Travis County Commissioners Court
March 1, 2005
Item 32
32 is to consider and take appropriate action on request from browning-ferris industries to negotiate performance standards and other matters regarding operation of landfill in northeast Travis County. I will circulate the motion to the court and interested residents who have been coming down on this item yesterday. At this time I move that the county engage in discussions with bfi and interested residents for the purpose of determining whether the county should enter into a performance-based contract regarding the following: one, the operation of the sunset farms landfill. Two, the remaining capacity or future site life of the landfill currently in operation. And three, the current relocation of bfi's type 1 waste disposal facility to a new location.
>> second.
>> now, we do have quite -- we did hear quite a bit of comment last week, but if there's something new and different, this is the time to give it. I have been kind of the front person on this, and I will continue to do so, along with appropriate county staff. If you would like to give comments on this item today, something in addition to what was given last week, this is the opportunity. Please come forward. If you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> judge, before we go to public comments, in your motion itself, the relocation as far as the first item, I have not yet had revelation proposed to me as far as what is the status of relocation for the landfill. I think that's very significant I think in the motion that was made here before today to let us know what the status is. Otherwise it appears that we're trying to maybe be put a situation upon us as far as handcuffing us to where we aren't able to know exactly what's going on. I don't really know if they're attempting to relocate or are they just sitting around buying time? I don't know. But I do know that I requested a status report on this, and since the relocation is mentioned in the motion and bfi has not come forward and let me know, we'll be out of there in a certain length of time and we're working on some place, we'll know this by a certain date, it's nothing concrete here.
>> judge, can I give an answer to that question?
>> I would like to know where they are and in writing. I'd like to see stuff in writing. I hear a lot of stuff they're saying, but nothing in writing to say this is ironclad, this is what's going to happen. The community need to know these kind of things.
>> morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. I'm brad nugess with browning-ferris, general manager of sunset farms landfill. To address specifically the relocation and siting of a new landfill, i'll just rehash for a moment what we talked about in November, and that is that we had gone through a significant matrix of trying to identify properties which we identified well over 30 properties in that some of those were eliminated from geotechnical criteria, but we have started, as I stated then, to go to our priority listed sites and make offers to purchase that property. At the time I think we have made offers on three that were declined. We're working on our fourth. The fourth one was declined. We're aggressively pursuing the fifth property on there as well as some of those a little further down in the list. Very optimistic about a couple of those lower tiered ones, but we really want to push for our higher priority sites, which make the most sense to us both in land volume and economic value. So that's really where we stand at this point. If you would like a written report on a more periodic basis, I'm sure we could provide that for you.
>> my point --
>> we don't want to disclose any of the properties...
>> I'm not asking you to disclose. I'm not asking you to disclose, but I think that we need to know the status of that, but not only that, when are you going to leave the property. Just a period -- in the period that this status report of relocation and finding a site is something that continues to drag on and drag on and drag on, which is really not fair. Because the whole intent in my opinion is to bring closure to those northeast landfills. And of course I tell the Commissioners court, if they want the landfills to locate in their precinct, we'll look for areas in their precinct to locate, and that in itself ought to be enough incentive. So right now we want to make sure that you close and we're going to move off the 290 east landfill sites. Of course, I haven't heard anything constructive enough to make me believe that that's happening.
>> number three is intended to give us an opportunity to discuss specifics regarding it. And obviously that's one of the factors that we considered during those discussions and during the status reports to the court as we move toward whether to take action or not. I don't know if the agreement is a done deal. The motion is that we would enter into discussions. And if we can do this here in the county. If we can reach agreement, fine; if not, we can live with that. Have we posted efficiently to get an update on that?
>> pardon?
>> last week I was asked to streamline the agenda item to deal with bfi, and we intentionally tried to exclude waste management. There was that one question, though, that the Commissioner Daugherty did ask. And I understand that they have provided that answer. Have we posted generally enough to get a response from wait management? -- waste management.
>> it's certainly rate the as an issue. [overlapping speakers]
>> would you like a status report on how you're coming with progress toward a site? Can you do it quickly?
>> I can do it very quickly. I'm john joseph and let me just pass this out.
>> do you want to give to me and we'll pass it out for you. Commissioner Sonleitner wants one too. We'll get it by her office. Real quickly, I have a memo that talks about landfill capacity in Travis County, and there's a statement here, according to the landfill owners report to tceq, the report is as follows, and I would like to know if you can verify this. Waste management 12.8 years. Could you verify -- is 12.8 years roughly what you think that waste has from this point forward with regards to what they have permitted?
>> Commissioner, I don't know what memo you're referring to. I would defer those questions to the operators. I would like -- as I told y'all, mr. Jacobs is not in town today. I will be happy to address that to them and have them come back with an answer to you.
>> I think what we probably should do is just call tceq. Since it's stated that their latest report, so I could do that with them just as easily.
>> I think that's probably true, but we'd be happy to address that sometime in the future.
>> good enough. Thank you.
>> on the motion I indicate our interest in discussing with residents and also bfi in those key points under there. Any other points about the motion?
>> judge, I just would like to just say one statement about that report. Commissioner Daugherty, if you look at every year -- the report was given to you to show you that the capacity doesn't drastically change every year. It doesn't go 12, 11, 10. That is actual fact that capacity is much more stable than that and it can remain at the same amount for a good five years to 10 years. And that's why I brought you the records going back to 1999.
>> anything else?
>> my inteption is to keep -- intention is to keep the court updated. And when I update the court, it should be an update of progress not only with bfi, but also with the residents. And what we try to do is give a little bit more advanced notice than the day or two before the Tuesday meeting, but I whole lot depends on lately we've been having a lot of discussions the Thursday or Friday before the Tuesday meeting, so we will try to give a lot more advanced notice than that. If there's nothing further, nobody else wants to comment on this...
>> I do want to say one thing, since I'm known for not sneaking up on anybody. I do want this understood: I don't think there's anything wrong -- I mean, I have no problem with voting for this. My gosh, all it is is entering into studying and looking at this. But I do want bfi in particular to know this. If I can verify that the years of waste management at 12.8, bfi at 7.1 from tceq where I basically want to go with this because I think that we need to put some finality into this, and that will be that I'm going to ask bfi if you would put in writing that this will be the date that we will leave. And as far as I'm concerned, if I find out that 12.8 years is really -- is fairly accurate with waste, that puts this thing at 2017, which is the reason why know now I know why i've used 2017, it's been suggested that 2013 is the year, but I will say that from my standpoint, I mean, I'm willing to move forward with this. If tceq is not inclined to just autonomously close landfills, which I don't think there's anybody in this room that thinks they're going to do that, then I think what we need is certainty with regards to saying this is when the two landfills will cease to be in operation. Now, if that's 2017, i'll tell you real bluntly, I'm willing to say hey, I'm going to want bfi and I'm going to want waste to say we'll put that in writing that that's when we will be gone as a type 1 landfill at that location. And -- because that's what I need to go forward with this thing. I'm not necessarily interested in having one gone and the other one not gone. I mean, I think that there's too big a fight on our hands to do that. Now, tceq comes back and says, well, I mean, those years we can't verify that that's what we -- that that's what we think, then I guess i'll have a different opinion. But I just want you to know where I'm headed with this thing because quite frankly I would think that if y'all put that in writing that we can take that to the bank and then I think that you also are obligated to go out and find a green fill. I know there are a number of people who would like you closed next month, but I don't think that I can do that over tceq. And for that reason I just want you to know that that's the direction that I'm going to head in this thing, so there's no ambiguity with regards to where I'm headed with this thing. So i'll find out from tceq -- I think that they will tell me if these years are somewhat accurate. If they are, y'all know where I am and everybody else in the room knows where I am with this thing.
>> are you planning to expand at the current site?
>> judge, Commissioner Davis --
>> yes, sir, we are.
>> that's the bottom line.
>> let me describe that to you. It's not an expansion as much as it is gaining time to get this new site permitted and located, purchased and under construction and open.
>> let me say this. The bottom line is still expansion. I mean, I don't care how you cut it, how you want to look at it. You are considering expansion, something that this neighborhood strongly opposes. As far as time is concerned, we've been wrestling with this thing for quite a number of years now. This court has had an opportunity to adopt a solid waste landfill ordinance. Of course, it didn't happen, but we're still right here as we were before, dilly dallying around, doing some of the same things. And it is prolonging the operation without any movement of you relocating. There's no doubt in my mind when this first came about and we were looking at the solid waste -- solid waste landfill ordinance, no doubt in my mind at that time that consideration was given on the other hand to relocate. And, of course, it hadn't happened. And again, at the table it's the same old stuff, but the bottom line is expansion. So there's no way in the world I can support anything that is going to continue the existence there as far as expanding. And the neighborhoods are definitely opposing this, and I definitely oppose it. And of course, if it was in any other Commissioners' backyard, they would be opposing it. It's not in their backyard. They say things that if it were in their backyard, they would be speaking like I am right now. But again, I'm one vote on this court, but I'm going to tell you one thing, I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to speak for the right thing to do. And it is the right thing to do to continue to oppose it.
>> i've got one in my backyard already.
>> judge and Commissioners -- [overlapping speakers].
>> the bottom line is not expansion. The bottom line is solid waste management, that's what we're in. We want to continue to operate and do that. Really, the amendment that we will file will be an extension of time just to allow us to get that property and permit in place to be operating at a new facility.
>> and Commissioner Davis, let me say this: I don't say things that I don't mean. If you want me to go to tceq and tell them, if you can permit -- if you will permit a landfill in precinct 3, if you can do that, I will go to the precinct 3 people and say, you have garbage. If you can permit it in precinct 3, I absolutely stand by that. Now, if I need to go to tceq and testify in front of the Commissioners and say, let's get on with trying to find one, and if we can find one, I don't want all the precinct 3 garbage to go to precinct 1. I'm serious about that. Is there anybody in this room that thinks that we can do that? I'll ask and I will have that as public record so you know that I mean what I say. I don't think that it's fair that you and Commissioner Gomez have all of the garbage in Travis County along with 32 other counties. I believe that from the bottom of my heart. Now, can I change that? Yonl whether I can change that, but I will tell you I will go on record so you will see that's exactly what I mean.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Davis.
>> for the reasons I stated, I'm continually going to vote against this operation of the 290 east landfill.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 10:31 AM