Travis County Commissioners Court
August 16, 2005
Item 3, Afternoon Public Input
[One moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...seems like the middle of next week and then we have a week off before we start the budget markup.
>> I was thinking that you're probably doing yourselves a favor if you put it off for longer than two weeks, just to clear up the budget problems behind you and then deal with it. But just a thought. Okay?
>> judge, did we get an answer to the question, is there military and/or toxic waste coming in from killeen to the b.f.i. Waste site? I would love to be educated as to whether there is military waste and/or toxic military waste or just toxic waste coming in from any county.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners, judge. I知 the b.f.i. District manager. No, we do not accept any waste, any military waste, from fort hood of any kind. We operate the city of killeen transfer station, which is a municipal solid waste transfer station, residential, commercial trash, the normal thing that any business or resident throws away is transferred to the sunset farms landfill.
>> now, this morning several residents came and did not have an opportunity to give testimony. This is their opportunity. If we could get five of you to come forth and we have five chairs and five microphones available, we would be happy to get their comments. After receiving your full name.
>> afternoon, judge, I知 mark mcafee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the subject again. I知 a businessman and I contract for waste myself. So I know that this is an issue that just doesn't go away. And we must face these issues together. We're ready to help in coming up with a solution that really is good for Travis County. We need you to not contract away and compromise your contract authority on this issue. We've had trouble getting information out of these corporations as you know for years. We've asked repeatedly for what they're spraying to try to cover up the odors that are emanating from the landfill, and we still don't have information about that. And we've gotten some information from them over the more recent years, and that's in large part because of you guys hold them to the fire. So we definitely think that it will be very bad for you to contract away your power and your authority. We need your voice. We don't get heard. We believe that for Travis County to enter into a -- and become a pseudo landfill operator by the contract is not the best approach, and by your own testimony this morning, it sounds like tom did not believe that was the best approach either. How many contracts must be implemented to keep the first contract to promote competition? Do we then approve another contract, a second or third contract? Also in testimony this morning it came up that there can be breaches of contract, there can be further definitions, either party to the contract can delay progress towards a new site. An arbitrator or judge can revise the contract. A later court may revise the contract. There's many ways in which the contract can fail basically. And robin schneider's example of donna, Texas is an example of why we have -- why we as citizens think we should abandon the contract approach. These guys really aren't interested in honoring a contract we don't believe from the start. I doubt if they ever intended to honor the contract with donna, Texas. So what should the county do? We believe that the county should use the next five to seven years to advance Travis County into a modern solid waste plant, the likes of which that you've heard many, many times. The model that tds is basically furthering, we believe it will be much, much better for Travis County, it will avoid lawsuits. I believe that there will be lawsuits should we enter into a contract with b.f.i. It's -- immediately all the other contractors are going to want an expansion as well. We're suddenly going to have a lot more capacity in Travis County, and that's not going to be a good thing. The way in which jerry dietrich spoke first off this morning about how to spur competition I think would be a much better approach. We've already heard a rumor, and I don't know what company that was, that someone else is looking at coming into this marketplace. And I think that we should entertain any reasonable company. And I知 not necessarily including b.f.i. Or waste management in that list of reasonable companies. They have a long, long history. We've brought it up many, many times before you. And so we're asking you to join the citizens and vote no on any contractual expansion. Thank you very much.
>> one question. When mr. Gregory was saying to us in terms of a contractual expansion of his footprint, are you going to oppose that?
>> I believe that mr. Gregory has a very well laid out plan. I think that he has sufficient buffers. I really have not looked into his specific site as much as -- much more of our own area than we do about his, but 1350 acres is getting to be a pretty good amount of property. And one can do the kinds of buffers that we talk about for two years, and when we're trying to come up with an ordinance.
>> back to the issue at hand, because it really is in terms of you're concerned about there's too much capacity, you don't have a problem with somebody else bringing in more capacity and you don't seem to have a problem of it being east of the interstate located in precinct 4?
>> let's see if I understand correctly. I think that yes, too much capacity can bring on bad things in terms of our future in waste. And I知 not sure if that's what you meant there. But through this whole process bob has not come forward with any plan of expansion that I know of. So I believe that what he really plans to do is to divert waste over the long haul and have just enough space to what doesn't get diverted. I believe under that scenario we already have quite a bit of landfill space and that's without them getting another expansion.
>> he's been asking for more than a year to get a performance based contract similar to (indiscernible). I知 making sure as we proceed through this, in terms of how this is handled and I知 sure this is going to be another one and this issue will not go away, is that we are fairly treating folks that if you make a statement on one day saying there's too much capacity that that's going to be remembered in future when somebody says there's too much capacity. When somebody says I don't like things happening east of the interstate that we remember that on another day when somebody else might be coming forward with something east of the interstate. I知 just saying we need to be consistent on our conversation.
>> sure. I think we need to be very forward thinking on what we do with waste. And to propose putting waste in an area that is less eight miles from the capital of Texas is very backward thinking. I think that any future landfills that get green field permitted shouldn't be this close in. They're just not compatible with neighborhoods, they're not compatible with people. We need to do it right the next time. I think we've been harping on this over and over, even when it comes to moving these folks away from us. We don't want to wish this on anyone else. It is not pleasant. When the odors come wafting over your place, you want to know what it is. And we don't ever find out what it is, but we do know that we have -- it seems that we have serious health effects out in the neighborhood. So we'd love to see a health survey done, a health study done out there. Thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners. My name is glen hall, I知 an attorney and I represent mark mcafee. And I note that your counsel earlier pointed out his role in this, which is to basically try to get into a contract what you all wanted that is his job wasn't to decide do we do -- what's the content? It was to do -- execute y'all's wishes. And I think that's kind of a good place to start is looking at what you're going to get out of this and what the neighbors of the landfill are going to get out of it. And it strikes me that you're not going to get a whole lot and you're going to give up a lot. I know that to the folks that live in that area next to it, the thought of putting up with bad odor problems for 10 years just is inconceivablely long. And I think there was some testimony this morning that if you don't enter into the contract, then somebody's going to go ahead with a transfer station and when your home's involved, when your health's involved, you tend not to intimidate real easily. And, you know, that's what these folks are dealing with. And I don't think it's proper to back down. Really they can't. They've already been exposed, they don't even know if they've been hit yet. And they're worried about getting exposed to more stuff. And some things have cumulative problems. You might not have a problem at a low level, but if you keep getting exposed to it, you can wind up with later problems. I know that the neighbors are concerned that there may be localized health issues. I think you also heard some information this morning that indicated that the department of health is going to be doing an epidemiological analysis of that area. And the problem with entering into this contract is you're really giving away a lot of your authority to do anything in the future. And I don't think you want to be sitting on the side line if you do have a serious health and safety issue affecting the folks that live out there. I don't think you want to contractually say no, we agreed to sit this one out. And I知 concerned that that's basically the net effect, is that you're not going to be able to respond to things and you're not getting much in return if you're talking about a 10-year delay and something that in the larger scheme of things, like the transfer station, just really isn't significant compared to the problems that these folks deal with on a daily basis. It's a tough issue and it isn't going to be one that goes away very soon. When folks are dealing with their health and their homes, they don't intimidate. They will try to take care of themselves. And I think that by entering into the contract, you may just be prolonging the problem, exacerbating it and putting yourselves in a real uncomfortable position of being maybe a spectator when you want to be involved. And I致e been in the government sector before and I致e looked at -- I致e done a lot of enforcement work in the past. One thing that's really tough to do is to get -- if you've got a disagreement about whether somebody can or can't do something, ultimately contempt of court is how you compel people to do things. And courts are real strict about to get contempt of court, they make sure that it's -- it's a harsh remedy and they don't use it lightly. Getting specific performance is something that's quite hard. And it sounds like your counsel's thought of a number of things that will help, but that's far from a given. And there are inherent problems when you're talking about things that would otherwise be lawful activities and getting judgments precluding people from doing these things. Now, that's not to say that it can't be done or that you'll have those problems, but I encourage you to -- urge you to think about the things that you're potentially giving away. And then what are you really getting back.
>> hold that for just a second, because we didn't get the impression, I certainly didn't, that people thought that the removal of the transfer station was inconsequence shall and not that big a deal. We've been hearing about that for months. I kept bringing it up probably ad nauseam that a transfer station was still out there, and it was a big deal, and that actually is one of the big new fights at tceq is it's not over when it's over. You could still have a transfer station, and that means noise, that means heavy trucks, that means everything that goes with the transfer station is still out there. So if you think that's inconsequential, are you saying we don't need that in this contract? We would rather have less capacity, but go ahead and put a transfer station there forever? He I want to make sure I understand that -- what you think about the transfer station.
>> obviously you've got a whole bunch of different folks out there. You've got groups and you've got individuals, and they each have aligned interests that they're not always exactly the same concerns.
>> I haven't heard a single person say that they're in favor of a transfer station. Not one.
>> how many people would say, yeah, we think it's a bad -- yeah, you're adding to -- you're kind of heaping insult upon injury when you -- when you're talking about adding. Oh, yeah? Well, here's something new. But is that going to -- if you live in a home that's been infected by bad odor problems, if you're concerned about your health, the folks that run into that, they're going to be looking at what really are the big consequence shall issues, not is the situation going to get incrementally worse. And that's what I think you're talking about with the transfer station. And I don't think -- if that's -- if that's -- I mean, I don't think I would want to not be able to do anything else in return for not getting a transfer station, yeah, you can make them, yeah, you will have some trucks, yeah, you will have stuff being staged, but if it's a health problem, it's causing a nuisance, then there are remedies for that. That doesn't get to -- yeah, you don't automatically have the right to cause your neighbors big problems. There are certain thresholds and y'all deal with those kind of issues all the time. What's reasonable? That's what y'all do is you look at how can we balance everyone's rights and get this so that everyone works together.
>> I want you to know if terms of the e-mails I have received in terms of everybody's first choice is please go away yesterday. But they did say that if you do enter into a contract, they wanted performance measures, they wanted a date certain that was non-negotiable, and they wanted no transfer stations. So your comment that that was inconsequence shall and was not that big a deal is not backed up by the people who not only have written in, but I have listened to trek and trek is extraordinarily concerned about a transfer station. I don't think that trek thinks that a transfer station is inconsequential and not that big a deal.
>> and certainly I can't speak for everybody, it's just I think one of the things that y'all need to consider in evaluating that is how much of a gain is that and how much are you giving away?
>> you're correct.
>> and it would seem that you're going to be pretty limited in your ability to respond to new issues in the future that might be a lot more significant to people than a transfer station would be. It might seem like a big deal now, but when bad problems arise, will it still be a big deal if, for example, you do turn out to have a localized cancer cluster or something like that.
>> thank you, mr. Holtz. Ms. Glotz. By the way, if anybody missed the chance to address the court this morning, please come forward at this time. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Thank you, judge Biscoe and commission members for allowing us to speak again. I知 janette clotz and you I wanted to briefly collaborate or follow-up on a comment that I made last week. I think last week I made a comparison of the property values as I know them of my own home versus where we would have built if we had chosen to do so otherwise. I went back to the tax appraisal rolls and found out that I provided youer reason nus information last week. I indicated that the difference in my current location, where my home is, and where we will build in Bee Caves woods where we built is about $10,000. And the difference now is approximately 100,000. I went back and actually pulled up a current comparison of the tax rolls, and I have documentation here to show you if you're interested in it. Taking a comparable bee calves woods home -- Bee Caves woods home today and the value of my home today, the difference in value now is not approximately $100,000, but $147,000. And that is the difns that has come about within the past two years. About two years ago there were about $100,000 different. This to me is indicative of the fact that the problem we have in the far northeast Austin area, this problem is even greater than I may have thought it was. I know what the thought is, people are buying houses in the area, there's new houses going up all over the area; however, in kind of examining the houses that are going up, prices and things like that, it appears that the prices of the houses that are being built in the area are not anywhere near par or near close what they are in other areas of Austin and the surrounding communities. The prices are lower than what you will find in other areas, which I would have to assume that is, again, because it's cheaper to -- you can find a cheaper house in this area because one of the reasons is probably the image problem. Or the image issue. The socioeconomic divide seems to be in fact widening even more rapidly than I had thought between the west side and east side. And I don't know how to reverse the trend, but I知 very concerned that an additional 75-foot of height to the landfill may exacerbate the problem. I don't know for certain. I can't see how it will help it. Plus the fact that, as was mentioned earlier this morning, there is still an odor problem. When I stop and think back to the past two years when the numbers of complaints have dropped, we had quite dry springs and early summers the past two years. This I would think would account for a large decrease in the number of complaints because it appears that the odors come back with a vengeance every time we get into a very wet season -- not a season, but a very wet period of time, which we are in right now. I don't think it can be assumed that the odors have been corrected. I think it's all dependent on the weather. And every time we do have the wet, the rain, we find out no, they have not been corrected. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes?
>> hi. My name is elizabeth trevino and I am a student and also a resident of the (indiscernible) community. I would just like to share a few points, personal issues. I live within a few miles of the current landfill. I have lived there for the last 20 years, so -- (indiscernible). I would like to share that my community would suffer the consequences of the expanding -- of the expansion. My mom has been diagnosed with msa. It's multiple system atrophy, upper progressive degenerative -- it affects the nervous system and controls things that we take for granted, bodily functions, heart rate, blood pressure, digestive system. Msa's cause is yet to be known. It causes unidentifiable -- its cause is unidentifiable and it's known not to pass through genes or contact, so toxic pollution has received attention as an official cause by scientific studies. A contract for expansion has an unsettling feeling for my mom and the harms associated with air pollution, water pollution, (indiscernible), other concerns for our neighbors. And furthermore, this contract would affect my community on a larger scale. (indiscernible) financially and emotionally by the expansion. Local businesses and neighborhoods would suffer the consequences such as reduced property values, other illnesses liken do me tree oasis, cerebral palsy, other things that are yet to be known why people get them. My mom is 50. If the landfill expansion is granted, there's a lot of innocent people that don't know what's happening to them. All the people that have cancer on the same street, 13 cases. It's a growing northeast neighborhood. I致e been there 20 years. I love it. I think we should have a (indiscernible) and maybe we could fund it and maybe have volunteers to work with them, get the nearby schools involved in it. I was in community service for about four years in high school. I did things around Austin. People love to volunteer, you just have to get them motivated. I think the community is uneducated. The (indiscernible) has compost. They recycle everything from paper to plastic bags. If everyone does that, we could eliminate a lot of waste. I have four recycling bins at my house. If everyone would do it, then I think we would. My mom is 50. She has maybe a few years to live. Maybe if we didn't live in the neighborhood, she wouldn't have that and she would be with us for a lot longer. I hope you just think about that and maybe think about other people's lives that could be affected and other families. Other families that maybe just don't know when they're moving into this neighborhood. Thank you.
>> I知 not quite sure I know --
>> I live in copperfield.
>> copperfield, thank you, that's very helpful.
>> thank you very much.
>> is it possible to ask the public health authority, the health department to look into the public health issues? Have they ever been looked into?
>> (indiscernible).
>> I think she indicated there was, but I wonder if that's one of the steps that we could take is I don't know that we've thought about asking the health authority to look at the issues surrounding all landfills. Because if there's going to be one landfill, it's going to be all landfills. And to know what the cause is, if it's the gas, the gases, then maybe we need to know, otherwise we'll have people guessing as to what causes it.
>> I don't know if you recall, but during the time there was some very touching testimony. Tears come to my eyes because it made me think of the same thing that we asked looking at the health affects around the tank farm. I have to make this similar to something like that because at that time we did ask I guess it was weston wall who is the Austin Travis County health department physician at the time, years ago, even before the city council -- went before the city council and testified that there may be some health problems associated with all the illnesses that this person has brought upcoming from the emissions of benzene, xylene at the tank farm, which is a health problem when we breathe that stuff. And I just have some emotion behind it because it's real -- all of folks tell us about it and it is -- (indiscernible). Tom, is there anything illegal whereby we can't ask the same request as we did back in the early '90's of the Austin health department? I remember his testimony very well before the city council. Is that still a possibility? Is there anything illegal about looking at that? I知 hearing some things. I did hear the testimony from this morning that cannot be associated with the health concerns. I致e heard several persons speak of health concerns. Now, the question is if we are here to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Travis County, is that something that can be looked at? And also the stuff that's before us now, the agreements and all that stuff, it's not necessary, but it needs to be done.
>> Commissioner, there's nothing illegal about asking. How the health authority responds, I can't speak to.
>> okay. I think that's something that we really need to look at because that is -- the 13 concerns of council, the testimony of this young person that's given here today, the reflection of the testimony on the health effects and people have miss rriages and everything because of the emissions over there. I mean, it's -- we need to protect the health of people. [overlapping speakers].
>> anybody else who has not spoken? Who has not spoken today? You have one minute to those who insist on speaking twice. [ laughter ] starting right here, one minute apiece.
>> judge, I just wanted to clarify --
>> let's use the time and make sure we're fair.
>> going back to Commissioner Sonleitner's economy about -- they have their own operating lab within fort hood that they take their own waste to. And secondly this morning about recycling, we don't recycle. We as a company, b.f.i., the largest recycler in the Austin area, we ship about 50,000 tons a year of recycled cardboard, plastic, paper, aluminum, steel cans, glass, not only the Austin area, but we're probably the -- definitely the top two recycler in the state of Texas as well as corporation in the country for recycling materials in those lines of paper, cardboard, mixed paper, aluminum, glass, cans, milk jugs, so on, so on. And we have a facility that operates on metric boulevard right here in the city of Austin. Secondly, I guess -- thirdly, just quickly I heard mention of donna, Texas from mrs. Schneider a couple of times. We did not have a performance-based contract with the people in donna, Texas. We did not have a drop dead date certain to get out of there. We did not have any of these types of stipulations. Thank you.
>> all one minute takers, come forward.
>> there has been -- this is actually for b.f.i. There has been considerable concern over the impact of paragraph 5 and its importance in the document. The point that b.f.i. Has tried to reach with the county and we believe the agreement that has been drafted accomplishes this, but if it would make it better, we are happy to have paragraph 5 rewritten or indeed excluded. What we're trying to achieve is to make sure you know that we'll leave by 2015 or earlier if we get a new site. Paragraph 5 was designed to say, or earlier if we happen to fill up earlier. That's sort of a terribly self-obvious proposition. It's been the cause of a lot of confusion. It doesn't need to be in there if you find it confusing. We'd like to avoid that confusion.
>> actually, I give -- I hope they're gone before 2015. [ laughter ] I知 going to ask you one thing. Do you remember the conversation about the transfer station and how -- (indiscernible). And how -- (indiscernible). And I remember being behind the garbage trucks on the way home. Can somebody tell me -- I think I know how far it is, but how many miles is it to killeen? Is it more than 25? Yeah, it's about 60 miles because it's 70 to temple. It seems to me that if they are bringing it 60 miles it wouldn't be a problem and we don't have to have a transfer station within that 25 magical number that you gave me. By their own admission they said that. So thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> one minute?
>> yes, sir. A whole minute.
>> I just want to refocus for a minute. I think this is a lot more than the lay people here trying to work out a contract clause by clause. This has been going on for three years. Whether it's technical matters or legal matters. And I think it's owed to them too to not unfold these contracts one at a time. We don't know whether it's one contract, two contracts or three in the offering. And how in the world can they take a position even on one contract with all of the -- really the flaws that we've heard here today, some of them readily admitted, and this is in the final stages of a three-year development, how can they possibly take a position on this contract when there are two more out there in weeks that will have all of the same problems, but with different characteristics? And it's going to be I think just a nightmare of expansion in this one area. And if this were the only area available to private contractors in this contract or other counties, and harris county for years we've been shipping garbage 25 miles out in rural areas with large tracts that are very economical as far as handling the waste and screening, but thank you, judge, for that additional minute. That's all right. You got the general essence I wanted to refocus on the big picture, how many contracts, one, two or three, and how we're going to solve all of these problems that are still looming out there.
>> well, I guess to finish that thought, but just if we could refocus and put everything back on the table like we did for so long, when we began all this, it was important at that time to always keep everyone on the table at the same time. At some point we have dropped that strategy and we're dealing with things one by one. So I would urge that the you all put everything back on the table and not only that we discuss both landfill expansions at the same time, but that we do not keep the city of Austin out of the scenario. That we have said many times about the amount of trash that they generate and how an important player they are in this. I have said several times now that them being with the solid waste taskforce, another plea for a moratorium. Thank you.
>> mark mcafee. And they were nice enough to get up here and tell us what donna, Texas did not have with them, but it just makes me wonder years down the road if we get into some sort of contract with these folks, what will they be telling us that we didn't have with them? I know one thing, the folks in donna, Texas probably wish that they did not have any contract with them at this point, whatever kind of contract that was.
>> four points, five. We appreciate the input we've gotten from residents and also representatives from b.f.i. Second, we will call this item up in executive session this afternoon for a brief discussion with legal counsel. There are a few legal questions that we need to get answered. Three is that regarding the possible or potential health effects from the health authority, we would need a properly worded agenda item for next week that would allow us not only to consider such a request, but also to take action on it. Third is that there has been a request for discussions between some residents/neighbors and b.f.i., and I will be happy to try to get that started or ascertain whether there is interest in such a discussion tomorrow. And finally, that this item will be back on the court's agenda in about two to three weeks unless there's evidence that it should not or does not need to be. On the court's agenda.
>> judge, with that I would like to add a number six to that, is that we have aggressively looked to bring back the solid waste siting ordinance for lilz. Right now we have no protection at all for that area that's capable for landfills and green field sites, new sites. Right now there's no protection for precinct 1 or precinct 4, which they've been locating in because of the favorable geography for that area in Travis County, even though we understand that the geography is also present outside of Travis County all the way up to dallas county probably. But I think we need to have some protection for the type of growth that we're expecting and things like that. We need some protection. I would like to see that come back.
>> by law any member of this court can place an item on the agenda.
>> okey-doke.
>> but simply submitting it to the county judge's with appropriate backup within two or three days.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> we also have an office of impact, Commissioner, to be thinking about, as we found out with our sexually oriented business ordinance, we could not legislatively say that something that is permitted by law, whether we like it or not, could exist in a county. And so one of those standards that's going to have to be there is that you don't legislatively say it's impossible for there to be a siting anywhere. And by doing an ordinance we may be actually paving the way for there to be sites specifically in Travis County.
>> by putting the item on the agenda we basically deal with it. Thank y'all very much. ___
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