Travis County Commssioners Court
March 2, 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 17
Video file not yet available.
17. Consider and take appropriate action on the following solid waste management issues: a. Proposed memorandum of understanding with browning-ferris industries regarding application for expansion at northeast Travis County site and deadline for closure; browning browning reminiscence, reminiscence, b. Proposed memorandum of understanding with waste management inc. Regarding application for expansion at northeast Travis County site and deadline for closure; c. Agreement and other necessary documents to implement regional study in partnership with capital area planning council; and d. Directions on request for proposal for consultant to perform regional landfill study. Tom and I had a little meeting yesterday, tom nuckols we need you down here, my recommendation to tom, I guess tom agreed, if he could hit just the highlights beginning with a, then we would listen to representatives from b.f.i. Then from the residents any responses or comments. About the court as usual jumping in. Then maybe have tom summarize waste management with representatives supplementing or clarifying that presentation and -- then input from residents. Then any other presentations from residents that would be basically residents proposals if there is any. In my view, that's the best way to get through a and b today.
>> who would be the one to add, not a legal question, but really the financial risk shifted to the county from either one of these m.o.u.'s if we are indeed unsuccessful in finding an alternate site. I hope that is not the case. But I need to fully understand what financial risks come to us if people put off delay, et cetera,.
>> I get the landfill representatives --
>> we need to come to a full understanding of that.
>> if county staff has any additional response that would be fine.
>> I don't really. I don't know that that bridge has been fully crossed yet. I think there are folks within the county staff and christian's area and so forth that can help us a great deal with those kinds of questions.
>> describe what you and I yesterday decided was the best way to proceed. Although you were saying amen, amen, I was kind of -- [laughter]
>> I have a side by side comparison of the agreements which I just had to make a challenge to based on new developments -- a change to based on new developments. Should be on its way down. Basically what I tried do was outline -- let me back up. The b.f.i. Agreement is a lot further along than the w.m.i. Agreement. If you will, this started out as appear m.o.u. On the odor study, b.f.i. Was prepared to do the odor study, so we sat down and started drafting a memorandum with them. Then as new ideas were discussed, it morph into this idea of they would -- rather than doing an over study closed by a date certain there would be a cooperative effort. B.f.i. Being further along, what I tried to do was in this side by side, which i'll -- basically take the elements of the b.f.i. Agreement, lay them out. Over in the other column sort of -- [indiscernible] sort of describe where my -- where things stood right now. Literally the wmi agreements, associations, still being at an earlier point. Sort of saying where we are in the wmi so far. But this gives you some idea of the basic elements in the agreement. And -- and where -- so far b.f.i. And w.m.i. Are the same, where they are different.
>> why do you want to walk through this --
>> I had in mind laying out b.f.i. And then later --
>> I can do b.f.i. And then wmi however you want to proceed.
>> why don't we do it that way. So we will see a -- it will be a lot more expeditious that way.
>> okay. Looking in the b.f.i. Column, I think from -- from b.f.i.'s perspective, those first two elements are a key part of the deal. B.f.i. Does want to pursue expansion plans. Of course they are very interested in Travis County not opposing those expansions. So what they are proposing is basically they will enter into a cooperative effort with Travis County to find new sites and whether we find a new site or not, they are going to -- to ceast type 1 operation, with that Travis County would not oppose their expansion with tceq. That's sort of the heart of the deal. The next box, the m.o.u. They have set out objective criteria for what they would consider an acceptable site. It's very helpful and obviously both parties focus on what we need to be looking for. Below that, they would expect Travis County to assist them in acquiring the new site by using condemnation if it's necessary. Now they are also want being to reserve the right to keep a type 4 facility at their current site or a transfer statement. They don't own the land. They lease it from the [indiscernible] family. B.f.i. Is telling us they are under certain legal obligations under that lease. You can't simply walk away from it without basically incurring expenses. You will have to -- you will have to basically buy their way out of that lease.
>> [indiscernible]
>> I don't know how long the lease is. We requested to view a copy of the lease and my understanding from paul gosling, the b.f.i. Attorney is that mr. Mobley does not want to release the lease publicly because he views it as containing proprietary economic information. He does not want this disclosed.
>> [indiscernible] contingent on the lease.
>> then the last box is, of course --
>> go ahead.
>> b.f.i. Will continue to employ the same level of odor control practices and best management practices at the landfill that have result understand the develop in odor complaints sense the year 2002. Just for clarity, related to the expanse plans, is there within their current footprint.
>> it would be within their current footprint. This is basically a vertal expansion only. They are not expanding lat rally. Vertically only.
>> can we get the b.f.i. Reps to come forward. Wim one idea I had yesterday to was to let tom to go to the b.f.i. Headquarters and look at the lease rather sending tom a copy. Did we discuss that possibility with the powers that be.
>> I got ahold of -- thank you, judge, I guess that I say for the record out of habit, I'm paul gosling representing b.f.i. With me today as usual is ray schul and with me today is keith who is the district manager for b.f.i. And Commissioner Daugherty he is the gentleman that gave me the authority to come talk to you last time. But he's here himself this time.
>> I thought you had the authority to give him.
>> well I tell you that, I really had not expected you to say that here on television. [laughter]
>> confused.
>> welcome.
>> thank you.
>> I got ahold of mr. Mobley in the car on his way to east Texas for several days and suggested that there was a request to take a look at the lease. His reaction was I'm not here, I don't have it with me, I believe there's confidentiality problems, I'm certainly not going to agree to it while I'm driving to kilgore so for now the answer is no. Which I don't know that I could have done much about no matter what he said, but that was not -- he was not trying to be unreasonable. He was trying to say hum I'm in a spot where I can't deal with this. Okay? So --
>> to be honest, by the way, the -- we had a meeting with some of the residents on Friday where this came up. Thought about it over the weekend, tom and I chatted on Monday. So I asked paul to try to do this late yesterday. Tom and I missed from like 3:00 to 4:00, so it was kind of a last minute thing.
>> yes. I got him on his cell phone. I don't know what else you would like for me to discuss here. We have a very specific proposal that we have worked out with you and your staff that we think makes sense. I'm happy to answer questions. I heard one question from Commissioner Sonleitner which I heard john kuhl suggest that [indiscernible] could help county answer that question. I think he'sments right that's part of the business arrangement that has not been finalized. Part of the answer is -- is the county is going to be able to feel like they have been made whole through the agreement that would have to be negotiated which would have to take into account the costs of the land. B.f.i. Has offered to pay for all permitting costs. B.f.i. Offered to negotiate a host fee, which is continuing gent upon all of the -- contingent upon all of the costs involved. Higher front end costs equal lower host fees. That's the logical -- if the -- if the county is able to enter into a friendly condemn addition, if they are able to enter into any kind of an option agreement, if there isn't an opportunity for partial acquisition by privates and partial acquisition through condemnation, all of those things can result in lowering any risks to the county.
>> are there any circumstances where that 2017 date could be something less than that. Here's how. Let us say that we are indeed successful in finding a new site. Let us say that that permitting process, we get through it. Is there any way that you all would say we are finished at northeast because we have someplace new to go to and you would not hold us to that 2017 date?
>> let me say that I know that we have two weeks coming up, I think, to talk about further negotiations and we are prepared to talk further about anything that the other side of the table would like to talk about. You being on the other side of the table, we'll talk to you about that. But let me also explain that within the next -- within this year we have to make an application to the tceq for a permit to expand. It has got to be a -- a precise certain because we have to prove up our application with great specificity, if we don't do that, we are at all ambiguous, and we are opposed we would likely lose. In an effort to be sure that we do that right, we are going to have to pick a size. There is a risk that will never be a county acquired site for us, so we have to put together an application that would enable us at the end of the game, there is no county acquired site, to feel like we have -- like we have picked a proper compromise that enables us to get enough business in the door to accommodate that risk and to avoid the risk of having to struggle with how to close the site when we don't have an adequate amount of garbage in it.
>> I'm going to ask the same question of w.m.i., John, be ready for it. I guess what I'm going is, rephrase it in a slightly different way. If we assume we are going to go going on with a parallel path of permission for expansion at the same time that we are diligently trying to find someplace else, and this is proceeding forward, will the expansion plans, if we can hold you harmless financially and whomever, with mr. Mobley or whomever, is there a way that you would back off from what you already have permission to do and/or the expansion. I'm just trying to see if there's anything less than 2017 in terms of a set of circumstance that's could occur that we would not see the full utilization of the northeast site, either what you got for permission for now or could get permission for in the future.
>> there is -- yes. There is -- there is that possibility. It would require -- first of all, that's a new option about reimbursement for an awful lot of expenses that we hadn't -- we hadn't anticipated until we saw the waste management bullet point summary last night. So we haven't had a chance to think through that. So yes that opens up the possibility that there's a workable idea. The idea of having an adequate amount of garage really relates -- garbage really relates to drainage contouring and how you would go about filling the site, whether you would fill it, you know, sort of consistently as you went up or whether you would fill one end higher which would make for more difficult future closures which would require an awful lot of expanse associated with either moving that garbage, which would not be desirable from an odor standpoint or bringing in a very large amount of very expensive dirt. So if we were able to figure out that there was success, imminent, we could adjust how we were filling the landfill. Sop there's -- there are possible ways to do this, but it's not a where he or no answer -- a yes or no answer.
>> being open to it is what I'm wanting toou mentioned someg about before you all go to tceq for your expansion permit and would obviously not like to have the county oppose that. In your opinion, do you think that the county opposing it versus the neighbors opposing it -- just assume that the neighbors are going to oppose it, I'm sure that you do as well. Do you think that tceq holds more weight with the human the municipality opposing your permit versus the neighbors?
>> yes, sir, yes, sir, I do.
>> you do? Okay. They've -- they've indicated that or this is your experience --
>> land use is one of the issues, the local governmental authority who suppresses their opinion -- expresses their opinion as to the adequacy of land use is a very important piece of that testimony. If we had a memorandum of understanding which indicated that you were -- we had reached an agreement on how to go forward, that would be an important piece of evidence.
>> okay.
>> paul?
>> all, at our meeting here a few days ago, one thing that I asked you to do was to talk to the neighborhood association. Did y'all get an opportunity to talk with the neighborhood association?
>> we did not Commissioner Davis. We elected to allow the county to talk first, believing that that was a more appropriate first conversation and after the county had talked we ininquired whether or not they felt that the county, they felt that the neighborhoods would still be interested in talking with us and the answer we got indicated that -- that everything had been discussed and didn't seem to be any further point in that. I'm still now with two weeks to go, if that's something that you would like to have happen, we are still willing.
>> well, I was kind of really concerned that that did happen on the front end and still on the back end of this thing. I think that it's very -- in my opinion it's very necessary and to have that kind of process. But seeing that it didn't happen, I'm quite sure that the neighborhood will have some things to say. I'm going back to this lease, I know that you requested an m.o.u., Of course we have no idea what's in the contents of that lease. It's always been my opinion if you have an agreement with somebody who has a lease, you ought to know what in the heck is in that lease. I'm kind in a funny position not knowing what the contents is or if the lease expire if you decide to break the lease, end up moving out of this area. Now, i've heard several things, trying to put head and tails of it together. I've heard that it takes longer than six years to get a new location, as far as the permitting process. I've heard that it takes approximately three years. No opposition and things like that to -- to go through the permitting process, to tceq and also acquire a new location. I think the ultimate goal is to have these particular landfills to shut down on 290. I think that you all have probably heard that a million times. I'm still concerned about you requiring or looking at an expansion and you don't open the property, you are leasing it and what kind of impact that would be legally not seeing exactly what the confines or contents of that lease is. That's kind of throwing me out there because I don't know what kind of lease it is, I hear you talking about it, but I don't know what's in it. That's really bothering me a lot. I hope you can understand my concern.
>> the tceq has a requirement that the operator of -- of a landfill must have a sufficient [indiscernible] of open which a lease would satisfy in order for them to -- to issue a permit. The owner of the land has to file an affidavit which states that he is aware that the landfill is on his property and it's quite all right with him. And given the take account that mr. Mobley received royalties from us, I assure you that it's quite all right with him. Because mr. Mobley has indicated, you know, that he does not want to discuss the specifics of the lease at this time, I think he would probably like to be present in that discussion. It doesn't have to be here in this kind of forum. It can be in any forum that you prefer. I think that I'm not in a very good position to discuss any of the details except to let you know if you are at all concerned about whether we have the authority to be there, we do.
>> well, I would like to get an ideaing on -- an understanding on the fact that any aggressiveness played on your part, maybe [indiscernible] county participation in trying to locate a new location, have you give very much that any thought? I know we here are to maybe contact date --
>> no, we are -- what we are trading in our mind is the president ability to expand this site for an additional five or six years. At a point in its life when it is -- when it is very profitable quite honestly. For the -- for the greater certainty of having another site for the future. So we are very interested in -- in aggressively working with the county to try to find that site.
>> > well, it's been brought to my attention that the neighborhood associations in that area definitely oppose --
>> pardon me, I didn't understand you, sir.
>> it's been brought to my attention that the neighborhood associations adjacent to you in the area definitely do oppose any expansion of w.m.i. And also b.f.i. But we are talking about b.f.i. Right now.
>> yes.
>> I wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. That's why I kind of wanted y'all to have a little meeting.
>> I am aware of that. I have been aware of that for several years.
>> okay.
>> in fact I think that it's safe to say that the people who have let me know that they are aware of it, we could meet basically anywhere in the cup and know who we are and know what our respective positions are at this point.
>> uh-huh. Last question, you brought up --
>> we've had that workshop, lots of meetings. You know we have worked on this hard together, I think that we are getting an awful lot closer, Commissioner. I really do.
>> well -- okay. Well i'll let the people speak for themselves. But the last question is -- I don't know what the Commissioner court is going to do, I don't know if we are going to take any action on, there I don't really know. But if -- for an example, if the Commissioner court does not agree with this m.o.u., Understand that you basically will just go and buy your permit to expand, tough do it anyway.
>> well --
>> for expansion purposes.
>> what we would do is make an application, file our application and be prepared to go through the contested case hearing process and owe on and it would be our intent to get a permit at the end of that process.
>> that's a given anyway. Regardless what was we do here today. You are going to still have to go to -- according to what I'm hearing that's something that you are going to be doing automatically is because of what you are saying is you are at -- your capacity right now is -- [indiscernible]
>> yes, sir.
>> you are looking for an additional six years or whatever. But that's a given at any rate that you are going to go ahead and file that for a new application for permission for expansion regardless of what the Commissioners court does today or any other day, based on what I'm hearing; shark?
>> the narrow answer to that question would be yes. But the very important difference is we will file an application for a permit which would contain a -- request that a condition be placed in our permit that was consistent with whatever m.o.u. We agreed to. Specifically in this case we would request a condition that said that we stopped taking type 1 waste in 2017. And the reason, again, that we need to file is in the event that there is no other site, if we don't file this year, we'll be in a position where it is foreseeable that a contested case would string out the case long enough that we would have no place to take the garbage. We can't be in that position. But we can be in a position where we work out an agreement with the county and perhaps the neighbors to go forward that can -- with an application for a permit that would contain the conditions that were acceptable.
>> okay. But that does not preclude transfer stations, though.
>> no, sir.
>> in other words, when you say type i, that's one thing. But transportation is just -- would something that still would be accessible or available at that site, is that correct.
>> yes, sir, yes, sir.
>> well, I -- well I -- I'm through for right now. I got a lot of other questions, but I'm frankly at this point I'm kind of to where I want to be as far as asking these questions, but thank you.
>> all right.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> does tceq have a copy of the b.f.i. Contract? The lease agreement?
>> looking at the lease, information -- is that better than -- is that better than -- when -- than looking at the lease?
>> perhaps. I'm -- I'm in a spot where mr. Mobley is not my client. He's a party to this lease. When I asked him, he gave me his answer, which was don't do that now. I'm really not in a position to do that now consequently. But I have tried to describe what I thought were the issues in my meetings with you and your staff.
>> when I was a young man and did a lot more leasing than I do now, every time I lows an apartment there's a copy of the lease and -- the lessor got a copy of the lease and the lessee gets one.
>> he is not only the only one who has a coach the lease.
>> yes, sir, we have a copy of the lease.
>> I have one quick thing related to the lease. Is this an assumption that I should make. The royalties that your company, any company would pay on a type 1 landfill would be more than say on a type 4 landfill? Where I'm going because both of you all are still both w.m.i. And b.f.i. Are both asking for the right to continue to either do transfer and/or type iv. The question is if they still have permission to use that land for type 4, there would be royalties being generated but I don't know if they would be equal to or less than what they are currently getting.
>> that's one of those question that's mr. Mobley would like me not to answer right now.
>> trying.
>> but it is a -- it is a good angle to get in there. But what I could say is leases in general are either done, you know, on the basis of volume or on the basis of type of material. I mean it could be different and it could be the same Commissioner. I'm sorry. It obviously does have an answer in this lease. I am temporarily not in a spot to give you the answer. That's not to say that you won't get it in due course.
>> that's getting to my concerns about how do we hold people harmless related to dollars. If there's still royalties to be paid to a landowner, because there will still be type 4, which is the non-putresible, that lessens the risk to Travis County because one top of operation leaves but another one remain that's is less objectionable to the neighbors.
>> that's -- that's a very good general idea of where this whole thing goes.
>> the reference to two weeks was my thought that what we can do today was to lay these he shoulds out -- lay these issues out, receive all of the comments, try to figure out what additional work needs to be done, have it back on in two weeks. March 16th. Thank you. At the same time, though, I didn't know what the -- what the court [indiscernible]
>> oops.
>> paul asked me what I thought. Do we have any questions or comments from anybody else in the courtroom regarding b.f.i.? Anything regarding b.f.i.?
>> yes, sir.
>> in so please come forward. We may need what a couple of those chairs. Maybe we only need one? Is anyone else coming forward now to give comments on the b.f.i.
>> judge?
>> mr. Shul who is my detail helper reminded me that Commissioner Sonleitner asked a question about the nature of our expansion. Mr. Kuhl said it was vertical only. There is a very limited component of lateral expansion but within our permit boundaries.
>> within the permit boundaries.
>> so it is -- it's 14 acres but it's fully within the permit boundary to be perfectly clear.
>> if one of you will be nearby in the event there are questions that you will be able to answer for us.
>> before I speak, my name is trek english, before I speak, I would pursuit --
>> okay.
>> we basically delivered a document that gives you about five pages to arrive at the last paragraph of page 5, if you want to know where this is leading. Good afternoon, my name is trek english. I'm here on behalf of the northeast action group. A lot of people could not come this afternoon. Joyce best apologized for not being able to attend this meeting. She had an emergency this afternoon. Basically, we are not in agreement with the memorandum of understanding proposed by b.f.i. We have not seen the full proposal by waste management. But it seems that this point after listening to -- to mr. Nuckols that it's basically on the same line. We feel that the proposals are overwhelming, that the premise is -- of this regional siting study or the Travis County study was to -- was to -- to find a location where the landfills could relocate. The least amount of economic damage. And that this would prevent having them force them to file an expansion at their present location. This was not -- I didn't think that the county had put forward the idea of a regional siting study for them to again try to find another door through the process to where the county would agree to their -- their expansion. Sight unseen, without any obstruction and basically bless this expansion which we have been fighting against for the last three or four years. They have tried this approach over and over and over. Whether it was the ordinance, the contracts, the order study and now the siting study. It has been their aim from day 1 and they have not changed courses and they have not in our estimation worked towards an agreement to where the public interest was protected. It is also evident that by this newest memorandum that they have managed to gain even more benefits from entering into an agreement for the county because now they want you to use your powers of imminent domain to guarantee them that if they find a site they will -- they will move -- they will be able to use it as a future landfill location. I don't know how you read their memorandum. But frankly will you please tell me where is the incentive for them to move in that memorandum? Where is it? If they have a -- if they have a -- if they have an expansion already in hand, or going through their process with your sabsolution with the process with tceq, where is the incentive for them to move? There is none. And why should the county engage itself into such expenses, reimbursing them the cost of filing for an application and the cost of land or whatever it is that they have proposed when it would be so much easier if you just postponed or if they just postponed filing their -- their expansion permit and -- until at least we know what's going on with the sites, whether or not -- I mean it's not going to take 15 years or 10 years or five years for us to figure out whether they are going to -- whether there are going to be sites or not. So if they will just have a little patience they would not anchor -- incur any costs and they would be able to work with you as to moving into a new location. You know if -- if it was in five years, the permit is taking longer than they thought, they are going to need something, at that time they could come back and talk to us. But they are not. They want everybody right now in front of the -- in front of them and the whipped cream and the cherry on top. They want it all. Frankly, I don't think that them waiting before they buy more land, apply for any permit or whatever it is that they want to do so they can recoup their cost from you and if they don't recoup their costs they are in place anyway, no, frankly I don't think the taxpayers should pay for them to be so generously compensated for everything that they want. We wouldn't be here today and I keep repeating this at every meeting that we have. We would be here talking about this today -- we wouldn't be if they had not created the mess over the last two or three years with their operational activities at the landfill. They created this problem. And they need to pay for it. And the way they pay for it is their expansion is put on hold until we find out if they can move. At least that much. We find one, fits going to be feasible for them to move, you know, move. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like we are getting -- I don't think that the county is gaining anything about this agreement, I don't think the residents are gaining anything. In fact if you want to dem -- if you want a demonstration in front of this building, that's what's going to happen because I think the residents will be outraged. For some of you that don't, are not familiar with it, yesterday we had almost three agencies on springdale road because of voters, carnage, trucks, misbehaving, the police department was there, the county was there and tceq was there. So I mean there was some serious problems and there's still serious problems. I will add any other comments if you have any question, thank you.
>> trek, as I stated earlier to b.f.i., I wanted to make sure of course they said that they did not have a meeting with the neighborhood on this particular m.o.u. I understand that maybe another two weeks before this comes about a being to the Commissioners courted agenda, but in the meantime could that be a possibility that the neighborhood association could meet with b.f.i. On this particular m.o.u.? Just asking the question there.
>> Commissioner Davis, I can talk with paul anywhere in the country he wants to, [laughter], I don't know that -- first of all, to tell you the truth one side remark, it seems that their relationship with mr. Mobley is made out of egg shells, we can barely get anything out of them, that's number one. Number two, I don't think that they are really willing to discuss not expanding. If they are willing to actually -- actually seriously postpone filing a -- an expansion permit until at least we have an idea of what's going on down there in terms of sites, then I'm willing to talk .but if it's just trying to shove down our throat that they should get an expansion right now because, because, because, because, no. I think that we are wasting each other's time. I would like the court, by the way, I forgot to tell that you, the rope that I'm here is because I would like the court to take this resolution that's before you. I think that you have taken resolutions in the past for capital punishment or whatever. And I think this resolution is reasonable and I think the city of Austin should be approached about signing on and so capco. I think that this should be a postponement of -- of at least a two year period before any permits for -- for expansions are filed, approved, accepted, whatever you want to call it in this county. Not just them. Anybody.
>> if we could go out next week and condemn a piece of property and move them and they could still operate a type 4 landfill in that location, would you be supportive of that?
>> if they could operate a type 4 landfill.
>> where they are.
>> right. But I mean -- when would they start?
>> I mean we can't do -- let's say just I want to know really where you are, I mean, if we can go out and start the process and find a green fill location and we could expedite this thing as fast as we could, if they had the opportunity to file for an expansion, all that was ever going to be there is a type 4 landfill, would you all be supportive of that?
>> frankly, no, because they are -- the city is losing money because they are not getting in enough type 4 waste. There's another huge type 4 waste into the county already. So that would be two. I think type 4 waste is one of the most recyclable of all wastes it should be almost phased out. So I don't see why we should be putting type 4 waste all over the place if it's just going to encumber all of the settlement of the present sites. Based on all of that, I just think that type 4 is something that -- that in the future that we definitely are going to be able to reduce to a much smaller sites.
>> what about a transfer station, trek if.
>> at one time we had talked about transfer stations, but, you know, frankly if they are going to move down, if they want still that criteria of 25 miles down the road, why don't they direct haul it's not that far away.
>> it's the idea of going from smaller trucks making the neighborhood pickups, taken to some place and gets --
>> what's the breaking point? I thought that some of the hearings that we had, that -- meetings that we had on the -- on the ordinance that was the argument was the other way around that there's a breaking point that if they -- if the landfill is past 25 miles, then they need a transfer station. If it's within 25 miles they -- they might as well direct haul. That's what the argument was when we were in front of the city. Have they changed that -- their position?
>> so the answer is no on type 4 and no on transfer.
>> if the site was in a reasonable distance.
>> the criterion of b.f.i. That is one of the criterion. Site is less than 25 miles.
>> why would they want a transfer station then? But that is something that I would like to propose to the neighborhood residents before I give you a definite answer.
>> okay.
>> if mr. Gosling the attorney can tell you that he has to talk to mr. Mobley, I think at least that I could do is talk to the residents before we actually commit to decree or no. But we could -- to yes or no. We could give you an answer on that if they were willing to seriously look at postponing any filing or whatever.
>> trek, I know that I still oppose the expansion in that area for either one of those landfills. I don't think that it's going to be a secret that I do oppose them. That expansion. I guess my next question though is, I guess legal you will have to help me out, because the 14 acres, lateral expansion, that had encroach into our floodplain. If it does, then that's an answer also. As you know we do have the floodplain ordinance and we have something else embedded in the solid waste siting ordinance and of course we must look at our floodplain, also. I guess is that the case in this particular lateral expansion.
>> I believe so. As I recall the plans that I have seen, in order -- in order to make the vertical expansion within their permit boundary, they have to -- to move the base of the landfill out. And that -- it doesn't encroach on the floodplain per se, but it would enter into the 500-foot buffer area.
>> buffer area, exactly, in the floodplain, right.
>> as I recall. Just operating -- from what I recall looking at the plan sometimes.
>> right, that's basically what I'm recalling also. I wanted to point that out to john as he may be -- but anyway, it appeared to me that it was -- in that buffer area within the means of the floodplain, so it's an issue. And we are the guardians, supposed to be the guardians for floodplain. So as far as protecting it. From that type of encroachment. So again I still would like the neighborhoods to give me I think -- I think we can move forward with the -- with things as far as b.f.i. Movement out of there because I think there are sites in the area that they can end up going to. I don't think it's no big deal as far as looking for a regional site. I really don't. So that's -- that's --
>> [indiscernible]
>> I'm joyce [indiscernible] walnut place neighborhood association. I have a statement here from our executive committee. Residents and neighbors of the northeast landfills have been appearing before this courted on a regular basis for more than three years. Our primary objective is preserving the quality of our life for the area residents by stopping expansions at the northeast landfills. We have endured foul odors, dust, noise, wind blown trash and other assaults on our environment for 25 years. And we are facing another 10 to 20 years of the same without any expansions. We have gone through siting ordinances, contracts and other study and now these memos. Through everything our fundamental request has been that the court join with us in opposing expansions at these old poorly run piewt putrid landfills located in an increasing urbanized area 8 miles from downtown Austin. Neither memo as presented to us will further our objective. In fact both memos as written would make our goal unachievable. The walnut place executive board requests the Commissioners to refuse the offers from both b.f.i. And w.m.t. If these m.o.u.s are negotiated to include our central objective, we will reconsider. We continue to seek your support in opposing landfill expansion in our area. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> for the record I would like to say that joyce best is attending the meeting. I said that she couldn't make it. I would like to correct what I said. I also would like you to take some consideration into the fact that what you are proposing or what they are proposing is two transfer stations. I didn't think that was [indiscernible] to have two transfer stations one next to the other. I think that needs to be discussed a little further. Why would you have two transfer stations?
>> as far as I know the preference is for type 4. Right? If they were to discontinue type 1 waste use. It would convert to type 4. But with the transfer station as a possibility, preference I thought it was type 4.
>> any other residents to give comments? If so please come forward. From the macafees, after that tom will lay out waste management's highlights. And see if there are comments in response to those. Yes, mr. Macafee?
>> judge, Commissioners, I'm bart macafee.
>> how are you doing?
>> very good.
>> good.
>> i've heard varied things on how long it takes to get a site permitted, perhaps I could ask mr. Gosling to remind us of how long it takes to get a green fill permitted? Rusm? I know that it's a big window. But -- roughly.
>> we will have paul come forward in just a minute and answer that questions.
>> okay.
>> my recollection is that it's somewhere between nine and 13 years, something up in that range to get a green fill site permitted. They only have 6.5 years left on their permit. I wanted to remind the Commissioners court that -- that about 3 years ago, -- [indiscernible] we would work on an ordinance and in good faith they would not proceed forward with their plans. So -- so now I know in the w.m.i. Proposal, they are wanting you to -- to bail them out of the option that they signed after that point. And bail them out of the engineering fees and all of the intentions that they put toward that project since they asked us to hold off on passing the ordinance. I guess we also -- so in other words b.f.i. Was saying that they couldn't run out of landfill space here just earlier here at the table and that they couldn't allow that to happen and end up with no place left to take it. And yet they did not allow enough time to even permit a green filled site. They only allowed enough time to permit an expansion only. So I thought -- if I were running the company I would be upset with them for not allowing enough time for any option other than an scparngs yet again they want to proceed on with their plans, have us reimburse any intention that's they end up going to, if they chase down the wrong trail. And of course in their plan continue on with the type 4 landfill forever and ever. Mr. Gosling also said apparently another thing that we have wondered about for a long time, what would happen if we just said no. If the Commissioners court absolutely said you know what, we don't like having a landfill that close in, messing up the planning of our county, our tax base, let's just say no. And oppose them. Well apparently mr. Goss ling indicated that what you all say has a great deal of impact at the state level. I know from past comments by the landfills, apparently it has enough of a -- enough weight at the state level to save them a couple million. Two to $3 million is I believe the figure that I was told they save in permitting a landfill when it is not opposed by the county. And that figure could have been if it wasn't opposed by the county and the residents. I don't know for certain that it was a while back, it was a year or so ago that I remember hearing it. So obviously if we go the route of helping them find a site we save them a lot of money and a lot of time. Yet they are unwilling to give us any consideration out in the northeast area in terms of closing down. I really hope that you'll look at the -- look at the resolution and -- and just say no. You know, to landfill expansions in the northeast. It -- it seems that -- that even though they -- even though they said that they were going to -- going to negotiate in good faith, it does not seem that they have. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Ms. Macafee.
>> because we have asked a lot of the neighbors to watch these proceedings on tv and for the court record, I would like to just read some of the key points of what we have -- the document that we have left. With you. Judge Biscoe and Travis County Commissioners, the residents of northeast Travis County appreciate the efforts of the county to protect our interests and to ultimately end the unjust expansion of the northeast area cluster landfill site and achieve a balanced regional solid waste disposal plan. Indeed, the actions of the court, Texas law and the terms of the agreement in the memorandum of understanding do address the public interest and do assert that the county expects the public to be a third party beneficiary of this agreement. This is proposed through the stated goals of limited future expansion, better controlling odors and improving the continued operation through many years into the future. The northeast area residents respectfully request the county and ultimately the city of Austin and capco to adopt the proposed resolution the specific goal of giving appropriate time to define the possible rural landfill sighting and a regional -- siting and a regional competitive process for disposal of waste. After a careful review of the wording of the b.f.i. Memorandum and the highlights of the w.m.i. Memorandum, the northeast residents feel that the proposed agreements do not adequately protect the public interest and that some agreement terms are fatally flawed and against good public policy. For the ropes yowled below. The agreement deals with only one of the private operators and that I realize has changed. That agreement states that b.f.i. Will cease to dispose of type 1 waste no later than 20/17 and degree -- 2017 and agrees to help acquire a new site, what the agreement omits to say is that b.f.i. Will require an expansion to continue landfilling at their present facility until 2017 and by any height or capacity [indiscernible] for aerial expansion. The agreement states that b.f.i. Only agrees to cease type 1 facilities by the end and convert type 1 into a type 4, the agreement requires the county to agree before any search for any sites has started before any application for an expansion has been submitted. And reviewed by the county staff. To not oppose the landfills application for a permit amendment and limit the scope of this participation in the processes, not pass an ordinance or take any action to prevent an expansion of the landfill, not deny or refuse to timely act on any county site permit. The landfills -- grant the landfills a variance to the floodplain, find b.f.i. A new site. Use power of eminent domain. Further the county is agreeing to odor control practices not documented properly and by the terms of the agreement itself. Left to future determination. This is definitely not good public policy, time should be taken to document control standard and such key issues before execution of any agreement. New site distinctions and restrictions are oriented to one private landfill operator. They are vague in some key respects. Agreement terms restricting the county's opposition to undefined future application of a single private operator raises questions of enforcibility and certainly now seems against good public policy. This will destroy the public policy of competitive bidding for operation of a privately operated public control regional disposal system. Our residents can already picture the nightmare spectacle in 2019 of b.f.i. And w.m.i. Run an gigantic multitude of waste activities. One would have to be mentally obstructed not to see the financial benefits b.f.i. And w.m.i. Would reap from the county. The siting study was implemented by the county in order to avoid an expansion of the northeast landfills at their present location to help them relocate their operations in a new location with the least amount of economic discomfort. It was not implemented in order to facilitate their application for an expansion of their present facility with all of the other gratuity thrown it. All emphasize their -- to continue seeing a balanced reasonable plan but allow reasonable time for the plan to progress further before making detailed agreements with single operators. The plan can be developed while the operators continue their operation under already existing approved permits. And without any damage to the operators or the public. And just in -- in -- in final -- you want to -- in final summary, I would just like to add the mantra that I also cite with my he were nestness to -- earnestness to find a new idea, a new plan that incorporates, you heard it so many times, the recycling, the new way of landfilling that define this new site, tie it in to any type of agreements and clauses which is the direction is going -- it going could totally bind the hands so that we are not able to do some of the composting, recycling and some of the future things that need to be aggressively looked at at the future landfill site. Thank you.
>> [indiscernible] waist management highlights. Waste management highlights.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...or not allow the type 4 Travis County has to basically make us whole with whole money that we spent on the expansion not able to take advantage of it. Criteria for what is an acceptable site is still under negotiation. The big difference is bfi is agreeing to a certain hard date by which to sees type 1 operations, regardless of whether the site is found [ inaudible ]. If they find any site in the next few years, if we find any site do we get to keep a type 4 at our current site or Travis County has to refund us the money we spent in permitting costs, expert, etcetera and land costs urks so so there's clarity there, tom. When we talk about a type 4, does the current site include the wilder tract or exclude the wilder tract? I think precision is something we need to be very cautious of.
>> I'm going to have to defer to the wmi representatives on that issue. We did not have time to get that absolutely clarified.
>> that would be extraordinarily important to this neighborhood.
>> waste management reps, please come forward. Afternoon.
>> afternoon. My name is john joseph, representing waste management.
>> steve jacobs with waste management of Texas.
>> I think you've covered the points pretty well. We don't have a memorandum of understanding negotiated with the county yet. Possibly we might be able to address some questions that y'all might have?
>> Commissioner Sonleitner's question is if you acquired the wilder tract, they would find a new site and move there. When you say you would like to use the current site as a type 4 facility, does that include current permitted area plus the wilder tract?
>> yes.
>> because that would be --
>> if the wilder tract was permitted. Because there is an option under the memorandum of understanding that if we found a site and the county were to make us whole with respect to the expansion site that we would abandon that.
>> okay. But under the part -- first part of it, at the current site your understanding is that the current site would include the wilder tract?
>> I'm trying to make it clear. If it were permitted, it would. If there is an option for the -- under the bullet points, if the county wanted to say right now make us whole for the expansion site, then there would be no expansion on to the wilder site. There would be no permit site on the wilder site.
>> would that need to be a part of that, tom, that they would not ever seek to get permitting of the wilder tract if they've not gotten it by the time that clause might kick in?
>> as I said, we haven't negotiated the term of the memorandum of understanding.
>> so precision on the language.
>> so there would have to be some sort of restriction to the wilder tract or a number of other options. Basically it's buy them out of the wilder tract, buy them out of being able to use the wilder tract. > is that the difference between what it costs to buy the wilder tract or the anticipation if you bought the wilder tract this is how high we could go, this is how much we could put in there, this is what this thing is worth? , I think it's a matter of expenses right now.
>> what it could be.
>> no, it's not a function of that. After it were permitted it would be that, but at this point it's a question of making waste management whole on their experiences so far.
>> so if it were permitted, even though you might not have started on it, if it says that you could go up 60 feet vertically within the footprint of this thing, did you all extrapolate a number that said this is what this project would be worth to us if we could do that, would that be part of the price we believe that --
>> we vont gotten into that discussion. At that point I think truthly what we discussed was the possibility of a permit being granted and the operations beginning and then a site being found and being able to convert at that point in time to a type 4 landfill, but what I didn't contemplate was what would happen in between those two things. So I think that's something we would have to consider.
>> did you have a question?
>> thank you, judge.
>> no, I'm finished.
>> how are you?
>> fine, how are you?
>> fine, john. As you know, I want to be consistent. As a concern I did ask bfi had they had a chance to meet with the neighborhood, especially with the expansion, as you know, you heard them say that they do not want any possibility of you expanding your operations there. And of course, you know, I'm going to support the neighborhoods in their request as I have consistently done, but in the meantime there seemed to be not a misunderstanding, but just appears to be a little variance in the answer to the question -- the question being how long would it actually take you to get a permit for a new green fill, which is a new landfill, site, without opposition, in other words, just something real smoothly been moved forward in that process of getting a new application? No opposition at all in that, how long would that possibly take? I'm getting different answers and I just want to hear what you have to say.
>> unfortunately, Commissioner, it's a difficult time frame to pin down. Assuming you're starting out, and this is based on my experience being in the landfill business for about 25 years, if you are looking -- if you have no property in mind and have nothing on the table, you're probably looking at a time frame from seven years on the shortened to tie down the property, to go through all the stuff you would are to do and get the permit and be operational, and on the upper end you could be as much as 14 years depending on the issues that you run into. As a rule of thumb when we look at an unopposed permit, we're looking at best case scenario of three years from start to finish, and that is if nobody asks any questions. If it becomes a contested case, that number goes probably five to seven years easily, and it can go longer with appeals. So it's really hard. And I know sometimes it sound like we're being vague. It is really almost impossible to figure out how long exactly it will take you from start to finish on any project.
>> well, I'm leaning toward, if possible -- that's what I'm really pushing for is the last statement that you referred to as far as having no opposition and just a three-year time frame.
>> if you already have the property identified and you're just going out and saying I want to permit this property. I don't have to go through dealing with multiple property owners and condemnation or any of those things that take literally months and in some cases years.
>> okay. Earlier it was stated about how things may not be profitable to a landfill if it's out of the 25-mile radius of the current landfill site on 290 east. My concern is that does that mean that as far as you're concerned -- does that mean that you will not look for any landfill outside the 25-mile radius?
>> we haven't gotten to that point yet. And in our discussions of those specifics, I don't believe that that -- sitting right here right now, I don't believe that is a limitation on us.
>> okay. Well, I remember the last time we -- there were some things that we were trying to get direction as far as where you're going. I'm really trying to make sure that we head in that direction. I think in that original approach that we've been trying to go in is something that we can still look forward to aggressively as far as pursuing. And I don't want to make sure that all stones and rocks are unturned, I want to make sure we do that.
>> well, we have to be competitive. One of the things that we're going to evaluate in a new site is being competitive.
>> and I understand that, but I also understand that there's a possibility of other landfills may be able to do just what was suggested here and then do a lot of the things as far as what's been even mentioned by some of the neighborhood folks. And if that's the case, I'm just trying to determine why aren't we pursuing that across the board.
>> I didn't understand that, Commissioner. What other things?
>> well, the recycling program, possible new sites. And maybe after I get through talking to you, I think I'm going to have to ask tds to come up here to the mic.
>> as I said, our negotiations haven't even begun yet.
>> I know they haven't.
>> so I'm not excluding anything at this point from being included in the memorandum of understanding.
>> right. And I understand that. Don't think I don't understand what you're saying. I do understand what you're saying, but in the meantime what I'm trying to get to is some movement whereby the regional approach of trying to get these landfills to a closure situation where they won't impact the neighborhoods and in the future -- won't impact anybody in the future, that's the direction I'm trying to get to, so I was trying to put as much on the table where we possibly can get there. And I think by exposing as much as we possibly can at this time is just be -- it would just be a plus for all of us. So that's basically why I was asking those kind of questions, not that you have a memorandum of understanding with Travis County, but getting to a situation whereby we can look at the possibility of expanding and looking at the possibility of you moving to another site. That's the direction I'm headed in.
>> and I understand that. And as I said, we're still in the midst of negotiation. So that remains to be seen.
>> but will you still be able to meet with the neighborhood association? That's another question.
>> absolutely.
>> within the two-week time frame?
>> absolutely.
>> do the residents want to meet with me?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> okay.
>> I think there was a question last time,aste management, under the current permit, the same rate of utilization of landfill as there's about 10 years left?
>> approximately 10 years, judge.
>> and the question -- any questions of waste management from the court? Any questions from the residents regarding waste management? Ms. English?
>> thank you. I would like to know why sta that they need to turn their present landfills into type 4 landfills in order to remain competitive? They're already underbidding everybody in the state of Texas in terms of contracts with their type 1 waste. What do they need -- why do they need to remain competitive on type 4?
>> we're not talking about converting the existing landfills to type 4. What we would be addressing is filling will remaining unfilled portion of a landfill as a type 4. And it would be simply to change to a land use that would be economically viable and provide a return for the shareholders of the corporation. I don't believe it's something that we can simply leave the land unutilized. So it involves either the use of the property for a type 4 landfill and/or a transfer station.
>> but if I understand right, there's going to be an income coming from this property even if there were no landfilling activity just by the mere fact that they're having a waste to energy conversion plant and they're selling that energy in the form of electricity to the city of Austin. So there's a large revenue that's going to be coming in from that property. For years, for a lot of years. So it's not like they're totally losing income from that property. There is some assured income, from what I understand, waste management is building their plants as we speak, so there will be an income coming from that plant. And at the price the electricity is going to go, I think they're going to make a lot of money. I want to understand where type 4 comes in.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we understand that. I don't see where the shareholders are going to lose. There's income from the new property, income from the type 4 landfill. Where are they losing money? Especially if they never spend it to start with on the expansion? Because this is what they're talking about, basically the present permit will be -- (indiscernible). And the type 4 is going to be an expansion. Even if they were (indiscernible). This applies to the permit, just to go to legal fees. They could save all that money for the corporation by applying it to the new one with the revenues.
>> what's the acquisition schedule on the wilder tract? Is that something you can disclose?
>> there is a confidentiality agreement. I know when we met before we were talking about whether we could share that with you. There is a confidentiality agreement in the contract. I can tell you that the closing is not that far off on the property, and our intentions are for a lot of reasons, not just the expansion, to go ahead and close on this parcel of land.
>> any other questions or comments from the residents?
>> judge, I have one question. If you all indeed do close on the wilder tract. Let's do that as the what-if. I'm trying to get a handle on what is the financial risk -- what if the financial risk shifted to Travis County? That's got a cost to it. Is that something you would also try and shift under your fourth point here, even though it hasn't een permitted, it is still something where there's a capital out lay of some sort with your company.
>> Commissioner, we without litigation don't have a choice but to close on that wilder contract, so the property is going to be purchased regardless of what happens to it from a permitting standpoint. We will have incurred those dollars. How we deal with that is a matter of negotiation.
>> second question, same thing we asked bfi, could you be more specific about the current expansion plans? Is that horizontal and vet kel and by how much?
>> well, our plans right now are still preliminary. We have not finished all the documents. It would go in and wf no intention of submitting those any time soon as long as we're having meaningful discussions with you. Our plans would be a lat ral expansion. It would not go any higher. We currently have an agreement with the residents that limits our maximum elevation to 740 feet and all our designs stay below that limit. So everything would be done in accordance with the current floodplain set backs and all the current rules in this parcel of land, and it's being designed where it gets no closer to any of the current receptors that are currently -- that our currently permitted landfill allows us to be. So we would actually be moving away from walnut place, we would be moving no closer than we currently are permitted to go to the barr mansion. So we spent a lot of time trying to fit an active facility in that. Part of the reason we've mentioned that type 4 is under our proposal is if we can come to an agreement at any time we pack up and go, and part of the type 4 allows us to generate a revenue stream to get us to minimize a financial impact to everyone and it allows us to meet the financial contours that are in our permit with the state. If you just decide to quit and leave, it would require you to go back in and do another permit modification, redesign the landfill to allow for the current existing conditions. So what that would do is avoid having to do that, which generates the potential for additional problems and issues down the road. So the type 4, although it does generate revenue, you don't get rich off of it. The material itself does not lend -- is not easily transferred, so when you take a load of construction demolition material and dump it into a bigger truck, you're not going to gain anything by doing that, so it doesn't transfer well, which is one of the reasons why we would like that option at that facility, not to say we would do it, but it is an option we would look at.
>> going to ms. English's concerns and ms. Mcafee's concerns, how how much is the reserving the right to have type 4 and/or a transfer station, is that a make or break part of this deal?
>> I think that the type 4 with the exception of being able to file out -- finish out the contours is obviously a discussion point. The transfer station, one of the problems we have is as you move out 30, 40, 50 miles, wherever we would end up being, the transfer station is about the only viable way to do that. There are times when it's easier to drive down the road, but you have to look at truck traffic, and I can't imagine where 290 290 would like another 500 trucks a day why is willing down the road -- whistling down the road to elgin. It minimizes the number of vehicles on the road.
>> and we have not locked down the kind of criteria for an acceptable new site. So we don't know if it's close enough where a transfer station isn't even necessary.
>> and in addition, if I could, and trek, I know you want to say something, is a lot of volume that comes into our facilities are small private pickup trucks and trailers, and those people seem to have a har time getting their load entire to our site, so to ask them to drive another 40 miles down the road would not be very useful and you would probably have more dumping on the side of the road than we already have.
>> thank you.
>> I have some problems. This is trek english for the record. I have some problem with what mr. Jacobs presented. First of all, talking about transferring type 4 waste, they cannot take type 4 waste right now. They can't take it. They're transferring it right now anyway.
>> unfortunately, you're wrong on that, trek. We do take type 4.
>> where are you putting it?
>> it goes in with all the regular waste at the landfill.
>> so you're mixing type 4 and type 1?
>> yes.
>> the only restriction would be mixing type 1 with type 4 in a type 4 facility. Type 1 facility can take any type. Type 4, with no additional restraints.
>> so what would be the difference if your type 4 truck was, instead of turning right on the road, it would keep going on the new site?
>> most of those loads are very heavy or very bulky, and they go down the road an additional 40 or 50 miles becomes problematic from a cost.
>> I don't think so. Your company argued very successfully in 1999 (indiscernible).
>> we're interchangeable.
>> you said it, I didn't.
>> you argued very successfully that transporting waste out of town and out of county was no problem at all, especially type 4. That it was easier to transfer type 4 than type 1 because of the fact that it was not the true idea of waste and there was not such a time concern. And at the same time they even put it in writing. And if you go back to when we first started this, I gave you a four-page little synopsis of what they put together. It wasn't my interpretation, it's what they presented to the city council. So they cannot keep jumping here on a position as to how they can transport out of town and how suddenly now they're stuck with having to have type 4 waste. If they don't want to take it to their landfill 25 miles down the road, they can take it to the other landfill. I'm sure they would love to sustain the decent amount of income so that the landfill over there can be taken care of properly. That's another thing, if they're here they could underbid the type 4 landfills, which would make it even more competitive. (indiscernible) as good a thing for Travis County.
>> anything else from residents? Regarding waste management? Ms. Mcafee, she did a a question a few minute ago about how long it take to permit the green field site?
>> judge, are you through with us?
>> yes, unless there are questions.
>> I have a question after he answers that.
>> waste management?
>> no. Somebody in the audience I need to ask a question.
>> thank you.
>> the answer that -- if the question was how long, the answer mr. Jacobs gave is essentially the answer that I gave. My answer was in my experience it takes between three and 14 years. Think of it as a matrix. There are expansion sites and green field sites. There's uncontested site and contested sites. On the right-hand side if it's a green field that you don't have land for yet and it turns out to be contesd, that's the high end. On the other side if it's an expansion and you have the land and it's uncontested, that's the low end. I estimated that it would take for reasonable manning purposes eight to 10 -- planning purposes, eight to 10 -- I heard mr. Jacobs say seven to 14 for a green field contested site. For an uncontested site it less. For contested expansion we have said that we expect that to take about six years. We're about out of that six years.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, let me call up bob burger. I'd like to call him to the table and ask the same question because I would like to make sure that we're all on the same page.
>> good afternoon. My name is bob gregory, i'll be glad to answer any questions.
>> on this question that was asked by ms. Mcafee, and that's the question of the time that it takes to acquire a permit for a new landfill, green field? What would that probably be in your mind?
>> I can reflect back on the time that it took tds to do such. We purchased a site or put a site under option actually in 1987, announced it early 1988 about four month after we put it under contract, permitted it in September of 1990 and opened it in February 1st of 1991.
>> so how many years is that?
>> well, '88, '90, two and a half years.
>> two and a half years.
>> and I will point out that that was in late '80's, early '90's, a difference of a period of time. I'll also point out that Travis County opposed us on that, so we had quite a fight.
>> who opposed you?
>> Travis County. No one on this Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... We need to deal with that. It was stated earlier that the profit motive I guess would be impacted if the landfill was located 25 miles from the current site. I guess b.f.i. Was basically saying that a 25-mile radius, was that basically something that you have experienced or if you decided to get into that arena, would that be something that you would have to consider?
>> as the landfill operators have stated, distance to the landfill from the major point of generation is extremely important. From a standpoint of costs and the standpoint of accessibility. Soil conditions matter. Si
Nificantly as well. So as I understood from buf's memorandum oo b.f.i.'s memorandum of understanding, it's basically 12 miles to the southeast, which is no further east than elgin, and no further than 25 miles, actually more or less a 12-mile corridor the way I took it up and down i-35 t 25 miles south of the landfill to 25 miles north of the landfill. While if we were looking for a landfill, we wouldn't necessarily limit it to 12 miles to the east because the clay soil formations are generally to the east of i-35. But a 25-mile range is pretty much a range of distance about -- at which time you would look seriously at a transfer station to go further than that. But it's not just miles, it's time to get there. So traffic is a big consideration. As well. It's cost really. Cost with be set by miles and/or traffic for both.
>> okay.
>> well, I was kind of really excited I guess about the -- about the statement that you made to the years that it took. I am kind of concerned about that. I wanted to basically impress on everybody that we can I think look to something of this nature. If it's something available for us to do to get landfills adequate supply, new green fields, rather, and move on down that road. So it is a possible because of what I'm hearing you say it happened.
>> if I might say it happened then, but that was about a 14 years ago, a little bit difference of point in time. And different -- under different circumstances both on the positive and negative, but it is quite different. I don't want to leave anyone -- give anyone a false sense of security. Two and a half to three and a half years, then maybe possible to do again and then again it may not. Part of it depends on who is permitting it and what their history is and a whole lot of things.
>> well, i've got notes here that no more than -- no opposition for three years, so that is still a fairly good in the ballpark range of getting a site. That's basically the direction that I am going in. I wanted to hear from all three to see where we are on this as far as the perspective as far as the number of years that's required to -- to locate to a new landfill site. Thank you.
>> you're welcome.
>> I'm glad that you brought up that history because while it was not this Commissioners court, it was a Commissioners court with a very vocal county judge on the issue if I so remember. Having a Commissioners court, being on the record vocally opposing a brand new green field expansion did not stop you from getting your proper permits from the state, did it?
>> no, it didn't.
>> do we have an idea on the original b.f.i. Landfill, on the original waste management permits, did this Commissioner, did a Commissioners court or the city of Austin take a stance on whether those things were to be opposed, supported or neutral?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> they still happen. You know, I don't want to put over emphasis on the fact that if we do oppose it, it stops it nor if you don't oppose itronix doesn't stop it. I think it's an important statement to make about whether it does or doesn't oppose it. That doesn't mean that we don't control anything that doesn't happen at the take state. They have a mandate as well to figure out where are we going to stash all of the garage that is created by all of us who live here. Okay?
>> I would think that that kind of would set the ground for the county and how fast we can move. If we are going to be a partner. In -- in trying to find a green field that is appropriate. And unabomber glad Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned that, yeah, it is something that we are out generating. So we approve lots every week, every Tuesday, more lots and more pounds of waste, potential waste stream before recycling.
>> better do an m.o.u. Or we don't. My question is will two weeks give us an opportunity to take our best shot? John and -- john and [indiscernible]
>> I think where we are is basically coming up with the best product that we can. Deciding whether the best is good enough or whether we ought to just back off.
>> the thought that one would not proceed before the other or that they -- the optimum is that they proceed simultaneously, but that's not necessarily correct.
>> I think that it is. Whenever we have it back on again, we try to go with both. If we can't go with both we go with one. If we don't want to go with one we go with none. But we finally decide on the m.o.u. Issue. I guess my question is, is the 16th of March a good date or should we be more realistic and give others another week.
>> I would rather be realistic.
>> that's the 23rd.
>> our other recommendation is next Tuesday is election day. We ought to try to have a short meeting, but we ought to have a meeting in my view. My recommend deation would be to postpone 17 c and d until then. The question is do we do damage to anything? Any harm done? If we take another week? I think they are fairly straightforward. We need to do them, but I don't think that another week will hurt that much, do you. The reason I'm doing this, we try to finish by 5:00. There are several other media items to take -- the a and b, the m.o.u.'s, we will attempt to approve something, the best effort, or we will decide to do nothing on the 23rd. That is three weeks from today. The 23rd. Next week, we will have c and d back on, and plan to act and I hope those are as routine as I believe.
>> judge, just as a scheduling matter, if anyone thinks that it can slide one extra week beyond th 23rd, both Commissioner Daugherty and I will be in washington d.c. That following Tuesday on county business. So if we hit the 23rd, cool. But if somebody says at the last minute I need another week, it would have to be another two weeks. You want to make sure that everybody understands what the schedule is. Thank you.
>> anything else on this item? Today? That's number -- number 17. Anything else on 17 today? Thank you all very much. Painstaking, but it's got to go done I think.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 3, 2004 1:16 PM