this particular testimony and hear what the residents around the landfill are actually saying on what you have commented on. So if I could hear from them, I would appreciate it.
>> i've got a quick question before the operators. May I ask a quick question before these guys leave. Because I don't want there to be unrealistic expectations. Let's just say we can get to a place where the landfills do not expand and there's a new site or sites found elsewhere. Is it not logical to assume in a one or both of those landfills will be used as transfer station to that new landfill or landfills?
>> it's -- it's logical to assume that a transfer station would be placed on the landfill. I don't know where the transfers would go to. But it is logical that a transfer station would be there.
>> the reason I brought that up is that in discussions with the previous executive director out at tceq, there were some unrealistic expectations in other counties and citing thinking the landfill is going away, and the reality is it doesn't go away because every single one of those, a transfer station took the place of an ongoing landfill operation and that brought a different set of issues and discussions still with the neighborhood, but I don't want the neighborhood to think that just because this may go away that somehow nothing related to this kind of an operation would be happening on that site because that is what normally does occur is a transfer station still is there and that is just a different set of things for the neighborhood to know about and think about. But the idea that it's just this rolling green area and nothing happens, generally does not occur. Tceq grants them to be converted into a transfer station.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> that -- that -- that is correct. A transfer station takes up about five acres and a landfill takes up about 360.
>> there's still truck traffic. I don't want there to be unrealistic activity.
>> there's transfer station activity associated with a transfer station.
>> good. Before the guys get away, I mean I think that this exercise is ridiculous. I mean I think that it is just absurd. The land fill people are in the business to collect garbage, to make money. The only reason that these landfills are not going to file for expansion is if their -- if they don't have business. Quite honestly, guys, I'm willing to have whoever it is with w.m.i. And whoever it is with b.f.i. From phoenix and from houston or wherever they are, get them here. I mean I don't need the attorneys -- and I know you want to bill hours, but I don't need -- but I mean I don't need this to continue here, guys. And I realize, john, that you can't answer that question, nor can you, paul. You can't answer that question and the only way -- I mean we are bear hunting with a switch with you guys because the tceq is the one who controls you. We can monkey with you. We cannot sign a contract with you for a year. We cannot do some of these things, but it doesn't make any difference. And, you know, I understand. I think that you clearly -- and maybe if I were on the board of waste management or on the board of b.f.i. I would say I'm in the business to make money for my stakeholders and for -- because that's what you own the business to do. We understand that. And I do think that unless we just find a way to, you know, we're just not going to do business with either party that is going to put garbage out there and i'motes inly for that because I want to put garbage somewhere. But for us to continue these kind of dialogues where we understand, I mean I connect the dots. I mean the dots are, I mean, here is what it is, guys. I mean if you do this, then we're going to file an mix. Mix -- application. Because we've got to get in there so we can make sure that we have the right to expand. We've got somebody over here that doesn't want the thing here next Thursday, not ten, 12 years from now, so I'm not interested in going through all of this knowing that we really don't have the ability to do anything with you guys for the next 6, 8, 10, probably up to 15 or 18 years. So I mean I would really like to have people with the company that are from the headquarters to come here and say, "this is our intent." I mean because I'm getting offended that i've got to go through this process knowing that y'all can't give it. I'm not mad at you guys. You can't give us the answers. But corporation -- I mean somebody in that corporation can come to Austin, Texas, and say, "here is how we feel about this. If we can expand, it's cheaper for us to expand and keep this as long as we can." And the only way that I think that you're going to go away or that you're going to consider going to another site is that you don't get a business and, I don't know, it may not be Travis County's business. I understand that the city of Austin has resisted doing business I guess it's with waste management or at least some of the stream that has come to waste manage. But, gosh, guys, I mean this process is just -- I mean is so laborious, and I don't think it's getting us anywhere. You talk about brain damage. It really is. I don't want to put you guys in any more of a spot that I'm being put in this spot to do the inevitable, which is just watch y'all click along and file your expansions when you know that it's right to file your expansions and as long as you think you can comply with tceq, i've said for a long time, our real battle if we want to go to battle with y'all is before tceq, it's not with y'all. I fully expect you to stand your ground and say we're in the business, this is what we're going to do. The reason -- that may not be to y'all, but it's to everybody in this room. I don't know where we're getting. I'm certainly in favor of going and finding where there are other locations so somebody can say, you know what, you can put one over there and you can put one over there and you can put one over there, then it's a matter of getting you all to come to the table and say you know what, we're willing to go over there. Given that it's a lot cheaper for you guys to operate if you can get extensions. And at this stage I think that y'all can get extensions. I mean from everything that i've seen so far, tceq, every time i've asked them, they've backed away from saying, you know what, we're going to make sure they don't get the extensions. I honestly think you're going to get the extensions that you want and we're going to spend 40, $50,000 which I'm fine with that, I think we can get enough money from enough people that it doesn't hurt anybody and I want to be able to tell tceq you know what, we went out and did a study and there are other places to go so i'm...
>> let me take one minute and lay out that next sub item. Request for Travis County to assist with axis of sites for new landfills. At this point I don't know that we've ever taken a position that we would help our northeast Travis County landfills identify and acquire two different sites, and in this sub item basically I'm asking the court to consider doing that and this is the deal-sweetener. I can understand that the landfill operators need a landfill somewhere, and my thinking is that if we can facilitate identification and acquisition of two new sites, then it would helps and also help them. And I have left -- left open there as to exactly what Travis County's assistance would be and my inclination would be that basically it would be that we would do whatever is necessary, and if that means basically buying the land and turning around and selling to it landfills or leasing it, then we would do that too. It's difficult for landfills to acquire multiple sites from different land owners, and our leverage and advantage would be that as a governmental entity we would have condemnation authority which they do not have. The other thing is that if you start buying up land typically if the sellers are not motivated hen you end up -- then you end up paying probably many, many times what the value is, whereas doing the condemnation proceeding I'm convinced that we pay more than the value but at least you have special Commissioners there who are supposed to look at appraisals and make an objective determination for you. So, we're used to doing that, not used to doing it for landfills, but county projects, road project, park project, building projects, we've done that numerous times since i've been here. It's not new and different. What is knew about it is acquisition of land for landfills. That is a deal sweetener that we have not discussed before. It would get county -- get Travis County actively involved in identification and acquisition of suitable sites for the first time, but I'm thinking that the public purpose is obvious and I think the average Travis County resident when apprised of the full facts would understand our willingness to go in this direction for a change. I mean I think what it means for landfills is probably simplifying acquisition and probably enabling you to acquire a new landfill at less the cost, less the hassle than what it's cost you historically. It's a greenfield is what I'm thinking about basically. The handful of previously county and city-operated landfills that I knew about are really just real real small and I'm thinking that if you go in this direction, you really ought to acquire enough land to give you an adequate buffer where you have reasonably that for at least a few decades you will not have immediate neighbors. The other thing that I have become kind of more an more convinced that we probably ought to go back to the legislative session legislature and ask for some land use authority where there are certain kinds of projects that probably can be a whole lot closer to landfills than residential developments. To date, though, the county does not have any authority to regulate, that and my guess is that if other urban counties are going through the same pains taking deliberations that we are, then it may be something that others want to see happen anyway. I thought I would lay that out, see if y'all have any responses to that before you leave those.
>> I have a response, judge, both you and Commissioner Daugherty. The first Commissioner Daugherty. An awful lot of what you said is true and I agree with it. But I want to clarify that I come to the table with authorization from corporate to pursue concepts like you're talking about.
>> okay.
>> so I'm -- you can talk to me and I do have authority. And I think the idea of working together to try and come up with a solution that will put us somewhere else in an appropriate period of time, and that is yet to be identified, will help us, will help neighbors and will provide long-term waste disposal solutions of the county and the region and the same thing I submit would be said on behalf of and for waste management, although I don't speak for them and have not talked to them about this idea. [inaudible]
>> I think I'm done, sir, yes.
>> okay. I guess-- the point that you brought up and I think the item d of this, the county assisting and as a deal sweetener as the judge suggested, acquisition of a site, a greenfield site, I think is something that we can look at. But also, my recollection in the things that I have heard you comment on, as far as the breakdown of the number of years that it would require for you to relocate...
>> to acquire permit. And working all of this in the -- in the confined that you would be able to acquire a permit within the time frame of the lifetime of the capacity that you have there now, an example you said that you had a without expansion, you have a life capacity of 6 to 7 years with the aggressiveness that the Commissioner's court, if the Commissioner's court decides to go this direction, especially with the deal sweetener that the judge brought up, acquisition of property to bring about a greenfield, that process maybe would fit into the realm of you vacating that site, be in a new site within a six to seven year time frame without expansion. . Clear.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>> ...so again, if that's something that you consider doing, with item number d on this -- on our agenda today, it may be something that we can visit. But, again, I still would like to hear basically from the residents as we have gone thus far.
>> may I say one thing?
>> yes, sir.
>> everything would be on the table as far as we're concerned, and Commissioner, the decision of a green field site and whether or not it would -- waste management would be in a new green field site you have to understand would be made by corporate level above -- what we're saying to you now is that we're willing to participate with you and work with you and try to help identify those sites. Everything is on the table. The -- the life of the landfill now, the life of any expansion that might be obtained in a permit. We're willing to work with you all across the board on that. The nuts and bolts of it, the dollars and cents of it have to be made at a different -- at a corporate level and not here. And once we determine where the green field sites are, if we do.
>> john, I think that you -- I agree, and I understand that you are saying that, hey, we're willing to work with you guys on finding locations. Let's cut to the chase. Here's what I want. I want somebody from waste management to come and sit in that seat right there and say you all do this study, you go and you find alternative areas for us to go, and we will not permit, we will not ask for an expansion permit and we will move. That's what I want.
>> what I'm saying is we might be able to have a corporate person here that says in spite of obtaining a permit, we might not use that permit if you find us another green field site. I'm going further than what you are saying.
>> let's get them here.
>> if I could, Commissioner, part of the problem, and you mentioned this as a mind numbing exercise and I agree with you, you are talking about a 30-county area of the part of the waste business is transportation. If you find us these nice little sites that are 100 miles away, we have to put in a transfer station. By the time we go through all the expense, we'll basically be out of business in the Austin market. So what you are asking us to recommend to corporate office is come over here and sit down and agree to buy a pig in a polk for lack of a better term. Once there's more delineated areas, then we can start looking at it. And as john said, everything is on the table as far as we're concerned. We can sit down and negotiate if there's an economically viable alternative that isn't a death sentence for waste management, we'll look at it. En I do have a little more authority than I tell john about. You know, before the corporate guy comes there, he's going to be yelling at me to see what the answers are, where we should go, we need to have more information.
>> steve, I understand the business part of this thing. It's probably the one thing i've been the most consistent with in being if you can find, you know, any sympathetic notion in all of my ranting and raving, it's that I understand that you all are a business. And I understand that you all are in the business to do something that all of us do which is, you know, put garbage out. I'm not -- I don't miss that point. And I certainly would understand it if somebody said, you know what, we can't take our garbage to bellville. I mean, it's just geographically undesirable. We would be upside down, and so you are right, we would be out of business. I'm really asking if we find something, and I think that there are enough spots that we probably will be able to find that will be something where people have to pay some more, I think that that's the case. And would I as an elected official go you know what, you've got to pay more for your garbage because that's what it takes in order to dispose it. And that's what we're asking people to do. So don't think that I'm asking you to come in here and to find a spot or find a way where I'm forcing you out of business. That's not what I'm looking for. And I do think that you all are honest whenever you say we'll participate in this pwraus you -- because you know what, sooner or later we know we've got to do that and we've got some partners to help us identify with that. You all know the squeeze we're in right now is the real issue is everybody is nervous about you all being able to go to tceq and get expansion permits. That's what this whole thing is. That's really -- and that's where we are uncomfortable because we know if you do that, then, heck, we're in -- I guess the fortunate thing is I don't think i'll be up here in 19 years, but, you know, this conversation will continue to go on. So I would like to know just point blank if you know what? If we could be out of here in a time frame where we didn't have to ask for an expansion and it was a spot that weould still operate and still operate cost effectively, then you got our attentio we know that's what you all want as a county and we certainly know that's what the residents want.
>> part of the strategy that I have in mind is that we would like partner with you to take this long list of potential sites and narrow it to the best ones based on your criteria and your needs. See what I'm saying? So it's not like the county would just go out and start acquiring land. We would work together to target specific sites from the list of potential sites and hopefully end up with -- we will help you do what you would do if you were doing it alone, but we would have the condemnation authority, hopefully, to facilitate acquisition, from the way I see it. So if the sites do not meet your needs, we would just strike it from the list. I'm thinking that list would be long enough even after all the strikes are made it would still be an adequate number for us to choose from. But I which I the misdemeanor is right, though, he would -- the Commissioner is right, we would become phof actively involved in exchange for the landfill's willingness to relocate to a new site and leave northeast Travis County. Otherwise we're not getting anything done. But what I'm hearing is that you just don't go out and -- you don't permit one overnight. And if we're going to do this, that's why I put it on the agenda, seems like in view of the years that it takes to identify, acquire, get permitted, if we're going to do it, the time to start is now.
>> judge, we set aside during budget 100,000, and there's a budget amendment, we've still got 98,000 in that reserve related to solid waste. What were the other activities that we thought might be charged against that? Terms of -- against that in terms of --
>> we thought we may spend on the siting. We thought the consultant may take a little bit more money. Then we had a attention. John?
>> well -- a contingency.
>> you will actually see in I think the second and perhaps third pages of the handout melinda gave you, if you really get serious about siting landfills, it quickly becomes a real estate endeavor. And so that you are looking at options on land, you are looking at -- at least preliminary geotechnical to evaluate the depth of clay and those kind of things to determine whether or not it's -- from a big picture perspective even worth looking into further. Those are the real nitty-gritty things we would get down to.
>> so we have a certain amount of money.
>> if we move in this direction, I think we'll need that money. That's why I was hoping to hold on to it a little longer.
>> we've got at least some money to be brought to the table related to trying to accomplish some other things.
>> right. Anything further? Let's hear from the residents and others who would like to give comments today. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you. My name is trek english. And I'm here to comment on some of the statements that have been made in the last half hour, I guess. I don't know where to start. I'll start at the comment by Commissioner Sonleitner. Yes, we are very aware of what can possibly happen in the future. The transfer station concept has been laid out many, many years ago by the city of Austin when the original contract came about. It's also been discussed again with the landfills that other -- at other meetings we've had with them, both of them, in fact, I think even t.d.s. Is part of this process of a transfer station. So we're very aware of what can happen. We're also very aware that there is a concept of brown field. And in many cities, landfills such as these have been reclaimed and the land has actually been donated by the landfills to government entities where there has been development. Not so much housing development, but other types of development to help recoup some of the costs of the land. The gentle green rolling hills is a concept that waste management put forward to us in 1990 with a nice video when they wanted to get their second expansion. So I know what the rolling children down the hill with the flowers looks like. The -- on the comment that Commissioner Daugherty made, yes, I understand they are in the business of making money. I understand that. And they aren't making money. They have made enough -- they have made an obscene amount of money and they are still making a lot of money because if you look at the briefings today, waste management announced they are going to open their waste to energy plant which will bring in additional money from a portion of the site that they presently are in that will no longer be able to be landfill. So that section of their landfill, which is around 200 acres or so, will keep generating money for them for many, many years in the future based on what's emanating out of the landfill. So I don't think that they are losing money -- they would be losing money immediately in the context of not having a place -- having a landfill that doesn't generate any money for them. What I am concerned about is-and I'm outraged at waste management's position. They are not playing fair and square. We're just asking them to play fair and square. We've been dealing with this, especially waste management, since at least 1998 with the site having problems with industrial units, with their proximity to the walnut creek tributary, with many, many aspects of their site, and the fact they had never bothered to put trees in time to shield their present expansion from the neighbors. And here we are one more time, not only did they enter the expansion three or four years ahead of their promised date, but they are now talking about expanding again, and I don't think this expansion is needed at this point. I think it can wait. We all know that they are trying to purchase land. But they can wait. They can wait. We are all serious and talking into finding them a location so they won't have to lose business. Instead, they are out there saying, well, we're going to get our permit, which is not even a permit, a land use application is not a permit. You have no idea of what impasse that application could have on the land. Absolutely none. A land use application is just a buzz word. You don't get the actual idea of what an impact, what kind of environmental impact that expansion will do to that site, and so I think that one of the things that the legislature and the state and other government entities should ask is that they no longer be just part 1, part 2 landfill applications filed first. [indiscernible] you can go on. There's more -- there's more involved to a decision to grant a land use application. So I will ask waste management today to play fair and square and work with us in trying to find a new location. There's plenty of time if things don't turn out all right for them to file that application and have the -- the necessary data [indiscernible] they are filing for this application. But I did -- at this point I think it's premature and it's typical of their attitude of we are waste management and nobody tells us what to do. And thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> you basically are in agreement as far as what was done out of a, item b, and also item d on the agenda today?
>> right now, Commissioner Davis, I think that b.f.i. Is trying very hard of playing with this concept of perhaps finding them a new location. Regardless of what is being said in their own company, they are at least trying to make an effort to work with the neighbors, work with the county, work with the city. Waste management is not. And I think it's time that we lay it on the table that this company cannot do business in Travis County if it cannot play fair and square with the rest of the county and the residents in the county.
>> okay.
>> we don't have any need for that company in this town.
>> okay. Thank you for your comments, trek. Thank you.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
>> good afternoon.
>> I know this has been a mighty frustrating experience, and one of the things I find most frustrating is we have to sit down here and listen to misleading and misrepresenting -- misrepresentations. I think you all can look back at the information we got about year and a half ago at the expansion at the w.m.i. Site and you will see they have 24 years expected. We just heard a moment ago, I think it was 12 years. And steve, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the amount that you are going to get per year has doubled in the last year and a half and so that is only going to last 12 years, but we were led to believe this was a 25-year expansion when we were discussing it a year and a half ago. And I think in calling it a 11- or 12-year expansion, it makes it sound like it's something small. It's not. If the original document we got is accurate, in the year 2040 we'll still be landfilling 7.5 miles from the state capitol of Texas, which is insane and disrespectful to the state of Texas. But also in terms of transportation, if this transportation, we keep hearing about transportation being very critical to costs, controlling costs in the landfilling business. If it is so crucial, why weren't these folks looking out for their businesses like they should have been 10, 12 years ago when land was more read lay available looking for a potential site that's close by that would work instead of waiting to the last second, assuming they can slam through their expansions at their site that they are in right now. They are just abusing us at a county. Not just the northeast Austin residents, they are abusing the entire county. I agree with trek, at some point we have to go do we really want to be doing business with these people. And they should -- bobby found a close-in site that's very, very large and gives him a lot of potential for a long time coming. He's not going to be worried about transportation for about 50 years, I don't think. And so if we go through this process and spend taxpayer money determining new sites and it's obvious from that paul said that they say four and a half years or so in the permitting process by having an uncontested thing in addition to being able to purchase land at possibly more reasonable rates and that sort of thing and having a more guaranteed, you know, final out come to the process, then perhaps we should not be doing this with letting them know that they are going to absolutely get the sites when it's done. Maybe we need to start looking for somebody new, you know. And if waste management can't get somebody down here to let us know if they are interested in looking at what the county wants to look at as a solution to this problem, in other words, they want to start -- if they can't get somebody down here to come to the table with us and talk, then maybe it's time to bring somebody new in.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Mrs. Mcaffee.
>> I just had a few comments. One, on the transportation issue since that was discussed, just to bring up that, you know, it works both ways. That garbage also is coming a long way. So that wasn't exactly clarified. And then the other thing which came out at the very end, I don't know if -- I would just like to hear it again or say it again that it is my understanding that what the county is offering is to help find land and offer the condemnation procedures if they do not expand. And do not go for their expansion. So I just wanted to clarify that, and say it one more time for the record. And also I think in the same breath, for how long is that offer on the table and how long do we play these games, especially knowing that they plan to go on with their expansion anyway. So I would like to know how long the county plans to -- to have the offer out.
>> ms. Mcaffee, you know I definitely oppose expansion of both of those facilities out on on the 290 east landfill. And since this thing -- it's been on the Commissioners court -- on the item d, it's my understanding that this -- our position is what the county is going to do is look for a site, acquire those sites, and it is my understanding that this will preclude any expansion for those two particular landfills. Now, that's my understanding. Now, I guess understanding what b.f.i. Is saying and listening to what they are saying, they basically have said, and if b.f.i. -- not b.f.i., W.m.i., And, w.m.i., If I'm incorrect, please come to the table and correct me, but it's my understanding you basically have said those are some corporate decisions and you can't make those decisions here and now. But does that mean that you will pursue your permit process for expansion? Because if you have not gotten [indiscernible] and I guess you need an opportunity to do that, we are in a position or in a disposition here where item d on this agenda is not germane as far as what we're really doing here. And if that is the -- get some clarity, I guess. Because if you hold your permit, look, we're not going to expand, I want to work with the county to make sure that the county does us in and the judge mentioned we're in partnership to look for sites for you to locate. Does that mean that you are going to stand? Go ahead.
>> we've got to know what the county is offering before we can make a commitment to do anything. And so you want to present it to me so that we can understand exactly what you are talking about and exactly what time period we're talking about, we're more than willing to entertain that. Everything is on the table. We don't know that right now.
>> okay.
>> my understanding is that would be -- there would be a memorandum of understanding who is -- if we reach an agreement, in my view would be to have both landfills close at the same time. And so part of the negotiations would be when is that time. And the agreement would be basically that we would put in overdrive county helping with the [indiscernible] identifying and acquire appropriate sites. Now, those are big words, identify and akwaoeufrplt after that they've got to get permitted. So I don't see this happening overnight. But I am hoping that through the memorandum of understanding, we will reach agreement on a time certain that we would shoot for. Now, the other thing that's a time certain is us getting tceq's agreement. My guess is that if we agree, then their agreement is probably easy. If we don't agree, then based on what they have said so far, they treat it like an encroachment action. So they would look at specific things that you don't necessarily weigh into it if you have a memorandum of understanding. I was looking at it more as a positive, proactive plan that would be a win-win for the landfills, Travis County residents and also tceq at this point. And that's the importance of the agreement really. But I do agree that there are some specifics that would have to be [indiscernible]. I wanted to introduce the notion of the county getting more actively involved in identifying and acquiring suitable sites for landfills today and using the condemnation authority and when a lot of people read about this in the newspaper tomorrow morning, it's bound to generate, you know, coverage on bob and Sam or Sam and bob. And so what I wanted to do was introduce the idea, give us another week or two to mull over it, then see if it's something we want to do. And if the answer to that is yes, we would sit down with the landfills and try to reach memos of understanding that contain specifics. But I mean the notion of both landfills closing at one time is important to me. I don't know if that's important to the rest of the court. Us doing that regional study, seems to me that has to be done one way or the other. I would do it in such a way as to get capco entities involved because they are part of the problem and also ought to be part of the solution. And I would keep telling them that. So that's how I see it working.
>> judge, you brought up a good point again, and -- but I think I recollect saying one of you, and I don't know if b.f.i. Or w.m.i., Was they was in a certain time line as far as filing a permit. Er in to, acquire a permit to expand. And the comment you just made as far as saying that, look action , we need about a week or couple of weeks to mull over this and bring it back. Now, if that's the case, then I'm wondering if those particular two groups would be willing to hold off and -- as far as filing their applications for expansion until we are able to have a chance to mull over it and get some kind of memorandum of understanding, as you suggested, because it did say a two-week time frame on some of this stuff. So I need to get an answer from them to see if they will actually hold up for a couple of weeks, two or three weeks or whatever so we can mull over this and not apply and not even pursue your permit for expansion. So is that something we can count on, w.m.i. And b.f.i.?
>> well, I think I also hear them saying that they need to count on the county doing something as well.
>> that's true.
>> and so, you know, we're not the entity that moves real fast either.
>> right.
>> and so that concerns me. But regardless of what happens, I i think there's going to have to be a place where the waste that the human beings generate goes. And you know it's going to keep happening. And so whether we go to transfer stations or whatever, let's do something so we can get something done fast here. I mean after three years of discussions, I really think we need to be ready to do something quickly.
>> Commissioner, I can't agree with you --
>> why don't we just try to do something so they will show the county is trying the take steps.
>> but I guess my point is I want to hear from them while we are mulling over this.
>> I'm through mulling.
>> I think as far as the memorandum of understanding that the judge was suggesting --
>> I'm ready to move forward, judge. I'm tired of mulling. [inaudible].
>> you don't pass the county siting ordinance, we have no interest in filing an application. We've had -- we've told you all along we're not going to file an application unless and until we have to. That would be the have to reason. So we're happy to hold off.
>> so can we move forward with trying to take steps to assist with the acquisition of -- or the identification of some land or sites and who is going to work on it?
>> I haven't heard any objection. I didn't know whether -- I thought I had just tossed a softball out there and get some feedback.
>> try to hit a home run.
>> are you making a motion, Commissioner Gomez, on item d?
>> I was going to let you make it.
>> i'll move approval of 27-d, and also that we just heard from the folks that they will not pursue the permit. Enough i've got to ask the residents -- now i've got to ask the residents for expansion purposes, give us a chance to look at that, is there any -- was there a second on that?
>> I second it.
>> was there any problems, anything with 27-d as far as the county pursuing this in partnership to look for a site?
>> no [inaudible].
>> I'm sorry?
>> we fully agree.
>> okay. I wanted to make sure of that.
>> I was out of the room for an emergency. Did we hear waste management say they were going to pull down their expansion if we start working on this? That's the problem here.
>> I thought I heard that.
>> this is a catch 22 on this thing. It's taken us forever to get a siting ordinance in place for type 1, and finally at some point, w.m.i. Says we've got to get moving and if that kicks in, we've got to get a siting ordinance and if that kicks in, b.f.i. Has to do something --
>> w.m.i. --
>> john joseph representing waste management. [multiple voices]
>> one person does something and everybody else has to arm themselves.
>> there is no -- the siting ordinance, if it's passed the way it is, gives us no alternative but to file for permit. I would suggest that we take two weeks and try to come up with the program that the judge is talking about. And we can forebear for two weeks to do that. If we understand and everybody is understands what we're trying to do in two weeks and we have a memorandum of understanding, then we're good to go. If not, then we know where we are.
>> okay. So at the end of two weeks, we bring back a report on how to proceed.
>> that works for me.
>> that will work for me.
>> so that will be a motion --
>> basically we would work towards getting [indiscernible] from a memorandum of understanding.
>> that's correct. The specifics of what we're trying to achieve. What the county is trying to achieve, what you want the landfills to do.
>> okay.
>> specifics.
>> but in the meantime, there will not be no new permits.
>> we will forebear for two weeks.
>> in the meantime --
>> but we have to show too that we're making some progress here finally.
>> that's correct. We'll work with the county. We've worked with the county all along. Thank you very much.
>> any more discussion? So basically it's to proceed under 27-d to try to come up with a memorandum of understanding and in two weeks we bring back whatever we have.
>> yes.
>> specifics what each side is going to do to get to this point.
>> that's the motion.
>> any more discussion? Tom? Commissioner Sonleitner and I already told to you cancel that vacation.
>> I do have a conflict on the 17th if you are talking about. I've got a probate hearing up in grayson county.
>> do they want a landfill? [laughter]
>> they don't want ours. [laughter] they want their own. I can't be here on the 17th if you are talking two weeks.
>> we'll get as much done as we can.
>> move it to three weeks then?
>> you all don't care if it's the 24th.
>> can it be three weeks?
>> three weeks versus two.
>> president's day is in between there too.
>> trek, is that okay with you all? Okay. All right.
>> just so we get moving.
>> as long as [inaudible].
>> that's the understanding.
>> you can beat us anyway because it would have to be posted. You know that.
>> 30 days requirement.
>> we're looking at February 24th, three weeks from today. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. I put oh. There just? Case -- e on there just in case we needed it. There will be other opportunities.
>> you think?
>> anything further today?
>> judge, I would like to personally and publicly thank the Travis County Commissioners court for bringing this item to closure. It's been a long haul. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. Thank you all very much. Thank you, staff.
>> if there is no further business.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:25 AM