Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 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 21
Number 21, consider and take appropriate action on the following solid waste management issues. A, proposed memorandum of understanding with browning-ferris and 21 b, the proposed memorandum of understanding with waste management, incorporated, regarding application for expansion and closure of northeast Travis County landfill. So what I知 looking for today is for the court to indicate whether we seem to be proceeding in the right direction or whether we ought to change direction. The draft memoranda that have been circulated probably are not in final shape. But represent the best efforts of county staff and myself during negotiations. If we want to proceed, then I have responded to various residents who suggested that we have a 6:00 public meeting. That we would do so to give those who work and don't have an opportunity to come to the Commissioners court during the day an opportunity to come after work and meet with us.
>> would that be here in the courtroom? Try to make it centralized?
>> I do not make any promises on that, but that would work.
>> at least we have the cameras and the opportunity [inaudible] and --
>> afrtably seat everybody, comfortably park everybody after 6:00.
>> that's fine with me if we get there. The other thing is that ms. English is not here today and she has not given up on this issue. She is on vacation, a well deserved one, and I did indicate to her if we had that public meeting, it would be at a time that would allow her to get back. She is getting back at the end of this month.
>> so it would be next month.
>> first part of April is what I have in mind. Now, and b.f.i.'s draft memo we did make reference to an attachment that was not attached. I have that attachment in my possession now. And would anyone like a copy of it? What it does is to show -- you need one for the record down there, right? And we did get a court a copy of the [inaudible], right?
>> I don't think I got that. I got your backup memo, but I don't think i've gotten that.
>> thank you.
>> tom, you have that because [inaudible]. Anybody else want a copy? And i've got one, two, three, four, five -- why don't you take you will. I've got about eight or nine. That should be enough to -- what I did yesterday also was to put together what I consider to be a sort of an overview of the memos and a statement more of my position than anything else. I did run it by staff tore accuracy, but it really does represent I guess the county judge's position more than staff. But if staff disagreed with it, they should feel free to indicate so to the court today. Can we just lay these out to start the discussion?
>> I guess I can do that, judge. I'll start with the waste management agreement. The basic piece of this agreement is that waste management is agreeing on a moratorium on filing permits at tceq for any expansion of that facility. And the permit filing moratorium is a period of two years. And what they are asking for in return is that Travis County delay enacting any sort of siting ordinance within that two years that would affect w.m.t.'s capability to expand. It's sort of a continuation of the informal agreement we've had with them for some time that they won't file an application if we won't proceed with an ordinance. During that two-year period, waste management is agreeing to identify and then try to acquire a new green field site for a tpwra pbd land full that they can move to if and when it's permitted by tceq. And they do have a set of criteria in the memorandum that talked about sort of basic parameters for what would be a site they would be willing to move to. And they are agreeing -- if they find a site and that site is acceptable to Travis County, then waste management and Travis County would work together to acquire and get that site permitted, and waste management is agreeing that within one year of a permit for that new site becoming final, they would cease all their type 1 disposal at the 290 land full and move to the new site. And what they are asking for in exchange is that if they undertake to look for a new site over the next two years, that Travis County not oppose their expansion plans at the 290 landfill. And that would apply whether they find a new site or not. What they are committing to is to use good-faith efforts and so exhaust actively search, but they are saying whether they find a new site or not, as long as they've tried their hardest, Travis County wouldn't oppose any sort of expansion of the 290 landfill. Now, even if they move to the new site, they are reserving the ability on the wilder tract, which is the piece of land adjacent to their current landfill, which they've been looking at expanding to for a number of years. They want to reserve the ability to keep a type 4 facility at that site. And they are also asking Travis County in exchange for w.m.i. Limiting that site to a type 4 that is correct we reimburse them for the amount of money they've expended trying to get that permitted as a type 1 facility. W.m.i. Is also reserving the ability to keep a transfer station at the 290 landfill. Also agreeing to continue to maintain the same level of effort. They've established over the last couple of years to control owed,. Basically sort of an anti-backlieding provision. They have to keep in place all the measures they've put in after the odor complaints started a couple years ago. These are basically the measures that, according to the consultant we hired to look at the odor study, had resulted in a dropping odor complaint. And that's it for the w.m.i. Agreement. Do you want to talk about it or go straight to the b.f.i. Agreement?
>> I think we ought to have the w.m.i. Representatives come forward and there are two or three issues I guess we need to keep working on if we proceed. We need to lay those out. Then if there are questions from the court. For example, my understanding is that, let's say that we agree to the two-year period, waste management does not find a suitable new site and Travis County has -- or adopts that waste management has been in good faith and diligently trying to find one. My understanding is that Travis County is in the same position it is today. We have not made an agreement not to oppose any expansion application. We would simply a pose the application. -- oppose the application. Right?
>> I guess --
>> if we disagree about whether waste management has diligently and in good faith attempted to find a new site, then we are exactly where we are.
>> right.
>> if we agree, though, that waste management has attempted in good faith and diligently to find a new site, then what we're saying is -- I assume we would try to help also. But if both of us cannot find a new site, then our agreement is that we would not oppose the expansion application.
>> correct.
>> right now.
>> that's the way it currently reads.
>> before the court. So the good of that is that we preserve the status quo for two years and work together and try to find a new site. And if we fail, then we sort of accept failure together. But if we're successful, then waste management will try to get that new site acquired with Travis County available to assist if necessary and get the new site permitted and they are saying if they get it permitted within one year of issuance of the permit, they would cease type 1 waste operation at the current site and move to the new one with type 1. If you move type 1, the question is what happens at the current site, and waste management and b.f.i. Are saying we would like a type 4 and a transfer station. Now, I understand that the transfer station really depends on the location of a new site, if any. Under some circumstances if you can get to the new site as easily, it doesn't make sense to take it to a transfer station and then later transfer it to the new site. We're together on the understanding of the two-year period?
>> do you want me to comment on this?
>> just on --
>> you are correct in your statement about the two-year moratorium.
>> in my view, that's really the big deal. The other thing is that waste management believes that the best way for it to try to find a new site is to do it without Travis County, but if you need Travis County at some point to assist with the location or acquisition, you'll let us know. And we're indicating we will try to help.
>> right.
>> and my guess is that waste management has a lot more expertise than we do in locating a site. We have the sort of leverage of being a public entity and using condemnation power to acquire if one has been located, and based on conversation we've had, we wouldn't see that power being necessary for all parcels of land assuming they are multiple owners. But it may well be that in order to complete the deal, you need Travis County's assistance.
>> judge, I guess I have just a couple of questions for clarification. Is this within Travis County? Are we saying find a place anywhere in the capital area?
>> my view ought it to be basically in Travis County and outside Travis County. Distance does become an issue. But I would think that the surrounding counties are subject to this. [inaudible].
>> so is capital going to be ready to move quickly? Because it sounds like we have two years in which to do this, right?
>> well, we're working on that, and I do think that's important. The other thing we chatted about too is that if you make public a site with a -- a map with a lot of potential sites, you almost automatically drive up the price. And so what we want to do, I guess, is get the expertise that we can, but not necessarily go public until the appropriate time.
>> so it welcome back in line with how we look at other real estate anyway.
>> right.
>> so we would be basically following the same rules.
>> absolutely.
>> okay. The other question I have is in order to prevent the current issues with this being too close to homes, what other steps can we take to make sure that homes don't develop too close to the landfill wherever it goes?
>> well, the two things that come to mind for me are a larger buffer than used historically. [inaudible] go to the legislature and try to get authority. There are some commercial businesses that could be fairly close to landfill. Residential developments really should be discouraged.
>> and the other child care centers --
>> absolutely.
>> -- that sort of thing.
>> but if you locate in an area that really is sort of isolated with little or no development, the county can control the future. It may be that the counties need authority to regulate a zone around the landfill, which we chatted about. And my guess is we ought to put together a package, go to the legislature and try to get that.
>> perhaps we could all work together as part of the agreement. We would all work together to try to approach the legislature for those kinds of authorities. You know, to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. I mean it seems to me like we ought to learn from past mistakes.
>> judge, I would -- I mean before I would want to go and do that, I mean there are homes that are being built out there right now.
>> today.
>> I mean I don't know why.
>> knowingly.
>> I mean I would probably ask them why before I would go and tell somebody you can't do that, if you elect to go and build there, then I think that industry ought to be -- I mean whether it's the building industry or whatever. I think you are crazy to do it, but I think there certainly ought to be on record that if you are going to go and build that -- and let's face it, what is driving this, y'all, is the cost of the real estate. I mean if you have something else that you can't go and you can't go and find a piece of property that you can build a home on because everybody in this community knows that affordable housing or however you want to couch it is an issue, you know, there are people that are -- I mean between the neighborhood now, the springdale folks and the landfill that are putting homes there. And there is a sizable sub development or development that has grown ever since it started, the harris branch, and it's been building out there ever since the landfill was out there. So before I would want -- I mean I certainly want to say do you know what piece of property you bought and you are not going to be able to come to us and say, hey, you know, you want something done to this landfill given that you are the one that elected to go and buy that property and build residential, I think that it's nuts, but now maybe what we're trying to get to is something where we let people know that, you know, this is out here and we're not going to be very accommodating. If you come to us later and say we want it moved now.
>> eventually I think they will know where it is. But once the site is found and Travis County and the landfill operators, you know, work together on finding that, then I think everyone will know where that is. But how do you keep people from building homes close to the landfill and then, you know, complain about the landfill being there? And each one of those houses, as we know, and we need to face reality about that, each one of those houses that is built in those subdivisions, you know, each member who lives in there generates nine pounds of waste every day. Every single day. And so, you know, it's a real partnership. And I think we need to find a fix. I would like to present this from having to be dealt with in the future by Commissioners courts, by the -- certainly the neighbors, the churches, the child care facilities, and gee, I really want to show that we've learned from past actions and learned how to prevent these things in the future. And it's something that is -- you know, we can't do away with homes, fine, we can't do away with landfills either because they go together. One generates the product that the landfills have to handle.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> unless there's some sort of prohibition of geographical limits on it, but as long as I think you're basically doing it in good faith, it's defensible.
>> and i'd like to say to the residents and appealing to all the residents of Travis County, all of us collectively use the landfills off of 290 east. All of us do jn rate -- generate garbage. Of course, this particular site in my pan has really -- in my opinion has really gone beyond its usefulness. It's become an issue whereby it has really put a choke hold on a community.
>> whether you live in westlake, the hill country, whenever you live, you live southeast, northeast, anywhere else, we have to continue to endure what the residents of eastern Travis County has endured. I think Commissioner Gomez said yes, we already have too many landfills and sludge operations east of i-35. Well, that's very true, we do. Precinct 1 and 4, we've taken a big brunt of a whole bunch of stuff over there. And I don't think it's fair to the residents. You know, it appears to me that this particular agreement, there's a lot of hard work invest understand it, a lot of hours spend in it. I've met with some of you and as far as the landfill operators, and my position has not changed since day one and that is as a Commissioner. And I will work with you, but the priority is to move because it's the right thing to do. We put all these conditions in the memorandum of understanding, a at&t for tit, quid pro quo scenario, this is what you get for rewarding doing the right thing. And in my opinion I think that's very inappropriate. It's not acceptable to the residents around the landfill. It's not acceptable anywhere. Now, you probably wonder how else can you assist it? I think i've done that. I have proposed that we do look for another site. You, of course, doing what you need to do to get on out of there because you are causing some serious problems over there with the landfill operations. Bfi same thing. So it appears we need to head on down that road. The original concept is something that's very acceptable to me and to look for other sites other than the site that you are currently located. Now, it's going to take you to do that, otherwise this mad cow, which I think is something that has been put together, but it's not something that I can accept. The only thing that I can accept as far as I知 concerned is the move itself. Putting that top priority and moving out of this particular area. And I知 willing to do everything I can to help assist in moving. Travis County during this last budget process set $100,000 aside for a new location. This Commissioners court did that. Very concerned about where you can go as far as looking for a new site. It wasn't -- when I was involved in that and the 100,000-dollar site, it wasn't with the intent that yes, we will set $100,000 aside, but in the meantime it's going to allow you to expand. And if you're going to expand, I see on one of these things where you said you're looking for a moratorium for two years, you're not going to apply for a permit in two years, so you're looking for a moratorium. I guess it's all well and good as far as what you want to do, but I still feel that if we have things that have been violated, our floodplains, which we ought to protect our community through our floodplain ordinance and other ordinance that we have on the books is the only leverage that I think we have. And my position is that I don't know what the court is going to do. It's the majority rule on this court, but I think the majority of the residents of Travis County also rule, and I think Travis County as far as I知 concerned, a lot of folks know that it's a travesty of what's going on in their community over there, how do we deal with it. And that's to move. And i've certified h.ered it it from -- i've heard it from several sources. Here I have a stack of e-mails of people that have been sending mail in supporting you moving out of there. Not expanding, but to movement and I think that is the issue at hand here. And of course we're working toward the end, but I think it's going to take your cooperation as far as doing the right thing, and that is to pick up the ball and run with it to move. You're willing to do things voluntarily to move. That's acceptable to me. However, not for the exchange of expansion purposes. And that's another problem that poses a serious threat to me. And I知 going to stand here and I知 going to tell you that i'll fright fooit to make sure that our floodplain ordinance is upheld -- whether anybody else agree with me or not, I知 going to stand by that because it's the right thing to do. I don't think the floodplain ordinance anywhere should be violated by anyone which we have worked hard to get these things passed. I知 not knocking what they've done as far as the mad cow is concerned, but again I stated that the last time I was here before. That's the position I知 coming from. I知 not going to support this and I think what we need to do is rally behind each other and look for a site. And I知 willing to work with anybody that's willing to look for another site. And you can do that within two or three years as far as acquiring a new site. And that's something that all even testified to or whomever, bfi and I think tds was down here before. You can do that in less than five years. It appears to me that's what we should be focusing on. And if our condemnation powers go beyond Travis County, thn Commissioner Gomez doesn't have to worry about it coming over to precinct 4. And I wouldn't have to worry about another one coming to precinct 1 as we close this particular landfill. Both of you of course. So that's the direction I知 going in, and this mad cow is something that I知 not going to agree with. I think it's an approach, but I think the final approach and the best approach is top priority. And that's to look for another site in the regional atmosphere. So that's where I知 coming from. Thank you.
>> yesterday we identified two issues that need further work. What were they?
>> one of them was the -- setting up criteria on what the county considered to be an acceptable landfill site. We had some direction of where we wanted to go. And the other one was the [inaudible - no mic]. If that's the priority up front to establish what the reimbursements would be under different scenarios and then commit ourselves to taking the opportunity to find another site. As you know, judge, the less you do with the tract, the more the reimbursement would be. So some way or another of coming up with a way of easing it that would be beneficial to the county and to the people of the county, but would allow the county to pay less reimbursement. And we that that we can achieve that. I'd like to say that some time back we -- at least as far as I can remember being involved, the waste management has expressed its intention to continue to serve travis and surrounding counties with respect to the waste disposal. And the acquisition of the wilder tract was in further wans of that. Where we are right now, judge, is we're agreeing with you and holding hands with the court saying, okay, fine, we will go look for something else. Let's establish the criteria and let's go -- we'll go lack for something else and we'll spend two years to do that and we will not seek any permit expansions within that two-year period while we're looking as long as y'all don't take action to file a siting ordinance so we can take the time to find a new location. And to do that in good faith. And the mad cow and the memorandum of understanding provides that we will make regular reports to the court at six-month intervals to let you know how we're doing, what we're doing and how we're doing so that we can continue to operate in good faith and openly with the court. We really are interested in trying to find a green fill site. We really are interested in trying to do something other than expand on the wilder tract. And I would like to urge the court to continue these negotiations. I think they're worthwhile. I think that if we diligently pursue this, something good is bound to come from it. So I would like to urge you to do that.
>> well, judge, the other question I have -- I guess that raises another question for me. If this is going to be like a regional landfill, if it's outside of Travis County, then how large does a landfill have to be if it's going to handle regional waste as opposed to just Travis County waste? If it's just in Travis County, then is there something that we can put in place to say that it's just the waste stream from Travis County? And if it's from other places can we charge a host fee for that? To kind of help either with the expansion of the landfill or with the cost that we would have to undertake?
>> if we own the landfill we certainly have a lot more authority than not. And if we partner to acquire it, I would think we would have a lot more leverage than we do right now. At some point the fee issue needs to be researched, but offhand I would think that if the county doesn't own the landfill, I haven't seen any authority that says we have an ability to impose any kind of fee on counties that send waste to Travis County because the landfill is privately owned.
>> so we might put -- another issue to put on our list, the authority to charge that fee.
>> whether we owned it or not.
>> and have it as part of the negotiations with whoever is going to be the host of that landfill.
>> I agree with what the judge said. The ability to unilaterally charge a fee or just unilaterally restrict outside waste from coming in is very doubtful, i'll say, but the ability -- if you own the site or if you've got something that the landfill wants you to help them with, like condemnation, opens the opportunity for negotiations. You can't unilaterally oppose it, but you can have a quid pro quo. I'll point out that I understand that Williamson county, who owns the land underlying the landfill up there, does have some sort of contractual arrangement on out of county waste, which they can do as the landowner.
>> as they negotiate that contract.
>> right.
>> what is the distinction, do you know, tom, that Williamson county has with that deal about they can only receive as much as they're willing to let out? Is that -- what's the deal on that?
>> I can take a shot at it. The reason that it was designed to be sort of a sliding scale -- in other words, they could only accept the equivalent amount outside of the county that they were needing to accommodate from inside the county. And my understanding is that first of all I guess it's important to consider that they are in the process of applying for a permit for expansion of that facility. It will be -- I think when it's all said and done, it will be about a 500-acre facility? And so that -- and Commissioner Gomez, you asked earlier what size does it need to be? And that's roughly the figure that's been tossed around from the industry side for what they would need. And then in the document itself we have some cubic yard requirements that are in there.
>> it just occurred to me that Travis County continues to grow. And we should be glad for that, but the oer side of the coin is that we need landfill space in order to accommodate all that growth. And so whether it's road construction, which generates construction debris, or if it's the construction of homes which probably generates construction debris as well as the waste stream on a daily basis.
>> what is the bfi understanding? And if -- (indiscernible). Then we'll hear from the other residents. Let's lay out the bfi if we can, tom.
>> okay. One element that both agreements have in common, bfi, like wmi, is essentially requesting Travis County not oppose their application to tceq to expand the current landfill. Now, what they're willing to do in exchange for that differs a lot from wmi's. Bfi is really saying they're willing to do one of three things. Each of those three things involve ceasing of a certain type of waste disposal operation at the 290 landfill by a certain date. And option 1 is to cease type 1 disposal by 2016 and cease type 4 disposal when that landfill reaches capacity, so no hard date on the type 4. Option 2 would be cease type 1 disposal by end of 2017. Sees type 4 disposal by end of 2022. And the third option is cease all disposal, that would be both type 1 and type 4, by the end of 2019. So they're basically agreeing to a date certain for when they would end their disposal operations in exchange for Travis County not opposing their expansion. And from what we understand, each of those dates is somewhat earlier than they would close if Travis County basically didn't take a position on their expansion. We're also agreeing in that agreement to cooperatively work to seek a new site. Bfi is requesting the express commitment for Travis County to use our condemnation authority if it's necessary and feasible for them to acquire the new site. They are also retaining any right obviously to continue type 4 operations even after type 1 ceases under a couple of those first two options. They're also reserving the right to have a transfer station at the 290 site even after disposal operations sees. They are also agreeing to continue their odor control measures that related in the drop in the number of complaints. And I think that's it.
>> why don't we hear from mr. -- mrs. Tory has to leave. Let's hear from her. And then maybe ask bfi a question the same as we did waste management. Yes, ma'am.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners. My name is gale vetory. I知 a resident of precinct 1 and have quite a history in the field of solid waste management in this area. I served as the initial chair of the city of Austin solid waste advisory commission from 1988 to 1994 and continued to serve for an additional four years. 10 years on that commission. And also served on the tnrcc's municipal waste solid waste council for four years as the representative on that body. I am very concerned about the topic at hand today and am shocked honestly that in the minutes that I have been here listening to the discussion I have not heard once the words reuse, recycling or composting or reduction. I think that what you have before you is an opportunity to really frame a challenge that we have in this region for appropriate management of our solid waste generation. But I think that before the discussion focuses on expansion of existing landfills or siting of new landfills, that it is required and imperative that we fully understand what the opportunity is for reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. We know looking at other cities in the united states right now that they are doing far better than we are in terms of our recycling percentage. Seattle, for example, has achieved a 60% recycling rate for its residential sector. The city of Austin, as well as we've done, we're only at about 30%. Seattle is seeking even higher percentage than what they are currently succeeding in achieving. I think that what is very important regionally that we understand what the opportunities are to shift the balance from disposal to the much more productive and economically strengthening strategies of recycling and composting. We know these strategies are not only ponl, but have far more benefits not only to the local economy, but also to the health of the environment. If we do not begin to frame the discussion in the context of these higher elements of the solid waste hierarchy, we are not asking the right questions. So I submit to you that before the discussion goes further in terms of this expansion or siting of new facility, that we shift the focus to what our real opportunities are and challenges are in terms of reducing what we are generating right now as solid waste. That is the lowest common denominator value of the way we can be thinking about this stuff. And it is not what's appropriate in 2004. It wasn't what we were thinking with the solid waste advisory commission for the city of Austin when we undertook the big challenge of shifting what was going to be 100% incinerated waste to thinking differently and getting us back on a much more productive and positive tract of the reduction, reuse and recycling. I want to also challenge your assumption in the proposals that are before you today that type 4 landfill has shifted from type 1 to type 4 is somehow more beneficial. We know today in Austin, I serve as a consultant on the new city of Austin city hall project. We right now are at a 90% recycling rate of construction and demolition debris coming off of that job. If you look nationally at cities that are organized well and put in appropriate infrastructure, they are able to drop their generation of construction and demolition debris going to landfill from 50 to 75% and more. Putting valuable resources in a hole in the ground is primitive. The other matters before you I would say reimbursement, I don't understand the logic there for parties that have not been particularly good stewards. Why are we rewarding them for doing something that really isn't benefitting the public good? I think that should be the common denominator in all of the decisions before this body, and I submit to you that there is a lot of work that could be done that can be a positive dimension of the discussion of solid waste management that's going to be a benefit environmentally and economically and relieve the burden that is placed upon the communities that are living around the landfills now. I would also finally say that proper management of landfills is possible. There are examples. In fact, in this county my understanding of landfills that operate with the good neighbor policy. And to accept the continued complaints of the residents around the landfills today that apparently are not being managed to best practice levels I would consider to be unacceptable. Thank you for expediting my delivery to you today, and I would be happy to follow-up as would be appropriate. Thanks.
>> before you leave, some of the things that were spoken on, especially the recycling programs, we had a solid waste regional submit here a little bit ago, and of course a lot of those aspects which you brought up were some of the topics for discussion, which i've been a big fan of as far as the recycling efforts and the composting and a whole lot of other things and a state-of-the-art type of facility, not only in the landfill stuff, but also type 1, but also looking at areas of recycling programs. And of course, type 4 construction debris and a whole lot of other things are something that was also being considered. So I think you're right on target with the comments that you made. Now, the point is and the question comes to mind, those operators that are out there now and especially for new landfill -- if a new landfill does come online, are they willing to take the challenge of bringing a lot of these things on the table as far as the service they offer to Travis County? So that's part of the challenge to see if they'll do those kind of things, but those are very, very good points and I知 glad you brought them up.
>> let me ask you, I think a lot of what you say is very practical. Unfortunately, we are dealing, as you know, and you've been involved with this for 10 or 12 years it seems like or more than that, and having worked with the tnrcc, now tceq, why do you think that tceq is not more involved in the forcing of these kinds of things from everything from reduction, reuse, recycling, composting? What is missing in this? It almost seems like that we're not getting help from people that are the folks that we ought to be going to and saying you all need to be saying this is what you have to do because I think those people will do it if the governing authority says this is what you're going to do because this is what is practically the way to deal with this issue. When you start talking about type 4 landfills and you can convert 50 to 70% of what you're putting in the ground into repsychables or reuse or whatever, I mean, that's a no brainer. So why isn't that being done?
>> Commissioner Daugherty, I wish I had an answer for you. I would also say that for the four years I served on the advisory council at the then tnrcc, the implementation of the regional plans was supposed to be predicated on the solid waste management hierarchy. I cannot tell you today how that management is -- the vision behind that management or the checks and balances, but I would be happy to pursue in terms of contacting some folks over there, what procedures did they have in place to ensure that there is due diligence relative to compliance with the hierarchy. That's the way the system is really designed to work, and I would agree with you that it appears to not be managed at this moment successfully because we have situations like in this county, and I知 sure it's typical throughout the state, where you do not see a shift of the percentages of management of solid waste generated to those higher tiered elements in the hierarchy.
>> but in terms of the -- the activities that you mentioned, reuse, recycling, composting, you're really talking about Travis County resident -- (indiscernible).
>> it's part of the businesses too. One of the tasks we undertook at the solid waste advisory commission for the city was to initially address the generation of waste in the residential sector. We then brought in the multi-family sector. We then prawt in after 10 years the commercial sector so now all businesses with 100 or more employees are required to recycle a minimum of four waste constituents. Same goes for multi-family. So it's possible with policy to begin to shift what the disposition of these waste generators are, but it takes a lot of planning, it takes a lot of vision, it takes a lot of commitment to say there is an opportunity here to do better. And I think that that, whether you have a situation where you're beginning to make a major investment in something like a new landfill or an expansion, the partnership should be actual liesing the highest elements of the vision. And I think that that is what I would say as the great opportunity here today.
>> so did we leave the landfills where they are and concentrate instead on reuse, recycling and composting?
>> well, I think that decoupling those issues, it appears to me that the landfills operating today are operating on a level that isroblematic to the neighborhoods and to the environment. And so I would encourage you to expedite the relief of dependence on those facilities. They don't seem to me to be successful players in this community. I would encourage you to --
>> this community we have been working on reuse, recycling, composting for years. I chaired the capco solid waste management committee eons ago and we basically tried to focus on these three. I don't think we ever thought that the need for landfills would go away. What we were hoping was that we would figure out a way to reduce the amount of waste that needed to be landfill. But in terms of -- and Travis County has made remarkable progress as a governmental entity, but to get to the average resident requires probably a much greater effort than we put into it. I知 110% in favor of what you were saying. When this came to the Commissioners court, though, first it came as bad orders and we said okay, let's try to work with them. Up to that point Travis County really had taken a position that we don't regulate landfills because we don't find the authority. After that it was basically we want the landfills to move, and we said okay, let's help them move. And the landfills came around and said okay, we will move, but then the question is where? So I don't think that we have prioritized landfills over these other three, it's just that the pills and -- landfills and where they're located and the need to move them came to us as a greater priority from the residents. I guarantee you every time I talk to ms. Mcafee she mentions these three. Every time we end that conversation I say I知 110% in favor of it.
>> my point is that we're looking right now at just some back of the envelope numbers, 35 plus about 12, 7, that's 45. 52 years at current rates of generation and what our existing landfill capacity is. If we were to going increase by 10%, 20%, 30%, a percentage of reduced load to landfills, that's going to extend even longer what our existing capacity is. Now, if we were to say the two facilities that is being discussed today were to be closed, how does that then shift the equation and what do we then find ourselves needing to do in terms of the infrastructure required to provide safe management of the waste? I started out the conversation with the discussion of those three elements only because I hadn't heard them discussed today. And I thought that any discussion about solid waste management really needs to be putting into proper context the various strategies that are available.
>> I agree.
>> are there three or four -- I have reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. So there really are four.
>> right. Some people combine recycling and composting as one. So it depend on how they structure the hierarchy.
>> we have discussed these issues.
>> I have no doubt. I think there's an opportunity here to have a plan, regional plan that is going to ask the right questions and make the right decision with this in clear focus in terms of what these opportunities are.
>> thank you. What question we have of bfi and then we'll hear from the residents and decide how to proceed with this.
>> i've got a question.
>> Commissioner?
>> can we get the bfi reps to come forward?
>> either for paul or for ray, we've been given what's called attachment a. Can somebody for the record describe what we are looking at here and the importance of this document in terms of what does it legally lock down if anything? What are we looking at?
>> the quick answer is that is bfi's proposed expansion plan that you would be agreeing not to oppose at tceq. Exhibit a is the -- owe bfi's proposed expansion plan that you would be agreeing not to oppose at tceq.
>> so if somebody says, well, I don't know exactly what y'all are agreeing to in terms of what it will engineering wise look like, the footprint, etcetera, is this the kind of document that would be the answer to the question aig you're approving an expansion and not being specific about it?
>> correct. It's quite detailed as the contours, footprint, etcetera.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, paul gossling. That document is represented prosecute to definitively establish what the contours are, so definitively establish how we would get there in terms of the -- sort of the split-level concept. There is not final engineering of that document showing you where -- for example, the length or slope of the benches or where the drainage chutes would be. There are refinements left, but that document ties us down to the big picture black box, if that helps.
>> related to the big picture, is there a way looking at this document that regardless of what happens on the wm side of the line that these two landfills out there could be reconnected with what we call filling in the mountain space? From the contours I知 seeing in here, is that basically impossible to occur?
>> I think there's both engineering and legal answers. I'll let ray give you an engineering answer.
>> ray (indiscernible) with bfi. There are some significant technical problems that would have to be overcome before I believe it could be approved by the tceq to fill in that valley area. Primarily related to the construction of the liner to contain the waste and then also how you would deal with leachate collection from the landfill and each the future area that would be built on the valley. However, the contours shown on that scale drawing of the proposed expansion that we're preparing, that also defines the footprint of the expansion and does not include filling in the valleys in any way.
>> if somebody came back and said we do want to fill in the valleys, that is not what this Commissioners court has signed off on to if indeed this one moves forward in terms of what this is going to look like? That would be contrary to what is on this document?
>> yeah.
>> that's correct. And we have committed in the proposed memorandum of agreement to request that the terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement be included as conditions of our tceq permit. And then the tceq itself would have the ability to refuse to accept any application that varied from exactly what the memorandum of agreement expresses, including this diagram.
>> any other questions from the court?
>> I just have one. And this is in the sake of time, j. D. Porter would like to speak. I don't want to get into his time, but again I would like for the record to reflect that I知 not in support of your expansion. Not only the expansion, but actually the memorandum of understanding that we have before us now. And you are basically referri g to expansion. We have floodplain situations here. Your elevation of 785 feet versus 760, those are very significant. And I would like for you to -- encourage you to continue to work with whomever to look for another site. In sake of j. D. Porter who would like to speak, he has to leave within five mince, judge, so he has something he would like to say. He's one of the residents.
>> any other questions of the court? So the understanding with bfi, one is that you would file an application to expand asap.
>> yes, sir.
>> Travis County would not oppose it.
>> yes, sir.
>> that does not say we would agree with it, but we would not oppose it. But we do think that without county opposition there's a greater idea that tceq would approve it? Do you think that?
>> yes.
>> and it would be a vertical expansion.
>> with a nar vair row horizontal expansion, but all within the existing boundaries. The footprint would move 14 acres.
>> and like waste management, it would begin searching for a new site immediately, and if Travis County can assist, basically you would call on us.
>> yes. We foresee the same scenario you described with waste ngment, that being that we would acquire as much as we could acquire. If there were pieces left in multitract parcells that needed to be condemned and they wouldn't sell to us, then we would like for you to assist in remedying the domain.
>> and in terms of those three options, you would expect Travis County to indicate which of the three we believe is best.
>> yes. We're happy with any one of them, and we would -- we would defer to you to select the one that you preferred.
>> any other questions of bfi? Y'all will be available in the event there are questions ter on?
>> yes, sir.
>> let's hear from others who have come down for this item, beginning with mr. Porter. By the way, for the record, when we say Travis County will not oppose it, e mean Travis County as a governmental entity, assuming the state conditions are met. I indicate in the sort of last statement of a memo that I prepared that nothing in these mad cow's restricts or is intended to restrict residents from pursuing a different course of action. Mr. Porter?
>> thank you. I appreciate y'all taking the time and giving me opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is j. D. Porter. I am a resident of precinct 1. Just for purposes of identification, I am a former chair, currently serve on the solid waste advisory commission for the city of Austin and capital area planning council's solid waste advisory committee. Previously I also worked for the Texas department of commission as their -- commerce for their recycling specialist for a number of years and have been following these issues for some time. I realize that you're faced with a difficult situation here and I would just like to echo some of the things that gale vetory had said about the focus, possibly broadening to not just include dealing with one of the tiers of the hierarchy for disposal, but to consider others. As you say, judge, this is something that has been approached before, maybe not as well as it could have been, but it is worth considering at this point in time because of the opportunity that is available to us. And I think it really does need to be a regional effort. My time serving with capco has made me realize that this is an area problem. Right now you are wrestling with it, but other counties are involved. And I think that it's important to try to draw them in to make them part of the solution since they are part of the problem. I mean, we are dealing with a lot of waste here in Travis County and will continue to. I think the regional effort is something that maybe will provide us some options that we don't have currently. I would like to suggest that that be something that you consider as you move forward. Also economic development. When I was working as the recycling marketing development specialist, I recruited and interviewed and met a lot of entrepreneurs in other states with businesses and technologies that used these materials that were for job creation. You get six more jobs out of treating your waste as a resource than you do when you treat it as solid waste and those jobs spin off in the community, usually to two for one. There's an excellent opportunity here to use private sector effort in an initiative to expand. We have traditionally not done much of that in this area. This is an opportunity that maybe ought to be looked at, once again nrks the broader scope of trying to figure out how we're going to handle our solid waste. I notice in these memorandums of agreement it says charged with ensuring a cost effective and sanitary solid waste disposal. Well, waste management is another way to approach it as well. It's not simply disposal. Diversion at landfill sites, composting, examples of which exist in the county, should also be included in the considerations, I think. Also enforcement. I have here a copy of a solid waste facility regulatory enforcement resolution that was passed by the solid waste advisory commission of the city of Austin. It was encouraging that the local entities take a look at their own enforcement capabilities. Counties have the same enforcement ability as the state in issues dealing with solid waste issues. This is true in a number of areas. You have authority to post permits, participate in discussion of state agencies, authority for civil enforce. Under Texas solid waste laws, local government authority to initiate civil government actions under the laws and authority to stop other threats to public health. This ordinance was put together, resolution was put together with input from legal teams from the city and the county. There are options. You have to keep a lot of these terms in here seem to be more focused on coming from industry than the county. I think that maybe that's based on the assumption that there's not some enforcement potential that the county may have. I would just urge you to revisit that. Also the documents themselves. I think that it may be worth going through and sharpening them up a little bit. I didn't have a chance to review them completely, but one phrase that did jump out to me on the waste management one, section 1-b says either party breaches the terms of this mad cow has a justification for terminating the moratorium, that basically means that if waste management wants to file, they breach the agreement. It takes all the teeth out of the agreement right there. That should be looked at, I think. And I don't want to take a lot of your time. I appreciate that.
>> let me ask you a question. We're posted to deal with two memorandum of understanding. If in fact our goal is to turn to reduction, reuse, recycling, composting and other landfill diversionnary measures, you would look to an agreement with a landfill in getting it done?
>> right.
>> it seems to me that public education, working with our residents and businesses is how you go about that.
>>
>> I agree. But what I知 saying is by focusogthis and moving forward down this trial without any attention, you do have to have landfills, I agree. Without any attention at all, while this process is taking place, you get yourself further down that trial of only having the option of landfills being one that you're going to have to pursue. I知 just saying is there not some way to incorporate some of these other considerations, perhaps with cooperation from the private sector? They both have strong recycling programs and may have expertise they can bring to the table as part of the bargain. I would say this may be looking at some way to incorporate that. It may provide some solution and give us some avenues that we can pursue in the future.
>> but really to get those four activities at a higher level than today, we really need to get residents, private businesses that generate waste to buy into the program and to do it.
>> I agree.
>> and we've been working on that for years. It's tough.
>> it is tough. And that's why I say perhaps the parties who want something from the county to deal with the solid waste issue may be able to bring something to the table that would help expand those capacities that we have currently in place, which are good, but are not achieving the goals that we know we can achieve, particarly in areas of economic development for bringing in businesses that would actually use these materials.
>> what should the landfills do?
>> I know that they have expertise in other parts of the country where they have built programs, even cutting edge stuff with electronics recycling, that may have application here. I would say it wouldn't hurt to ask them that same question, to ask them to bring forward to the table something that they think would be beneficial in trying to minimize the volume going into their own landfill. That is beneficial to them. The air space that they are filling now sz greater value in the future than it does currently. I知 just saying maybe make that one of the considerations in your discussions and what they're willing to put on the table in a way that might reduce the flow going into their landfill, helping the environment overall. It leng thenz their landfill life and it benefits the citizens of Travis County, I think.
>> j. D., What is the city of Austin doing currently to address some of these same concerns that you're putting before the Commissioners court? As the recycling? And you mentioned electronics, you mentioned several examples of what we can do. The city of Austin being the largest governmental entity within Travis County, probably generating most of the waste. Whether it be recycling in the type 1. So what is the city of Austin doing to assist right now?
>> right now we have -- of course, the number of programs that are based on the best available technology out there, the pay as you throw programs, extensive composting programs, the curb side programs. We have sixth street recycling taking the commercial waste off the street. And in each of these instances there are success stories as a -- and the multi-family recycling is one that is done quite well. And they have reached a certain level. But I always feel like there is an opportunity to go ta beyond. One of the reasons I serve on the solid waste advisory commission sz to try to push the city to look at new materials. We've experimented with what they call box board, cereal boxes, trying to figure out if those can be done, looking at private sector partnerships to try to find new uses for materials, particularly looking at plastics. It is not a done process. And as gale indicated, it took us 10 years to get where we're at with limited resources and a lot of push. My suggestion here is that maybe we have an opportunity to hook some stronger horses up to the plow here. If the private sector wants to come in and offer some expertise and some assistance, that should be welcomed. And I think that the city of Austin would benefit as well and certainly could be aware. I've got two resolutions that I brought from the solid waste advisory commission that have included the desire to work with the county and with capco to deal with this regional problem because more hands make the load lighter, and this is really something that needs to have a broader push. Look what we're going through to get more landfill capacity. And that is just one piece of the solution here. If we were putting equal energy into trying to achieve other goals, we would have a pretty amazing program here. That's kind of the thought here is broad division and include some of the other options.
>> thank you, j. D.
>> thank you very much, mr. Porter. Any other persons here on this item that would givelike to give comments? There are four seats available to come forward at this time. And if you would give us your name for the record, we would be happy to get your comments. Morning, ms. Mcafee.
>> for the court, melanie mcafee. And it's no surprise to you, judge, I would like to continue on a little bit on what j. D. Was saying. Let me begin by saying that frankly I知 appalled. Let me say that I知 sick of this. Let me say that I知 as tired of this as your faces have shown. Let me say that I read the mad cow's and here is my response. I feel like we are talking and talking and talking, but in the wrong framework, with the wrong people, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Here is how I think the dialogue should go. We make lots of trash in Travis County and lots of trash from many places comes to us. We are the trash leaders, like it or not. What are we going to do with it? This is how the dialogue needs to begin, not oooh here is 5-a, here is 5-b and how may we remediate a wreched situation. That is where the process gets off track. This should not be a situation between two unhappy groups. The problem landfills and the neighbors. But a dialogue that involves repsychers, the city of Austin and all the potential parties. The first question encourages hope, direction, possibilities and positive action. The second way is a closed loop. How can positive change be the focus? Automatically the real issue is immediately lost and the rabbit trails begin. We are no longer talking about what we should do with our trash because at that point all the focus is on landfills and the question is gone. Today I believe we should start all over again, but not out of fear or manipulation. In your own words Travis County is charged with ensuring that cost effective, environmentally safe, sanitary waste disposal services are available to its citizens. I think when we start with the question, what are we going to do with our trash, the point is to start planning for the elimination of waste rather than managing waste. The planning for salvage and recovery takes priority or at least equal footing with disposal. The talk about ordinances, future sites and mad cow's without -- mou's without this is a slight slap on the risk for waste sfoas al companies. I know Travis County does not want to put all their waste and all the waste from central Texas in a landfill. We just scratched the surface at the regional solid waste summit. Help from washington is critically needed to advise the county on how to proceed now. His bio is impressive, from degrees at cornell and george washington he went on to co-found the business, to co-found the institute for local self reliance, the national recycling coalition, and the grassroots recycling network. Ilsr does what we need, research, technical assistance and policy analysis for governments and communities. He can provide the mechanics for turning waste into well. Instead of discussion in how to negotiate and persuade two landfills into slowing down or eventually relocating he can give the county many ideas to assume the leadership position and to demand so much more. We need to shift this deplorable situation into a win-win situation. The present mou's are lost to the northeast community and at a loss for Travis County. There are so many new hazards entering our waste stream. It's going to cause tremendous challenges to our immediate future. Our region is rapidly filling in to the east. Travis County desperately needs a solid waste management plan that addresses this important question now. We don't need just more landfills, but we need to know how do we add landfill space that slows down what is put into it. I think if you embark on this new, you will have something that is something for us all to be proud about. Capco has repeatedly said there's not a crisis for it now. Declare a moratorium on all landfill expansions until the question we should have been asking all along is answered. This could easily be done in six months to a year. Oppose any landfill that is seeking expansion during this critical time and highly encourage and help landfills and recyclers to conform to the new plan. Begin with the time period of a moratorium the county is comfortable with. Work hard in this new direction and then renew again if progress is being made. Encourage any landfills to look with you. Invite competition. Only if the northeast landfills are willing to not purchase the wilder tract or file for any expansion of any type should they be given preferential treatment. If the landfills choose to go ahead and permit -- with permits and wmi chooses to purchase the wilder tract, so be it. Mark and I realize this threat perhaps more than anyone. For 21 years we built our business with the idea that it would become our retirement. If they get their permit for type 1 or 4, we will obviously go out of business and lose our nest egg of 21 years of work. After all this time we have spent trying to work things out with the landfills, I am no longer content to sit at the back of the bus. I really feel like this demands the same courage and thinking that prompted rosa parks and that it is time, whatever the consequences, to stand up to the landfills and fight. Not only for me, not only for the northeast residents, but for our entire community. The county with its powers of condemnation, opens up powerful possibilities. The county could condemn the wilder tract and the site could be a beautiful setting for a sustainable environmental center where people could see what happens to our consumer society in one direction and look the other and see what a living machine reclaiming septic sludge looks like or gardens produced with compost made with materials once headed to the landfill. I知 sure that the community and the city could help with the acquisition funding. Please, use that power wisely and make sure there is no more situations ever again like the northeast cluster landfill.
>> any questions of ms. Mcafee?
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> one, you've got to identify land. Two, you've got to find suitable, three, you've got to acquire it. And we don't have the power of condemnation, so if we don't find motivated sellers, we're stuck. [inaudible] we thought about that and discussed it. If that's what it will take to get it done, we'll identity. I thought we were responding to y'all's request. I don't know that we come to zero to do with solid waste to doing 100%. You all got us into the landfill solid waste area, otherwise we were kind of with capco doing the regional study the state had mandated. I知 thinking aren't you putting too much responsibility for solid waste on us. I hear you say basically forget about the landfills, r, Commissioners court, turn to reduction, reuse, recycling and the rest of that. It makes sense to me. But you still got the landfill problems that you all brought to us. See what I知 saying? So in fairness, I guess I知 asking are we expected to do everything in the solid waste area? I have spent more time on landfills than any other issues. And I thought I was doing it in response to residents from the walnut place association.
>> judge, if you --
>> any other questions from the court? Or comments? Yes, ma'am.
>> I just wanted to refine a little bit your comments which is that the landfill neighbors have come to this court to say join them in opposing any expansion. And that is what they are asking you to do. And that is what Texas campaign for the environment is asking you to do. To stop -- to take a firm stand opposing the expansion and to use your siting authority to make sure landfills do not go in inappropriate places. That's what the grayson county Commissioners court has done new hampshirely. They are standing by the -- unanimously. They standing by to oppose a waste management expansion that will go up higher than the statue of liberty. That's the one thing you could do is to take a stand to oppose the expansion. That's the clearest, simplest thing.
>> so we don't have to factor in the probability of losing. That you are saying just overlook that.
>> I think have you to figure out how you are going to work with the neighbors and other groups to beat them. The landfills have been beaten. Landfills have been prevented from being opened in palipinto county, expansions in seguin and luling have been defeated just in the last three years. I don't think you say a defeatist attitude.
>> so if we lose that, if we fight a good fight, lose it, residents can accept that.
>> you have your siting powers as well. Use both of those powers, and I think people will accept it because they are going to be fighting with you and know that you did everything you could.
>> how long would it take us to put a siting ordinance in place?
>> that's up to you.
>> no, there are laws that govern that. First we've got to post it, then we've got to advertise it in the newspaper, then we've got to receive public comments before we take action. If we expedite it, it takes three or four weeks. How long would it take to file an expansion application overnight? Our decision to hold off on filing the siting ordinance was not because we wanted to do it, it was the realization that in a shootout, the landfills could beat us. Because they can file the application overnight and we -- if we follow the law, must take three to four weeks. That was from the beginning. So --
>> the first thing you have to do is oppose something.
>> any other comments?
>> yes.
>> why don't we get those in and then we'll ask questions.
>> I have recently met with all three of the tceq Commissioners on landfill issues. And i'll be there tomorrow on another matter. I can tell you that there is a lot of concern both from the waste permitting folks as well as the three Commissioners that the landfill policies in this state are not working well for the citizens of this state. They are not working well for property owners that are living near them and they are not working well for the environment. So I would encourage the commission to engage in that and take a very aggressive policy with the state to transform the way landfills are regulated. You've already done that by sending some -- john kuhl to take a stand on the site operating plans. That's the matter that will be voted on tomorrow. So you've done that in other circumstances and I would encourage you to do that more. There is a general recognition of the problems of vertical expansions over unlined areas. And here in Travis County one of these -- I mean waste management has the love canal of Travis County. Those thousands and thousands of barrels in that landfill, there is no -- and that leachate from those barrels has been spread all around the other parts of that landfill now. It's one thing if we were talking, in my opinion, about something happening around the t.d.s. Landfill, that has done extensive composting, that diverts recyclable materials out of the landfill. It's another when you are dealing with these two landfills who on the very same page of the article in today's paper you have the news they are being cited or fined. Some of the largest fines against landfills in this state are due to waste management at this particular facility. They have not been good neighbors. There are still odor problems even at the new cells that they are developing. These landfills do not have a right to operate and to pollute our communities. And it's time to stand up to them and not just figure out what are the crumbs that we can get. Because these memorandums of agreement are crumbs. If waste management goes for two years, they say we can't find a site, you have given up power to fight expansions. We will work with you to find new sites in Travis County or other places, but the bottom line is you should not give away your power and your duty to oppose the expansion of these two sites. I was at the site, at the capco summit that we held just a few months ago and when the landfill operators were asked what are your long-term plans. I have my notes in front of me. And b.f.i. Said initially spanned existing facilities. Beyond that the information is closely held. They had no intentions of -- that they were willing to share of looking at greenfield sites. Waste management, what is your long-term plan? Wilder tract expansion. My we is have these landfills -- because it could be two and maybe other explanations for this. Have they really decided that they are going to seek other sites? Or are they just leading us along for two years during this moratorium acting like they are seeking other sites and then you've given up the strongest thing that you have.
>> that question led me to the conclusion that in order for us to determine whether or not the landfills are seriously seeking new sites, Travis County ought to assist.
>> I agree.
>> comments given at the summit led me to the conclusion we ought to negotiate further, get a firmer commitment to relocate. So the drafting before us today was generated after that summit. And a lot of the comments given there and comments that I received from people like yourself led me to the conclusion that rather than be passive, Travis County, you ought to get in there, indicate your willingness to use the condemnation authority to help them acquire it. Other sites. So they can move. Whether we act or not, waste management will be at the current location under its current permit another 12 years or so. B.f.i. Another six years or so. That's even without filing an expansion application.
>> everyone knows that.
>> the other thing -- when we sat down and chatted with tceq staff about what they would look at to decide whether or not to grant an application to expand, they said quote scientific data. That means evidence of violations. Right?
>> and many other things. There's been a lot of uncovered about the problems of that site, of leachate that is probably coming off the waste management's site into your closed landfill. And further contaminating your closed landfill. There's lots of scientific data that is not cited in your draft memoranda that need to be addressed. That you should not give up your one club, which is your right of duty to oppose the expansion.
>> but it's not really a club because it's really -- it may be influenced depending on what tceq does. When staff and I left the meeting with tceq, I mean my position -- I was real pessimistic about our ability to persuade them not to grant an application to expand, to be honest. And I was not optimistic. I mean I didn't leave there thinking all we have to do is get -- bear arms and stay ready. My thought was we need to try to figure out another way to get the landfills away from there because our [inaudible] included that we had a much greater chance of losing the fight than winning it with tceq.
>> lots of people take on battles they don't think they can win and they end up winning epl. Ask the people in seguin who stopped a landfill expansion there.
>> thank you for those comments, and we do have in the works and we have looked at this. I know when we first spoke to Commissioners court dealing with this solid waste and also landfills, we had an opportunity to adopt a solid waste siting ordinance that included landfills. Of course, where we ended up was that we adopted a solid waste siting ordinance that did not include landfills. It was basically for major and minor facilities, transfer station, recycling, composting operations, things of that nature. So we do have something on the books as far as that's concerned. However, the big kid on the block is the ordinance that I think still needs to be adopted by this Commissioners court that actually includes landfills within a solid waste siting ordinance. And that's still available. I just think we ought to put it back on the agenda to see what we want to do about that at this time. Now, also in that same regard as far as what you are speaking, if you notice in these m.o.u.'s, both of them, they are referring to the flood plain ordinance for variances to our flood plain ordinance and also not to file -- not to adopt a -- basically a solid waste siting ordinance that will actually govern a lot of these things because actually they are encroaching into the floodplains with the expansion aspects.
>> ific tell you when we explain that to people in the community that the county is considering letting landfills into the flood plains, they tell us you must be joking.
>> no, listen, and I -- I hear you, believe me. You all know the side I知 on, right? But the point is that i've been willing to fight if we have to go to court, i've been willing to fight this all the way to the letter of the law, but I need two votes on this court to do that. I have struggled for many years and with all of us, we have all had our different positions, but I would like to bring this to closure and say, all right, let's bring the fight on and oefpbd this scenario one way or the other. If they want to go ahead and file permit, so be it. Go and file your permit with tceq and then we'll go from there. But without an expansion grand through Travis County or a variance to a flood plain ordinance. Those are the only protective measures that we do have at this point. And I知 continuing to stand firm in my position on that. Now, of course, on the campaign trail I hear from all the folks in Travis County saying yes, we do have some strong considerations for those -- precinct 1, eastern Travis County being bomb barred with all of these things. And of course what can we do about it. Well, we can work collectively together as a community to make sure that the fight is on and that this Commissioners court vote these m.o.u.'s down and say go and do what you want to do, go ahead and file to tceq with these both operators. Then of course we'll just hoping it gets to [inaudible] in court. That's what I would like to do. But again, I need two votes to do that.
>> well, in my opinion, these landfills are law breakers and we shouldn't be coddling them. And we have an alternative. That's the good news. In Travis County, we have a landfill that is a model landfill nationally. We know it can be done better. These landfills are not doing the right thing. They don't have the buffers, they don't have the composting programs. They are operating, you know, from last century's technology. Not this century's. Let's move into this century. Have I neighbors here. I want to make sure they get a chance to get in here.
>> for the record, the law allows any member of the Commissioners court to post an item. We have had two years to post the siting ordinance to cover type 1 landfills. Any one member of this court could do it, could have done it and can do it. Landfills have said you post the dinance to cover type 1 landfills, we file the siting ordinance and file our application to expand immediately. They said it and I believed them. Any member of this court doesn't believe them, all they have to do is post the item. That's for the record. Comments from anybody else? Let's hear from the other two, then we'll have seconds.
>> I知 joyce trorson from wall naught place association. First of all I wanted to make a comment about the developments around the landfills. The people i've talked to from the developers tell us that the landfills have told them they will be out of there in eight to ten years. The people that are buying those homes I知 sure believe that just like harris branch residents believed it many years ago. I have a prepared statement from our executive committee. In our view, these memos of understanding offer the landfills the considerable advantage of the county's powers of condemnation along with the immunity from county opposition to expansions of any kind on existing sites. On the other hand, the memos offer the residents open-ended, illly funded expansions and additional years of truck traffic, noise, dust, litter and pollution of soil and water of two watersheds, not to mention continuing odors. We think this is a poor exchange. Therefore we respectfully request that the Commissioners decline these agreements. Further, we again request the Commissioners to join with the residents in opposing any expansions of the northeast landfills particularly if applications are filed before the regional landfill siting study is complete. Once more, we ask you to consider passing the resolution presented to the court on March the 2nd, 2004. The resolution states that any expansion of type 1 landfills will be opposed until the regional siting study has progress to do the point where the public interests of the entire county can be served. On a personal note, it's very frustrating to me to see that the county is willing to sign agreements that grant expansions and variances to expansions that they haven't even seen. This is not specic. This -- this is a 780-foot mountain of trash that goes up to the property line on three sides. This site drains into two watersheds, and they haven't come up with the drainage engineering. This is not a specific plan. It's kind of typical of everything that i've seen we've been presented. And I知 very disappointed. Thank you.
>> if the county uses its condemnation authority to help the landfills move to another site, is that a good thing or bad thing?
>> we are against expansions in this area. I don't really care what you do otherwise.
>> well, if -- comes with the idea let's take two years and find us another site. We won't move on the application to expand, we will look diligently for two years, you look over our shoulders. If we find another site, we'll acquire it with your help if necessary and get it permitted, and we will move within one year of getting that permit. Is that a good thing about that?
>> that would be fine as long as the county doesn't have to give up their power to oppose expansions. You could do that without a memo. They could just tell you we'll do this. And you don't have to give up anything.
>> any questions?
>> judge, let me just say this to you. I appreciate you all continually coming down, and of course we have not yet adopted a solid waste siting ordinance that also governs either landfills [inaudible] and I would like to thank the neighborhood association for being here on the many times that that ordinance did come up for adoption and put on the Commissioners court agenda. I知 going to try to see if I can maybe bring something back again and see where this court is in the future on a solid waste siting ordinance also that governs land fist. So that's something we may can look forward to very soon. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is joyce best. I live in northeast continue. From my personal standpoint, the biggest objection to the m.o.u.s is not what they are attempting to do in terms of finding new sites, but rather that they are giving the landfills permission to continue to maintain their current sites. And clearly that is something that the neighborhoods have opposed from day one. From day one our comments to you have been related to expansions of the existing landfills. We came to you with problems that are related to large amounts of waste continuing to go into those landfills. A circumstance that has not been an overriding problem up until the last few years. And you may also recall from previous discussions that up until the last few years landfills were not allowed to do the types of expansions that are currently being requested. Now the landfills are holding us hostage. If you look at what b.f.i. Is asking not only are they getting the vertical expansion that we have been fighting for two years as well as a 14-acre lateral expansion, but we are also willing to find another site for them, even one that's within 25 miles, and you've heard previous comments from a landfill operator that anything within 25 miles is more effectively done by direct haul rather than by transfer station. So we're giving them a new site where they can direct haul. We're letting them keep open their existing site. And we're letting them keep a transfer station there to the end of time. And the problem is whether it is type 1 garbage or type 4 garbage, and believe me, there are problems inhaeurpblt on type 4 garbage, the production of hydrogen sulfide being a major one. These folks will still be there with their trucks, their garbage flying out of trucks on to the roadside, all of those problems will still be there. And they are laughing all the way to the bank because they've in and out got two sites open and they are making money hand over fist. That's our objection because in doing one thing you are -- you are also allowing them to do the one thing we've been fighting all this time. In the case of w.m.i., I can only think about our past history with them in terms of neighbors as to whether or not they carry out the things they have committed to. All of these things make me extremely skeptical and I had already noticed the particular paragraph in waste management's considered that j. D. Spoke about that basically says we're willing to have a two-year moratorium until we decide we don't want it anymore. I知 not understanding what the benefit is to that. These m.o.u.s have too many loop hopes, too much vague language. Some of the scientific issues have already been addressed particularly with the one landfill and I too believe we're simply in the case of b.f.i. Exchanging a permanent commitment depending on how fast they can fill the place up. The time frame makes little difference if you are going to allow them to expand vertically. So from our standpoint, it's a win for the landfills and a lose for the neighborhoods because we are not getting them out of our neighborhood. We're simply allowing them to move on and maintain their operation where they are. I just feel that the resolution that the neighbors presented a few weeks ago is the way to go, and that that is not holding anybody as hostage. It would allow time. If waste management has 10 to 12 years left on their current site, they have no reason to be filing for an expansion at this point except greed and the desire to threaten. I really believe that the court would be better served to adopt something that says there's a two-year moratorium on expansions. And allow a regional approach with b.f.i. Language that they only want something within 25 miles, you are not adopting a regional approach and we feel that that's very necessary. There have been many other arguments articulated particularly by mr. Gregory and other landfill -- another landfill operator, who certainly can see some of the flaws in these agreements. And I would encourage the court to please give consideration to the fact that they are not the kind of things that will be beneficial to the northeast Travis County area.
>> you do know a moratorium is a lot more symbolic than substance. That is -- Travis County does not have any authority to enforce that. To the extent that tceq looks at what we think, I assume a moratorium would mean something.
>> our thought is after the negotiations that have been ongoing now for a couple of years, the fact that over a thousand residents of the northeast Travis County area signed a petition a couple years ago saying no expansions, the landfills, given the opportunity not only to have the county help them find another site, but to be helpful in any way possible to help them relocate should surely be willing voluntarily to say for two years we will not file for an expsion. That seems reasonable to me.
>> questions?
>> I just have one. Robin, those folks in seguin and other places where they, you know, shut theirs down, where are they sending their waste?
>> they are sending them to the regional landfills probably in this area and also in the alamo area for that --
>> Travis County. They are sending this to Travis County?
>> I don't know in particular where seguin is putting their waste.
>> but they are sending it somewhere.
>> absolutely.
>> and probably those people don't want a landfill near them either.
>> well, the problem with that landfill is it was like these two landfills, mostly unlined old sections. Old cells that were unlined that this operator just wanted to go up over unlined cells.
>> then my point is that people in Travis County don't want listened fills close to them, but -- landfills close to them, but neither does anybody else in the county. And therein is my dill illegal immigrant phafplt we're all on the same page, we don't want them close to you. Well, I would say let's put them out of business she but who is going to put them out of business if it isn't us. If we're going to reduce the waste stream. If we're going to reuse some of the waste that we generate. And if we're going to recycle and do the other things that are really good ideas. But I mean I知 willing to say and I have taken steps to do all those things, but it's like one person, you know, what kind of an impact does one person have on this whole waste stream. And so how many other people, you know, since we started talking about this issue have reduced, have recycled, have reused the waste stream. We had ample opportunity to understand how this works. And so I mean I think we're on the same page here and we don't need to glare at each other on this issue. But I think we need to kind of all get to the point where we understand what generates this waste and how we're going to go about it to put them out of -- let's put them out of business.
>> well, let's put them out of business in the long run by doing all these things that --
>> start today.
>> let's start today. And one of the ways we can do -- the fastest growing waste stream is electronic waste. And I知 here to tell you that to join with Texas campaign for the environment and join with dell computers who recently took stand in favor of producer responsibility so that the producers of it are creating the market. And they've taken a stand in favor of state legislation in another state in favor of producer responsibility. Cities and counties across this country are adopting resolutions to support producer responsibility. That's the other wave of the future that the three rs and composting are kind of even a step behind. That I would like to work with the Commissioners for that kind of a solution.
>> I知 willing to try anything. The other thing is perhaps we could tax our consumption and generate some revenue that way. I think that would be revenue. The users would get to pay for the landfills. And that's each and every one of us.
>> that's another approach.
>> we need to look at all kinds of options.
>> we are too.
>> but I think that --
>> we're not willing to look at expansions especially when we have a model one --
>> when you have a moratorium, what happens to the waste stream generated daily?
>> a lot of it can go to t.d.s. And some of it to Williamson county and then we have to start reducing.
>> are you saying let's east of i-35, it doesn't matter whether it's north of the river or south of the river she it's okay.
>> no, I知 saying there's a huge difference between t.d.s. And what they are doing and what one person can do, what one company can do in terms of divert to go composting and using beneficial uses. It's amazing. You've been there I知 sure many times. There's a world of difference between what t.d.s. Is doing and what these other landfills are doing. It's up to producers, to consumers, up to government. We haven't focused enough on what producers can do to make their products more recyclable because we've been scurrying around trying to find markets.
>> let's put them all out of business, but it's going to take every one of them.
>> Commissioner Daugherty.
>> well, I知 not for putting anybody out of business. I have been involved with this thing over anything other than odors. Now, I realize there are other issues that we need to work on. And I知 willing to work on everything from reduction to reuse, recycling and basically waste management is what we're talking about. I am not in favor and I will -- and I will make it in the form of a motion that we deny entering into any -- or entering into this m.o.u. On either -- with either one. But what I am in favor of and I want everybody to know what I知 in favor of, number one, no sphrapbgsz and no variances. I知 in favor of these people living out the contracts that they have right now. I am in favor of Travis County using every power that it has, and I think that we have a lot of power to go out and to condemn and to find a property where we can persuade these folks that this is what they need to do and we'll have to persuade them given they know they are going to have to move along in 8 to 10 to 12 years. Whatever it is. I don't have a major issue with the type 4 landfill staying at that location with the intent of being able to reduce -- it really gets my attention if we can take and recycle 50 to 70% of type 4 landfill, I will do everything in my power as a Commissioner to work on that. And I think that this community wants to do that. But I will tell you what I want to do from this seat right here, I want to get off of this subject. And I think that it's real clear what we need to do. I think that the industry is willing to work with us. I think that they know that we want, the neighbors want them to move. Not to say we're not going to move and have another dog fight with somebody else. Because we are going to have those. But it is not right to not attempt to help them and within our power, we're the one I think that has the stroke. You know what? I don't think it makes one tinger's you know what to tceq what we think. I honestly do no. I think we are going to go down they have the stroke and let's face it, we all understand that people have abilities to do things that, you know, some of us scratch our heads say how in the world did that get done. But I do think that the industry has the ability to go over and to probably persuade tceq that they need to have the ability to perhaps maybe not expand here, but they've still got to stay in business, and I want them to stay in business because I don't think that we're ever going to take and do away with all of our garbage. I would love for people in this community to understand that you need to do all of these things. I try to do these things and I think most of us try to do them. We've all got garbage cans in our offices to do the right thing. 99% of the people in this community don't do it. Now, I don't know if we have enough money, y know, to persuade or to educate if that's what we have to do. But, you know, I mean I want the industry to know where I sit. I don't think that it's wise for us to enter into these m.o.u.s, but I think that they need to understand that it is going to be onerous on us to go out and define property we can condemn. I知 still amazed we have the ability, so I知 told, although I think there's a little bit of wiggling there when you say we have the ability to go to another county and condemn other county's property. So i'll be real interested to see what happens to that. But I知 -- but basically that's where I am. My motion is to deny entering into either one of these m.o.u.s.
>> i'll second that motion, Commissioner Daugherty, since you brought it up, I want to make the same kind of motion. I'll second that motion.
>> may I ask a friendly, please? Would you kindly separate this motion into the two items that we've got before us? Make within and then make the second -- one and then the second one.
>> okay, so my first motion would be to deny or to not have any sort of m.o.u. With b.f.i.
>> that's 21-a.
>> 21-a.
>> I second that.
>> any more discussion of the motion? The motion basicallys not to enter into an m.o.u. -- not to proceed with the development of an m.o.u. With b.f.i. Along the lines that are in the [inaudible]. Any more discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Davis and Daugherty voting in favor of the motion. Those against the motion, show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez and yours truly. I move that we take no further objection these matters today and sreut back on the agenda next week.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of that?
>> actually could we get the second one because I think it will have a bearing on the second [inaudible].
>> it really won't. I need to mull over it. That's why I think we ought to take a week.
>> well, I -- I知 going to say it right now in terms of where I知 going because if there is a motion about rejecting waste management, I will join that maker and seconder of that motion. [multiple voices]
>> substitute motion? The reason I think we ought to take another week is I need to mull over a lot of stuff. It's one thing to turn them down, it's another thing to figure out a course of action. So another week, if we accept that m.o.u.s are not the direction in which to proceed, the question is where do we go. Even if we go nowhere, we go somewhere. If we go nowhere, the motion basically is withdraw. I just think we need another week to think about this.
>> there's two of us that are not here.
>> I知 sorry, two weeks.
>> but i'll go ahead and make a substitute motion, but related to 21-b, that we reject moving forward any further on a memorandum of understanding.
>> I second that.
>> the reason I won't support that is taking no action today is accomplishing the same thing for us. That's the motion though.
>> I move that we table until next week.
>> and I certainly want -- [multiple voices]
>> I move we table it.
>> I would second that. I certainly want to honor your request to sit on it for two weeks. I mean I知 not going to vote -- [inaudible] it's not like I知 going to change my mind.
>> do you say you need two weeks?
>> when we're back.
>> I think it was we need two weeks. Substitute motion is one that we need to vote on. The substitute motion really is to reject the w.m.i. Memo.
>> and my mind is not going to change two weeks, two years, whatever. I am hell bent against these -- both of these memorandums of understanding. I think that we can do some things here, not coming through an m.o.u., As you heard the neighborhood groups say they do not want -- my position is not going to change, it's been basically consistent all throughout this process.
>> we understand.
>> so I知 not going to change my mind.
>> I understand.
>> so I just -- you know, but, you know.
>> but the question is if we reject the m.o.u.s, where should we go. We have two weeks to answer that. Substitute motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis, that basically rejects the w.m.i. M.o.u. All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner and Davis voting in favor. Voting against show Commissioners Davis, Daugherty and yours truly. My motion is that we take two weeks and come back --
>> that was Gomez.
>> don't include me in that second motion. Because both motions --
>> Daugherty and yours truly, Gomez. The original motion is take two weeks, mull over this and try to figure out where we go from here.
>> a table for two.
>> that's right. More than tabled because I知 looking for a course of action. And any member of the court with specific ideas about where we are to go can get those to news writing Thursday or Friday before two weeks which is April 6th. It would be appreciated. All in favor of that motion? That passes by unanimous vote. We have five minutes, you all. We cannot cover the after school item unfortunately. We may be able to cover the precinct 1 item. So my recommendation would be that I think if the after school folks were to come back at 2:30, unfortunately it ties up the rest of your day, if you come back at 2:30, we will try to take you up at that point and get you out as soon as possible. I think that's the best we can do now. As you can tell, we have been agonizing over a serious item that we've been discussing for a couple years.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:40 PM