Travis County Commissioners Court
August 16, 2005
Item 3, Morning Public Input
Now, should we start left and go right or right and go left? Let's start left.
>> I think I致e gotten permission to go first. Thank you. Thank you for receiving our comments. I知 a civil engineer/attorney and I practiced for about 35 years in environmental planning and environmental law. And that's about the length of time that these people have been living with this situation, some of them about 35 years.
>> and your name?
>> I am jerry dietrich and I disclose right now that I知 the father of melanie mac afee who has a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. And I would like to say too that I served in the 90's as a consultant to rust environment and infrastructure, which was holding on by waste management. So I致e had a look at both sides of this ledger. I致e seen the evolution of this contract almost from the inception. I致e been fed information and I致e interfaced back and forth with the northeast residents for the last three years. I was in on an early meeting with you judge and tom nuk ulz and some of the other contract discussions. And I think what I can best stress here today is that from the beginning of this evolution of the contract, our perception has changed about the value of this contract. And I知 sure in many ways your perception has changed because we've all been working at this for a good time. The county, I feel, wants the concept of being an evenhanded enforcer of performance for all operators in the county. And I think you're headed for a dangerous path to adopt a position as a pseudo landfill partner with only one or two selected landfills. And I致e heard nothing in the discussion today that really shakes me off of that assumption that you're embarking on the position of being a pseudo partner through agreement. And by just saying no to the expansion in the northeast landfill, you can really haste enthe competitive scramble on a competitive basis for good large fights that can have their own internal screening and have many -- and forego many of the troubles that are going on here. And what if later on the city or some other major user finds a site, a good optimum site like we've all been talking about, where the site is large enough that you can almost treat it internally. What had if some other entity finds a site before 2015. And then where is the county as a pseudo partner with one or two selected landfills and you find that either through all of these things mentioned could happen, you can't control it with a contract. You could have a breach of contract, you could have an arbitration. You could have a permit problem that would extend this time. We've seen the volume tables. They mean nothing to us because any good landfill operator will make the maximum use of the landfill he has under permit. You can't control by this agreement them modifying their compactive effort, modifying the efforts of doing this fill. And they can stretch their capacity out for years. And I know we've been quoted today that date, that magic date and 2015. And tom read us paragraph 10, but let me tell you, legally as I see the contract, paragraph 5 overrides paragraph 10. And paragraph 5 definitely allows them to keep this landfill open until they've placed and finished the placement of all of that fill. So we're talking about something here with an indefinite permit, an indefinite time. We're talking about the possibility of 10 or more years unless you modify paragraph 5 because this is notwithstanding any other provision under this contract. And then it gives them the alternate to finish placing a fill. So legally we're agreeing to 25 years of closure plus 10 or more years on this permit expansion. You're asking the people here to go for another 25 years, they've been through 35 years, and that's why I want to stress this perception and ask you to listen to them carefully. And my best example of that is when I was a young engineer, I was a young marine captain and I had serve in world war ii. I was gung ho to go over there and straighten things out in korea or to give things straightened out in korea until they called me, judge. And I値l tell you my understanding of that war changed immediately. These people I just urge you to listen to them carefully because their understanding of this is because they're on the front lines. Their health and safety is on the front lines. And your protection of their public health and safety can best be given to them by just saying no, opening this up to not only the three contractors that are in Travis County, but to any others and announcing your master plan that in the next five or six years you opened other sites and you're going to let all bidders come in. I値l bet you would see this 10 or 12 years time of searching for optimum or a mythical site, you would see that search come down from 12 to 10 or five or six if you open it up to I値l bidders. And emergencies, we're running out, we're running out. The last we heard you had at least five years. And if you do run out in five years, there's nothing that says you couldn't use tds's landfill and make emergency measures. You're not running out. And so I just urge you to listen to the people living on the frontline who is not only their health and safety threatened, but I can guarantee you there are businesses and historic properties threatened. And if not, maybe they will be gone. If you don't just say no and then open this up to competition, I just think you're down the wrong path, if you're a pseudo partner with these people you will never get all of these things worked out to where you can control how to compact the fill, how they extend this volume out further and we would be satisfied with nothing less than just knocking out all those clauses and just putting in November the 1st 2015. But even that is not good for us. We think it's a bad deal for the people and that their health and safety would be compromised over the next 40 years. Through the closure and the 10 or 15 years that this contract was extended and you have no way to guarantee us there won't be a breach, there won't be arbitration, there maybe some future judge. Indeed, there might be some future Commissioners court that might want to amend the contract. And then where are these people that are on the front lines? They're back to ground zero. That's where they're at. So just with that premise I would like you to just listen carefully to some of the comments on the contract.
>> thank you. Let's listen carefully to the -- [ applause ]
>> who else plans to give testimony today. After you speak, will you give somebody else a chair?
>> I would like to ask -- to address the question, in your opinion, in your legal opinion as our attorney, tom, is paragraph 5 -- does paragraph 5 override paragraph 10?
>> no, it does not. I値l be happy to read the contract. At the end of the day all you can do is let the language speak for itself. I respect jerry, he's entitled to his opinion. I hope he respects me and thinks I知 entitled to my opinion, but at the end of the day you just have to read the contract language yourself. [overlapping speakers]
>> we will review it.
>> I hope you know, when mike comes we need to take that item up.
>> just a quick -- just the force of the language of notwithstanding any other provision in this contract, we've got to trust an arbitrator or a judge to that decision. I do a lot of arbitration. I arbitrate environmental cases all the time. If that clause is put in front of me, I知 going to let it override every provision in that contract because the english language tells me notwithstanding.
>> we'll look at that. [overlapping speakers].
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...the manager of the landfill probably ought to know that. I知 pretty sure he does. My understanding is between 17 and 33 counties. Running out of capacity, if we are running out of capacity, which obviously is not as urgent as what we have been led to believe, it's because we are bringing stuff in from everywhere. Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned what rights do the other counties have for us to go dumping in their back yards, what rights do we have for them not to -- to dump in ours. You are charged with protecting our health, we are holding you to that. The other thing that I would like to say, anybody that's that evasive, the b.f.i. Representative to evasive it makes me nervous to enter into a contract with anybody who can't look me in the eye and answer a question. They asked the court to step aside instead of protecting the citizens. Please do not step aside. I realize this is a long fight, it's a long battle, y'all are probably tired of it. We're sick of it. We would like this to come to a close, for you to do what your citizens are asking you to do. The people who elected you asked you to do which is to say no to this kind of thing. It's time to do what Commissioner Gomez said, to explore further what does it mean to have zero landfill. And obviously it can't be zero, but we can do a lot better than what we are doing. Time to explore other options that protect the health of all of the citizens in this county. And please vote no. Thank you.
>> ms. Best? We will need those two chairs, too, by the way, because I saw six or seven hands a few minutes ago.
>> do you need to also make a similar disclosure like [indiscernible] did.
>> I知 mark macafees sister and a precinct chairman in this county and a very active democratic.
>> always been a close friend of the family by the way [laughter]
>> ms. Best.
>> my name is joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. On July the 9th, b.f.i. Held a meeting with a neighbors from a number of neighborhoods surrounding the landfills to discuss their proposed contract with Travis County. Mr. [indiscernible] of b.f.i. Said repeatedly we just need a little more time, we just need a little more time. Apparently they also just need nine million more cubic yards of capacity. But that figure is not anywhere in their contract. There's no contractual limitation on their capacity and in my view that is a dangerous situation. They have already distributed figures about how they justify the 9 million cubic yards and of course just a few minutes ago, we were given a -- an additional sheet from them that indicated what they would need if they had no increase in their volume, from one year to the next, and it's basically the figure that I quoted to you last week of 5.1 million cubic yards. If they do not have an increase in what they take in, between now and 2015. Mr. Detrich spoke about their operating practices. It appears the rate of compaction of their waste is lower than the industry standard, substantially lower than the compaction rate of their next door neighbor. Within the past four years the rate of compaction was the lowest, the volume the highest, the same ye they requested and received a 10-foot height expansion. The volume dropped the next year. According to the volume reports, that expansion gained 2.3 years in landfill life for them. Clearly this company has the ability to use better compaction practices, diversion of waste, deconstruction and recycling of construction and demolition waste and many other methods to allow them to operate until 2015, with their currently permitted capacity. They don't need more. And that was the emphatic consensus of all of the neighborhoods represented at the July 9th meeting. The neighborhoods have already given b.f.i. A little more time. By agreeing to a date of 2015 rather than the 2011 date that should be their closing date based on current projections. Don't reward their greedy business practices by allowing them to expand to the detriment of the community. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. English.
>> good morning, my name is trek english. I want to answer just a few questions. According to the b.f.i. Report, with tceq where it says how many counties did you accept waste from this year, which is 2004, said 17. I have a list of counties if you are interested. I will pass that on. I think that I have already given you copies of that. In 2000, January 2000, the -- the residents had a meeting with b.f.i. And at the time there was a series of questions that were posed to them and one of them was how much capacity do you have left? And they said 13 years. Which would take them to 2013. However, if you do remember, they received a 10-foot expansion after that. So that should have -- should have really taken them to 2015 with no problem. Now -- we can argue many things. Azy -- zero waste, I will let somebody else argue it because it's -- it's easy to comprehend once someone explains it to you, that's not what I came here to do. I will also echo what -- what the two previous speakers or three previous speakers have said that -- that mr. Nuckols had said that we -- we brought up the point of notwithstanding contract, if you remember July 9th. That's what incurred a lot of wrath after he commented said, if we take it out, trek, would you be satisfied? I said it would be a start. Notwithstanding the first sentence of paragraph 5, we were asked it to be removed. We also asked clarification of to -- to the sentence that says or when we reach capacity or what capacity is reached. I don't -- it's in paragraph 5. And -- yeah or when capacity is reached based on that maximum height and footprint. You notice it doesn't say on the capacity, it says maximum height. Okay. There's a big difference. Because -- what seems to be missing in these nice explanations they gave us, which I really like those explanations, really good. Makes the case for -- for the expansion not to be -- not to be 4795 it's not necessary. If you take 795 feet, what you didn't ask them, judge, is how much capacity does 75 feet more would give them? Not how long it would take them to go through 9 million cubic yards. And that's the problem. Now, as I told you, they have enough capacity to go to 2015 if they really want to. Second, cubic yards they talk about, I call that enough waste. That's the waste that you take in. By the time you compact it, it becomes more like tons. Their tonnage left as of 2004 is -- is 6.8 or 6-point -- actually, 6.1 million-tons, which is the equivalent of the -- of the 9 million cubic yards. So -- the amount of tons that they bring a year is less than a million. It's 865. And at that rate, they still have six years, which would take them to 2001. What you need to find --
>> 2011.
>> 2011, sorry. Okay. If you take that -- that amount of capacity that it's taking them to get, even if we go by their figures to 2011, which is basically almost the same capacity that you have from 2011 to 2014, they are already at 700 some odd feet. If they can fill up their permanent height to 720 in five years, what do they need 75 feet, why don't they ask for 15 or 20 feet? That should take care of that next five years that they need. Also if you are truly about them leaving before 2015, why are we going to the end of 2015? I can get rid of 2 million cubic yards just like that. Let's go back to our original date of agreement, January 1st, 2015. That takes off two million cubic yards just right there. We don't even have to worry about that. We could get that height down to 10 feet. You know what, Commissioner Daugherty, 10 feet, they don't even need your approval, my approval, they go and get it through a modification just like that. If they get it to run out of space, they can get it 10-foot. If they run out of time, they can say we will now be able to leave in 2012 or 2013 because the new site is not ready, so therefore we are asking to extend the date of closure. There's many ways for them to -- to act had in good faith to this contract. And not tie you down for the rest of the eternity with lawsuits and legal problems. Just by -- by being willing to see the truth. If they are really ready to leave before 2015. A small extension should not be hard for them to get. We wouldn't have to drag anybody into court. We wouldn't have to go through a field process, we wouldn't have to go through another five, six years of messy headlines, whatever to where you can't even relocate these guys because then you would have such a record you are not going to find a human being on this side of --
>> china.
>> that would want them. I don't know which side you want to call it. I知 trying to make it so that they become good neighbors. And Commissioner Sonleitner, I would like to clarify your question. Which is -- what we asked you was not what we said. What we asked you is why would b.f.i. Try so hard to get your approval if it was such a slam dunk to go through the tceq process? That's what we ask from you. Why -- why we agonized over this thing for four years now when they could have said, forget you guys, we are going to go and get it. It is vital for them, for you to endorse that expansion and it is vital for you to endorse a 75-foot expansion. That to me is bad faith negotiating. You do not have to give them a 795-foot increase or 75-foot increase to 795. If they need 5 million cubic yards or less, you know, 10, 15 feet should do it. Who are we trying to kid here. I can argue it by tons, by cubic yards, by height, by years, by capacity, whichever way you want to, we will end up the same way.
>> they are trying to get 9 million cubic yards, how much additional height do you think they need? 9 million cubic yards.
>> that's what they said they need.
>> above and beyond the 9 million that they have?
>> that's what they say they need.
>> right. Well, if they have 9 million left.
>> how much height, how much additional height do they need to get that?
>> that's what I知 saying judge, 9 million left, 20-foot of space left right now, 9 million more, they only need 20 at the most. Are you following my logic.
>> but they are not going straight up. There's like a stair step, isn't it?
>> I know, but you only lose like what, 5, 10%, you don't lose that much. If we are really truthful about lowering the amount of waste that people use, even if we don't get to zero waste in our lifetime, I知 not saying that. Perhaps a little diversion is necessary and there's no language to that in this contract. Also, I want to remind you that just a few weeks ago, waste management laid off one percent of its workforce. One percent. And the reason that was given was because there was not enough waste coming to their landfills. There was not enough waste. These guys are going at 4.5%? Waste management needs to talk to them, obviously something here is not matching. There is a certain aairns that the waste is going down. So -- so to me we need to iron this out. I will conclude by saying I like what Commissioner Gomez suggested. I think that we could iron out a lot of things. I知 not saying that we could ever perhaps agree to everything, but perhaps is -- perhaps there's a lot of things that you don't even need to tie yourself legally if they are willing to do it and put it in their permit. There are things that can be put in their permit that the tceq will enforce. There's things that you don't united to put in the contract. Your contract still has too many holes. And I would like to know why you are not allowing any of our attorneys to meet with your attorneys. Why is it that they are preferred people here in this county. Police gosling has a special halo that the rest of them don't have. I don't understand, I知 not trying to be --
>> [indiscernible] [laughter]
>> trek, I mean --
>> so --
>> I know of no one that has no access to any of us. Tom, have you ever denied anybody to meet with you from a legal standpoint.
>> I have met --
>> where does that come from? Trek, we don't need that. Nobody wants to trust anybody with anything.
>> okay.
>> it's offensive to me to have to continue to hear that you don't hear us, you don't hear us, you don't hear us, you don't care. That's not the case. If you have got somebody that needs to meet with somebody, you think they can't get the legal, you call me. I have never refused to call -- to not call anybody back that's called me. If you need access to our legal people, I知 more than happy to call tom, say tom I understand that somebody needs to meet with you legally. We need to get beyond this kind of stuff, this is what bogs this thing down to the point where we are never going to reach any sorted of agreement.
>> are you saying on the record now that mr. Nuckols will meet with our attorneys?
>> well, he just got through saying that he would meet with anybody any time.
>> sure.
>> boy, you don't sound convinced. [laughter]
>> did you ask mr. Nichols for an appointment.
>> I asked him the last time that we met with Commissioner Davis, we had a meeting with all of the -- upstairs, I said, you know, will you meet with our attorneys.
>> well, then why haven't they detailed me, trek? -- why haven't they called me, trek? Listen, I will meet with anybody that wants to meet with me. Understand that, I don't control what's in this contract. I知 representing the majority of the people on this dais. So I will be happy to meet with anybody. If they say I think you ought to change this, this is bad this is good, the most that I can do is go to my clients, say this is what they're saying and advise them on you know whether that is consistent with where they want to said on this contract. At the end of the day, I don't think meeting with your attorneys is going to be a silver bullet for you. A lot of the same issues are going to be there. But I will be happy to meet with anybody that wants to meet with me and if you ask me in the earlier meeting if I would meet and I said yes, my assumption was that you all were going to call me to set up that meeting, I wasn't agreeing to set it up for you. I would still like to keep it that way because I don't want to turn into everybody's appointment secretary. But please if anybody that wants to meet with me, I will try to meet with you, you know, given the very little time that we have got to work on this. But I will meet with anybody any time anywhere.
>> I think mr. Escamilla has also met with people on this subject matter.
>> any close knowledge statement.
>> that's fine, I知 finished.
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge, I知 really glad to be back here, my name is margo clark. I want to first say that I really appreciate the efforts that everybody has made to answer my questions. There's been -- I have gotten a good response from many of the Commissioners. Commissioner Daugherty called me back, even though I didn't ask him to call me back and we had a nice, long conversation about this subject. So I appreciate that very much. I also appreciate your efforts, judge, to get some numbers to us about this -- this -- the size much this expansion that -- about the size of this expansion that was being asked for. I will say on the record that I take issue with the numbers that they have presented us. Even leaving aside the idea that they are going to grow by 4.5% over the -- every year for the next 10 years, which seems like a lot, I would call your attention once again to an article that I sent y'all a link to, each one of you, that was in the new york times on August 12th, just last week. And it said -- the title of this article is rumors of a shortage of dump space were greatly exaggerated. It says among many other things, it became clear in the early 1990s that there was a glut of disposal space, not the widely believed shortage that had drawn head lines in the 1980s. It also says dump capacity has kept growing and rapidly, even as only a few new dumps were built. And it talks about why that's the case. And it's basically more efficient compaction and dumping of waste. So that -- so that each time takes up less space. And it says a well-run, tightly packed and using minimal dirt as cover, a well-run dump, tightly packed, using minimal dirt as cover, can hold 30% or more or so more trash than a poorly run site. We have already heard that b.f.i. Has the lowest compaction rate of any operation that we know of around the area. And I would particularly call attention to a paragraph in here that talks about the disposal records of the -- of the nation's three largest waste haulers, waste management, allied waste industries and republic services, which the three of them combined handle more than half of the nation's trash. In the last four years, they buried 882 million-tons of waste. But the remaining capacity of their combined 410 dumps did not shrink. Almost 900 million-tons of trash that they buried and their capacity remained the same. I urge you to remember the things that trek talked about. Just now about capacity. In fact that capacity did not shrink, it expanded over those four years, by more than one billion, billion, b, tons, the three companies now expect expansions of another 1.8 billion-tons. At that level, their combined capacity could handle the nation's trash sent to dumps for about 26 years. That's the entire nation. And that's three operators. And it also talks a little bit about the -- about the economy of scale, a 10,000-ton a year dump would cost $83 a ton to operate. By the estimates of the solid waste digest. While a 300,000-ton a year site would -- cost would be $14 a ton. Dumps taking a million or mortons a year, have even lower per ton costs. So we are talking about -- about giving b.f.i. More than they need, as I致e continued to say. Despite their numbers here, the fact is that they are not partaking of any of the efficiencies and continuing on with a dump as it has been and according to them always will be and that they -- you know, that they need 75 feet higher on this dump basically making, as I have said before, a very bad situation, very much worse. And so what we have still is a contract that -- that for various reasons, the county seems interested in entering into a -- into a contract with this operator that will lock us into the business of trash being business as usual. And our future will be locked into the pattern of the past. I just -- I think that's -- that's not very forward thinking for this county government. I personally in my profession in the past have had numerous dealings with tceq, even about waste disposal. Not any kind of waste that we want to have here in Travis County I can assure you. But I am not as confident as many people here seem to be that they would grant this expansion to b.f.i. Unless b.f.i. Has the tacit approval of this county government on their side. I would like to ask b.f.i. A question. If they didn't get this agreement from Travis County, what expansion would they be applying for from tceq. I知 just extremely curious, would they be asking for this much? Much more? What would they be asking for from the state if they had to go there as -- as a regular operator without a contractor, agreement, tacit approval from the county in which they are operating.
>> there is a 20 second response to that question?
>> yes, judge. We would be asking --
>> come to the mic.
>> I知 sorry.
>> then we will have to go to the next speaker, we have about 10 minutes left on this item.
>> I知 down.
>> thank you, judge. Again with b.f.i. Our original expansion we are looking for was about 15 million cube bib yards of air space, through the process with the county, working with the neighbors, we reduced that to approximately 9 million cubic yards.
>> so their question is, precisely what's your question?
>> well, I guess that's what he said. If he could have this agreement or maybe that's not what he said. If you don't have an agreement with the county, will you be asking for -- from the tceq for an expansion of 9 million yards? Or 15 million yards or what? Or do you know?
>> we originally I think about three years ago, had put together a permit application for 15 million cubic yards, working with the county, we have reduced that to 9 million cubic yards.
>> but if you don't get an agreement from the county.
>> now.
>> today, we can submit either one of those and I知 not sure as I sit right here which one we would submit. I would just like to make an additional point to that. Kind of clarify what Commissioner Sonleitner said earlier. If in fact we do get an agreement with the county, and the tceq does not grant us that permit, we have given up our right to site a transfer station or register a transfer station on this facility. By entering into an agreement with a county. By not entering into an agreement with the county we have not given up that right to register a transfer station on that property.
>> we have about 10 more minutes. Yes, sir? Thank you, ms. Clark.
>> ms. Macafee. If you have a one minute presentation that you plan to give today, this is the time to come forward. We need to send this at 15 to 12, 12 more minutes, because we have a former employee coming and it's about a million dollar matter that we need to discuss that we desperately need in the budget.
>> my name is clint smith, with the gray panthers of Austin. I知 not going to try to go into the technicalities of the contract and the landfill capacity and so forth. I do want to tell you about the views from the people in east Austin. The rosewood neighborhood planning group, I want to be sure that at least I tell you what people feel and how strongly they feel it. I want to insert for the record a recent article from the -- from the university of Texas newspaper, the daily texan from last week. It's entitled east Austin expansion drives out the poor. And what we are seeing and Commissioner Gomez and I have talked about it, Commissioner Davis, we are seeing an awful lot of people who have been relegated to east Austin, we all know about the city father's decision back in 1928 that basically east Austin would be the repository of much that nobody else wanted. The incinerator, holly street park line, so forth, now we are saying I guess I would best capsulize it but what a friend said, I can move out of the hood, but I can't get away from this expletive deleted trash. Many people have been pushed out into the county. I was glad but not glad but noted a speaker who made appear reference to the incidence of cancer around the landfill. I would be concerned when it comes to who is dumping out there. If we heard that killeen county of killeen is dumping. Well that means I知 sure it does we are getting an awful lot of mostly sunny nations and various -- mostly sunny waste from the military. Depleted uranium and iraq and so on, that may not be the case here, but firing ranges and so forth. Austin for some time now of course being a high tech center has produced an awful lot of waste. What I would suggest, what I think people would like to see is consideration given, to make sure that these kinds of issues are being considered more thoroughly than is the impression right now. I realize how much time that you have given to this, I know that there are people dug in pretty much in almost adversarial positions right now. But we talked about the equity commission report a number of years ago, there may be a regional roach to dealing with this. I知 sure in your own wisdom and your own council you have looked at many of the options. Final point is I also am still a member of the Austin version of homeland security, the public safety task force. And whether we look at how we go about security matters or if it's the hospital district that we discussed, more and more it seems maybe that we ought to consider to whateversten we may not have already a regional solution to some of these issues, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Smith. Ms. Macafee?
>> judge, I would like to start out saying I have two children going away to college, so in two weeks I will be out of town taking them to school. So that could be the worst possible time for our schedule. This contract needs to go. We have looked at draft after draft. We have never liked the terms of the contract. B.f.i. Is the biggest waste hauler in our region. They have no waste division projects sited at their landfill and they have a history of fines and complaints. They have worked and worked with Travis County attorneys and this contract has b.f.i. Interest in hand. As we see it, class number 5 needs to be. For us it says that the date the county tells us over and over again is the drop dead date can be forgotten if they haven't filled up their massive expansion, they want from the state. This clause makes the contract a sham and a joke. They can stay longer if they haven't given us all the garbage they want to give us. They get exactly what they want and then more. Not only do they get approval at the state level for a massive expansion, but they get approval for an expansion with the old rules. They want it fast and soon because the rules will tighten up in a few months and they don't want to play fair. They are masters at slipping by the rules, this is just another example of them evading their responsibilities to our community. To add insult to injure, if all of this was not enough, they also want more expansion for the future, they want to expand to another community and guess what? They want the county to help them by condemning land. Isn't that great. Does this mean the county will help wmi and tds? How about us citizens co-op landfill? I think there are plenty of us in this room who are qualified to have a landfill ourselves by this time. How many mega landfills does our region need? How many groups is the county willing to help? Are there any specifications regarding this relocation? Are composting stations, eco parks and waste diversion methods mentioned? Oh, yes, you say. Oh, but let me see. No. It turns out there is nothing, absolutely nothing about quality landfills. All the talk is are you ready, grandfathering. Is the story familiar yet? They want to be exempt from any Travis County ordinance relating to siting of landfills. Great, now we are assured that they can greet another mess -- create another mess somewhere else like they have here. Small buffers, no effort to recycling, just more of the same bad business and neighborhood blight. And you wonder why no one wants this but b.f.i.? This is a travesty to our neighborhood. Because we are going to create an environmental nightmare for our northeast area and a real shame for our community at large because this contract locks our region into old landfilling methods, preferred by the biggest waste hauler in our area and denies our community the possibility to begin a move towards zero waste. All the pieces are in place. Cat [indiscernible] had neil sellman lay out a road to get there. The city of Austin is poised to set up the framework. Cap cog. Communities all over the nation had done it. It's already happened. All the county has to do is get on board. If we do it right, the ending of the capacity at the northeast landfills can be an opportunity to finally do the right thing. This contract does not set up a new paradigm for this to happen. The county has not even mentioned w.m.i. In all of these talks. What will the impact of this contract when they come to the table? Remember as neil sellman says, the hard part is deciding to do it. The rest is easy. I challenge you, Travis County, take the high road. Oppose any expansions and lets get moving. Thank you. [ applause ]
>> 8 more minutes. We have 8 minutes left. Ms. Schnieder.
>> judge and Commissioners court, many citizens are here today expressing their viewpoints and you know that many, many others oppose this landfill contract as well. I am surprised that no one has mentioned to you thus far that a number of us were out at the property on Saturday. And we heard last week b.f.i. Talk about all of the wonderful odor controls that they had put on their landfill that were already in place, these great performance measures. There was a stench there that made me nauseous. We were chatting and we just basically all had to leave immediately because the stench was so bad. They are in violation of this contract as far as I can see it, even before anyone has agreed to vote up or down on it. Those odor controls are not working. I was there myself. I personally lodged a complaint with the tceq. And I know a number of other people did as well. If you agree to this contract, you enter into it knowing that their odor controls are not working. I also wanted to say Commissioner Daugherty you raised the issue of trust. And just yesterday I was with a woman from the town of donna that entered into a signed agreement with b.f.i. Back in about 1988 that they would not go any higher than 40 feet. B.f.i. Abrogated that contract, went to the tceq, got an extension up to 122 feet, luckily those folks had the resources to go and to -- to take them to court and about three years ago, a jury found in those folks favor that the 44 was controlling. B.f.i. Of course is appealing it. They have been in a 20 year battle. That landfill is now 90 feet high. This is the way b.f.i. Treats its contracts. They are not to be trusted. Not all landfills are created equal or maybe I should say they are not all run as well as some others. B.f.i. Has had criminal convictions of its employees, that's why the trust is not there. Commissioner Gomez, I don't think the question is what is most enforceable, the question is what is right. What protects the public health and public safety, because nothing unfortunately is certain. The neighbors, though, have told Commissioner Davis and county judge Biscoe on numerous occasions that they want the county to stand with them, not stand aside. They want the county to stand with them and fight the expansion, not let it happen. The question is not whether it's enforceable. What's right. And what's right for the constituents.
>> but there's so many things that are the right things to do that are not enforceable sometimes.
>> this is -- we know that it's not enforceable.
>> so when we are dealing with these contracts, what -- what will be enforceable to make the right thing happen?
>> as I just reiterated, b.f.i. Enters into contracts and then they throw them out the window. We don't think that you can probably get an enforceable contract with b.f.i. We don't think that the one that you have been discussing it worth the risk. We want you to oppose the expansions not pave the way for them to happen.
>> don't make any assumptions about what I am going to do.
>> I知 not, I知 not.
>> okay.
>> but we have got four minutes on this item this morning.
>> I just want to make sure that i, Ron Davis, Commissioner of precinct 1 here in Travis County continues to oppose and will vote against --
>> we will welcome your opposition.
>> I want to make -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> I want to briefly address the point he made to, if they don't sign the contract they are going to go ahead for a transfer station. I was meeting with the chair of the tceq yesterday about these rules. And discussing with her in that meeting that we need to get rid of -- it's almost automatic that transfer stations can be located at currently run landfills. That -- those are part of the rules that we are seeking to change. So that a transfer station could be contested in the same way a landfill expansion could be contested. So again I think the -- the citizens want you to stand with them to oppose expansions and a transfer station. And I知 still not clear to me that b.f.i. Has committed to applying for a 5.9 million cubic yard expansion with this contract. It's still talking about height, I think that's still another loophole that you need to watch for. I want to make sure that people have a chance to talk.
>> who is willing to come back this afternoon? That's what we are looking at. In three minutes. We have to take another item. We have the citizens advisory committee coming down at 1:30. We are looking at taking this item back up at 2:30 or 2:40 for those who wish to come and add the court. Mr. Macafee.
>> I知 come back.
>> okay.
>> I just have a couple of minutes, if I could have a couple of minutes.
>> you have two whole minutes.
>> okay.
>> I want to address paragraph 4, where it's talking about b.f.i. And giles agree to limit any vertical expansion to a maximum waste height of 795 feet for the upper portion of the expansion. I live -- my property is right across from where they are going to go, 795 feet. There are no buffers in place. Why do we want to lift that up any further. Water doesn't run uphill. Not that I have ever seen. It runs downhill, it comes down those hills, goes into those little gutters along the road, into the little streams and creek goes and, you know, you are going to get pollution from this. Why can they go that high in that portion where they don't appear to put any buffers. You have a buffer down on this other end, I don't know what they are doing there except when they are backing off from that because that was a wet area to begin with. It was -- it's always been a wet area. And another thing that I want to address is the odors again. Like I said, ms. Schnieder has said, those odors Saturday, around 11:00, between 11:00 and 11:30 that was the worst that I have ever smelled out there. I don't know what they are proposing to have these odor control practices currently employed by the landfill, and -- and they haven't done it. They haven't done anything to control odor. You can't leave garbage laying open for a week like they did last week. They left it open for a week, Friday they came in like ants, covering it like an ant pile, covering it up. You cannot leave it open for days at a time. It's not going to do anything but rot, get worse, draw buzzards, birds, rodents and everything else. So think about our health out there. 10 more years of smelling that and having that problem out there, I am not wanting you to -- to consider a -- a vertical expansion at all. 2015 drop dead date, yes. But no more expansion, the contract they have got is fine. The fact remains that the landfill in southeast Austin only has 350 acres of permitted landfill, we already have over 850 acres of permitted landfill in this before the expansion. And I知 sorry I didn't give my name a while ago. Evelyn rimmert. Thank you for listening to me.
>> who is to go come back this afternoon at about 2:30? Who has not spoken already who is willing to come back at 2:30? [laughter] others are welcome to come. We will call this item back up at 2:30 this afternoon, after the report from the citizens advisory committee, we do appreciate you all coming down. Hate to cut you off like this, but it's kind of hard to estimate how much time these items will take. Now we do have -- that's number 3, we will call back up this afternoon.
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, August 17, 2005 10:52 AM