Travis County Commissioners Court
December 12, 2006
Item 14
Number 14, this will probably be our only item before lunch. If you have business before the court, you ought to call me. I would like at the agenda and try to estimate a time for different items. 14. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed memorandum of agreement between Travis County and browning ferris industries (bfi) regarding northeast Travis County landfill. This issue was last on the agenda more than a year ago. And in fact, as part of the backup what we did was circulate the latest -- the latest draft as well as an attachment to --
>> is there anything in terms of an overview.
>> john kuhl, environmental officer, good morning, judge, Commissioners: really, the bottom line is that we have looked at this and other approaches a number of times. What it amounts to is a memorandum of -- of agreement/performance based contract and I think that the important thing to remember on the performance based end of it is that -- what this document does is it tries to capture the -- the principal design factors as well as the principal operational factors that -- that we as a consensus group between the staff that worked on it, primarily Commissioner -- I'm sorry, judge Biscoe as well as the industry side, felt were -- you know, the most important items to consider that affect the community around the landfills. So -- so as you go through there, you know, you will see that there are -- there are -- let's see, what is it? 25 -- 25 numbered paragraphs, what have you. A little bit more than that maybe. No, 25. And -- and we address those items. The first page, of course, is the actual -- the actual owe oat order that puts -- the order that puts the contract into context. Just going through number one discusses the date and terms of the -- of the --
>> what are the propers and cons? That -- pros and cons, is that maybe a bert way to lay it out. Advantages and disadvantages, better way.
>> as the court deliberated on this, the primary goal that the court had was to secure a date certain for when this particular landfill would stop accepting waste. A number of other things. That is probably the biggest pro that we feel like we have gotten here is that the November 1st, 2015 date is locked in here. Also there are specific terms as we said before that -- that had to do with operations in terms of, you know, mud on the road, blowing litter, odors, practical things that concern the community. Secondly, there are terms here that discuss well what happens if -- if a new location is not found, there are time frames that are laid out there, I think that for getting a green field location for the facility, I think that's a pro. You know, to get folks focused on getting that done.
>> transfer station.
>> right, as well as the November 1st, 2015 cessation of accepting waste date, there are terms there that say it would not be a transfer station or any other form of waste disposal site. Anything else that you can think of, tom, that I'm missing? The -- if the -- if the agreement is approved by the court, one of the key elements is that there is an agreement that we will neither support nor oppose the tceq permit application process. So obviously some folks will consider that a pro, some folks will consider that a con. I mean, I'll just leave it at that for now.
>> john, where are they now, tceq? With this particular amended permit application. Are they -- technical application phase or are they administrative, leading to the administrative phase? Where are they at this point as we speak today? B.f.i.
>> my understanding that is the application has been considered administratively complete to some time. They are in the technical review process right now. Further, I understand that they are getting towards the end of that. And that b.f.i. Is -- is responding to -- to, you know, I would suppose routine technical deficiency comments from the tceq staff. If they have -- if they have any -- if I have missed or if they have other updated information I would be happy for them to correct me. But that's my understanding Commissioner is where they're at.
>> okay. I guess we -- judge, we have received -- I know that I have received, you all may have received the same e-mail from many of the residents in the area, back in even January of '05, said specifically that, you know, they do not want to see an expansion at this particular site and really incompatible land use in this particular site. As a result of that, there have been a lot of e-mail for disclosure, anybody want to see it publicly, we have given copies to the clerk on this particular item. The e-mails basically have suggested that they would like to see this particular -- particular issue because of the holidays coming up and a lot of folks really -- really doing other things would like to see this carry over until next year. And of course also in those e-mails, and in fact one of the latest ones that I received was from the naacp who have also stated that they are in opposition to the expansion of the -- of the b.f.i. Landfill and of course also would like to have an opportunity as many other residents would like to have the opportunity to scrutinize this and see exactly what the element and what the impact is going to be on this community if we -- if we allow a contractual relationship through an moa to be established with the b.f.i. And then that's sent forward to the tceq. Which will actually have a lot of merit. Probably will -- I guess that I will have to ask the question legally. Tom, if the Commissioners court decide to enter into an moa, memorandum of agreement with b.f.i., what -- on a scale of one to 10, if you were to grade it, as far as getting a permit, where would that land in a scale of one to 10 as far as requiring a permit with the county's blessing?
>> I don't know that I could rank that for you on a scale of one to 10, Commissioner. I think it's safe to say that opposition by Travis County to the permit would increase the chances that it might be denied.
>> okay.
>> but it's very hard to -- to rate it on a scale.
>> okay. And then really what you have here is a dispute between Travis County and b.f.i. Over whether this landfill meets the requirements of tceq to be permitted, the chief issue is land use compatibility. And I would characterize this as a settlement agreement. Like many other disputes you get into with parties, because there's uncertainty as to how it would end up. I mean, here it's not Travis County or b.f.i. That decides whether this expansion is going to happen or not. It's tceq and the courts. Neither b.f.i. Nor Travis County can say how tceq or the courts are going to rule. So again like many disputes that you get into, I would characterize the agreement as a settlement. You are basically both Travis County and b.f.i. Are compromising their position, and both agreeing on as john kuhl said, certainty because -- because certainty is better than the uncertainty of all or nothing of either an unlimited expansion being approved by tceq or tceq denying any expansion at all.
>> but it -- it's definitely I guess a given if the court decides to approve such an moa, it would definitely give an added value of -- leading to the permit. I believe that the b.f.i. Folks are trying to acquire at this time. So I -- I guess -- looking at all of the -- all of the e-mails that we received, all of the requests of postponement, because of the christmas holidays people not actually having an opportunity to get their act together to come down here and -- and oppose this because really I have not seen anyone coming here to -- to raise their hand and support it. Not a group of people. But I do know that the constituents over in eastern Travis County, east Austin, in the community over there, have -- have vividly have spoken over and over and over again, l.b.j. Neighborhood, crystal, folks over in that area, colony park, walnut terrace. All of those surrounding neighbors have really spoke in opposition to this particular monstrosity of an environmental problem that continues to persist and I hope that we honor the request that -- that the persons have made here in Travis County. And in precinct 1 and I think that we may have e-mails that have come from other areas outside of precinct 1 because it is a county-wide issue. Thank goodness there are folks that live on the other side of i-35, east and west, that have similar concerns about -- about the advent of bad environmental aspects. One more thing that I would like to bring out and that is that -- that just as of yesterday, we are still struggling to determine proper land use, proper compatible land use. Meaning that Commissioner Sonleitner was there yesterday, in fact. A meeting that we held yesterday for the s.h. 130 corridor. One of the things that we are confronted with is how can counties be given more power to determine land use? Meaning that -- that to locate residents, agricultural, commercial, and industrial -- industrial, solid waste and also landfills, where could they be located in? We had legislators that were there yesterday and it appeared that -- that the -- that the meeting that we had yesterday was
>> [indiscernible], too, that they were looking at a bill that they were going to be introducing into the legislature homely this coming term -- hopefully this coming term, that we would be able to grab ahold of this thing, we will be able to determine the location of these type of facilities and other land use purposes throughout the county. But of course this is in the s.h. 130 corridor, but it is east -- the majority of it is -- the length of that corridor goes through precinct 1. Of course there's a lot of opportunities. Of course these particular landfill are located in precinct 1. Of course it is the community is outraged that we are even considering something like this. Again I want to echo the person that I represent here in Travis County. Actually all of Travis County. The folks that vote for me are aren't of precinct 1. I can hear and echo what they are saying. That's what I'm trying my best to do. Again you guys have all of the information about what the residents and what the neighborhoods, the individual that have called in and said that they would like to delay this thing, have -- let them have a good christmas holidays to do their holiday shopping, all of these other kind of things and bring this thing back next year, thank you.
>> two questions. I guess one is how much capacity does b.f.i. Believe is -- is -- remains under the current permit? I'm really interested in -- in -- in years more than quantity. Sort of estimated years.
>> locate a new site, if I could get just a status report on that. Any residents that want to get comments on this item today.
>> judge, is there intent for us to cast this vote today.
>> I notified the residents that I communicated with that I would ask for a one week postponement. Because the matter has really not been on the court's agenda for a long time. Be back on on December 19th. I think that was a request that I heard. Everybody that asked me, I told them it was just for discussion only today.
>> that's what I have been telling folks as well. I just want to make sure that it's preannounced.
>> okay. Judge, Commissioners? I'm brad dugas, with allied waste b.f.i. I appreciate the guys bringing this back for consideration. This has been debated for going on three years now. I think the moa was signed by my predecessor, the manager I believe a year ago. We negotiated very strongly. Both of our interests that we came to a compromise at that point that I think was still intact. I think we have stepped forward and done several items throughed in the moa, installed there. Reduced the footprint, abandon our larger expansion. I will go through those in more details. To particularly answer your questions, two questions, judge. There's about seven and a half million cubic yards of capacity left as of the end of the year, we don't calculate that until the end of this year so we -- we can't tell you exactly how many are there. Which led us to about four to five years of life left under the existing permit. With the existing capacity that's coming in there. Which would give us somewhere in the neighborhood of the additional seven years. But I would point out to you that in this agreement we get a date certain of cutoff of November 2015. Takes us out to 2017 or 2018, we are committed to the 2015. Really our amendment that we are pursuing the tceq, the four years, 2011, 2015, really a four year window. We are trying to pursue that green field site that you mentioned your second question. We are aggressively continued to pursue locations within the capcog region and throughout Travis County, have identified several land sources that are very promising. But beyond that, judge, I can't tell you because I have land transactions involved at this time. But some very promising things have come up for us in the recent days. With that, I would like to kind of cover you asked for the key highlights and john clearly pointed out the -- the -- the points that are of the most -- what we heard loud and clear from the community and from the court, on the date certain, you know, we want to know when you are going to be out of there. We go back and look what we had presented or contemplated originally, we were going to go for a lateral expansion. I believe all of you have the map up there. We have a lateral expansion towards blue goose road of about 14 acres previously. I think the expansion was for almost 15 million cubic yards. What we have done in the -- in that is abandon that 14-acre lateral expansion, increasing the buffer and additionally have -- have given up 11-acres of the existing footprint to further create a buffer there. Part of our good faith effort going forward. Obviously we have said in this agreement that we would forego a transfer station on the property. When 2015 rolls around, all of our truck traffic will eliminate going to that site and location after closure of the site. Obviously we both recognize the need from -- from an environmental standpoint of -- of waste disposal capacity and the cap to go region. Capcog region. Just to bring up that point of the r.w. Beck study funded by capcog, with the existing capacity that's permitted today, I think it's six landfills, correct me if it's beyond that in this area, I think the capacity runs out about 2018 under today's scenario. It's a need that needs to be added in going forward -- addressed in going forward here. While our capacity would allow us to go beyond 2015, even today under our permit, we could reduce our intake and take this permit out to 2020 or 2021. We are in agreement with this know oa to close that -- moa to close that landfill in November of 2015. As I mentioned we abandoned the larger expansion, going to the blue goose creating a bigger buffer area there. As well we are pursuing a -- a more environmentally in tune, if you will, split level design of our closure. This expansion is purely vertical. It's over the existing footprint. So -- so when the land compatibility issues come up, I kind of question what that is, it's an existing operation. It's there today. And I don't think that -- that we have hindered growth and development in that area. In fact there are a couple of residential communities I mean developments that are propped up in very new proximity. One is planned directly across the street. So I don't believe that we have hindered any development in that general area through the operation of what's going on. Again, it is an existing facility operation. We have implemented additional odor control elements there, bird control elements that are there. Those things may occasionally occur. There are birds at all landfills. We have bird, abatement, litter control programs. Installed 1500 additional feet of -- of perimeter wind blown litter control fencing. I have agreed through this moa to limit our own trucks that we can control their access, where they would come down either johnny morris, 290 to giles restricting them from blue goose coming down through harris branch. Obviously in this moa it gives you guys a pretty good hammer on us. If we violate any aspect of the performance based aspect of this contract, you can terminate your support or neutrality of our amendment throughout the whole process. They are -- obviously creates a legally binding position between the two of us in this agreement going forward. I guess lastly, from my perspective, and of course paul may have something to add and -- as ray, as I mentioned earlier, this thing has been going on for three years now, in negotiation. This court began that and we really believe this court hopefully could take an action and -- and a positive one from our perspective. In signing an moa.
>> the moa would be signed by the b.f.i. Plus the owner of the property if.
>> that's correct. We have a document that we executed and we have agreed to execute that with between
>> [indiscernible] holdings, b.f.i. And the county. That's correct.
>> okay. Any other questions for b.f.i.
>> yeah, judge.
>> I just have --
>> [indiscernible] very instrumental, right, in working with b.f.i. And others.
>> I had been up until we kind of --
>> kind of turn --
>> negotiations quite a long time ago.
>> and who else has been involved in the -- in the negotiations? That's it? , the county have, the county attorney, b.f.i.
>> Commissioner, I would say everybody has been involved in the negotiations.
>> john kuhl.
>> including the neighbors. We have listened to what they have said , you know, they clearly don't feel like the moa contains everything they want it to contain. But everyone has been involved in the negotiations.
>> like you said, it represents a settlement of all of the comments that we have had in court. All of these years. Because I do know that I have listened very carefully to everybody's comments and so you -- you have said that it's -- that it represents a settlement. Of all of the comments that have been made, to the court, and -- and I don't -- I don't think that I have disrespected anybody, and -- and in listening to the input that I have gotten. Understanding as well that -- that this garbage comes from all of us. I mean, I can't get away from that. And -- and of course I also heard that we really don't like for garbage to come from outside of Travis County. We would prefer to have this be garbage from us only. And I would hope that we would continue with that as a goal. In any kind of landfill service that we have in Travis County because I think that it's going to -- I don't see us getting away from needing to dispose of garbage and somehow I just can't get away from that unless we have a zero waste policy and then how do you enforce that on everybody? Today, we have people who don't -- who don't recycle. Even today. And in spite of all of the efforts that we have made and -- in getting the information out. To people in Austin, Texas. And so -- so I -- I just find it very difficult to say that -- that we can't get -- that we can get away from landfills. But I guess the next best thing is to be able to come to some kind of agreement where we can decide how exactly we are going to dispose of garbage. I don't want to demagog the issue. Because I know it would be very simple to do that and blame somebody for bringing the garbage to our back yard. And yet I have to say well where does -- you know, how do they pick up that garbage. Well, from our houses. So -- so just tells me that is just an extremely complex issue that we all need to contribute to in reaching, excuse me, in reaching a decision. That makes sense to everybody. And so -- so I know that I recycle. Every -- every week. And I try not to pick up packaging from stores so that I don't have to dispose of those plastic bags. And -- and so -- so but, you know, how do I make other -- my neighbors do that? How in the world do I do that? And even if we pass the zero waste policy, how do we force people to not throw things away that they could otherwise recycle? And so I'm in a huge quand degree about this. Kwan degree about this, but yet I know we don't want that trash to build up in our homes, our yards, again a huge dilemma to come to a decision that will please everybody. But I think that we can be, I trust my county, my county judge. He does a terrific job of being democratic to everybody, to listen to everybody, to try to come up with a fair solution. So I was asking, you know, if he was really involved in this. I think he has been. He's very much aware of east Austin, of east Travis County, I don't for a minute think that he has -- has forgotten the remarks that have been made by folks in northeast Travis County. I have a landfill in southeast as well. But I don't know that one landfill is going to serve the needs of a growing Travis County. So -- so I think that I need to participate in trying to find a green field, another green field for the trash that we will inevitably keep generating. So -- so but I do -- I do want to listen to -- to folks and see how much more progress we can make. But I agree, I think that we need to come to some decision pretty soon. And -- and continue hearing the people and let's see how we can all improve the way we dispose of garbage.
>> questions for b.f.i.?
>>
>> [indiscernible] mention the fact because a green field site
>> [indiscernible] for those who don't know what it is, it's just a new landfill. But I guess that has been around for a long time and we -- we have diligently tried to -- to work with -- with you. I know that we have been -- even set aside during the budget cycle $100,000 to -- to accommodate as much as possible, a green fill site. For -- from what I understand, it really doesn't take that long to deal with that. I guess locate the property is one thing, as far as the process is concerned, I have heard as little as three to five years to deal with that as far as getting a new location. And what I have also heard, I think that I mentioned this to you, b.f.i., is that folks are opposed to your expansion. If you would like to see the record of the opposition that -- that's out there, well, you can get copies from the -- my office or you can get them from the clerk. I think that you need to have that because everybody has not been involved in the process as far as this particular -- this particular landfill. No, people over there have not been fully involved in this process. That's unfortunate. Because when you get responses from the naacp, lulac, other -- other organizations, in the area, that have not been a part of this, then there is a problem. That's why we pose it and they are requesting that in those particular e-mails that we need more time we would like again to request a postponement. Do you have any objections to postponing this after the new year, after the holidays are over, so these other folks can have a say in what's going on here? Would you have any objections to that?
>> judge and Commissioner Davis, we believe contrary to the that, that the neighbors have had a significant say in this. I personally have been to several community meetings where we have heard their comments and seen the pictures and we believe that we have made several compromises through this moa that we would not have not done other than having their input. I think the judge has done a marvelous job of taking their comments and insisting they be in there. We didn't want them all. We have in fact compromised and put them in there. Additionally we believe there has been ample opportunity for those that poacialtly could be impacted, those in the general area of that have had their say over this three and a half period of time. And we would like to see this court, you know, either decide in favor or not of this moa.
>> would you be object -- would you have any objections if this was to be delayed until those other folks have had an opportunity to look -- this is a very serious matter.
>> absolutely.
>> it's not just taking a stroll through the park. This is a very serious, serious, serious matter that may have significant impact for years to come. Those folks I think need to have the opportunity to -- to although at this and -- and have a chance to digest something of such magnitude. It's not a small deal. It's not a consent item. So my question to you, would you have any objections to -- to this particular issue being brought up next year?
>> judge. Commissioner Davis, yes would be the answer to that. We believe that the -- that this has been debated thoroughly, completely. I don't believe today when the comments come up from the neighbors there will be anything new to this court. That they haven't seen over the last two and a half years. We believe that's been fully debated. So we would like to see some action taken on this before the end of the year.
>> well, I pose the question to you about the green field site and I still have not -- I heard your status report, but you basically repeatedly the said the same thing every time that question is asked about the green field site and another new location. It's just sounds like the same repeat to me. As far as what I'm hearing. So again, that was my question to you much thank you.
>> let's give residents an opportunity to give comments. If you would like to give comments on this item, please come forward. We will not take action today and next week try -- we will try to allow a little bit more time. Give us your name, we would be happy to get your kent.
>> some of us are going to have to leave at 12 noon. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to catch up.
>> my name is david martinez. I live at the colonial place subdivision. I wanted to go on record as being opposed to the b.f.i. 75-foot vertical expansion. I would like to offer an example of why. My wife works at the blue bonnet elementary school which is -- which is north of the b.f.i. Landfill. Separated by an open field. A little bit maybe a little bit longer than a quarter of a mile. Yesterday the -- she was substituting for a kindergarten class and the odors from the -- coming from the landfill were so strong that they had to cut their recess short and go inside because the kids were feeling nauseous. 75 feet I think would just increase that problem.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> my name is joyce best. I agree with mr. Dugas you are not going to hear anything different than you have heard for the last two and a half years. In my recollection we have actually been dealing with this almost five years. But the fact of the matter is that -- that a performance based contract is simply going to give us more of the same, that's not good. Over the past five years, the community members have been asked to -- to serve on the task force. They have come to dozens of meetings such as this. I know that Commissioner Gomez asked the community to meet with b.f.i. And see if there are areas of agreement. The residents rented the school cafeteria. So they could have a place big enough to have such a meeting. The comments from the residents were overwhelming. At that time mr. Dugas stated what he stated to you today. They really don't need 75 feet to get them to 2015. He also stated that at capcog meeting? The -- the fact of the matter is that -- that we as residents of the area at that time proposed a compromise and the compromise was that should b.f.i. Go ahead, find a green field site, and be actively in the process of permitting that site, that the community would not oppose an expansion of 20 feet, that would get them to the 2015 date if that was needed. But that was a big proviso. We have heard no response to that offer. And frankly I'm really not sure why -- why they -- would need a response because I -- I think that they are counting on the fact that you are going to make a deal with them. And that the deal will allow them to have absolutely everything they want, including the 75-foot height expansion and as mr. Martinez said and I believe he had to leave to go back to work and couldn't speak very long, but the -- if you are -- if you are -- an earlier speaker was talking to you about emissions from a place 65 miles from here and encouraging us to be concerned about those, how much more should you be concerned about -- about odor causing gas emissions from a place that's eight miles from where you are sitting. These people have been subjected to these issues for -- between 20 and 30 years, depending on who you are talking to and which one you are talking about. It's time for someone else to shoulder part of that. Time for them to go somewhere where they can start over and do it right because they have not operated a -- fairly to the community. I think that you have heard sufficient evidence of that and this -- this is simply a bad deal for the community. It's just a question of whether b.f.i. Will make their millions very quickly by -- by getting the 75-foot expansion or whether they drag it out over a longer period of time. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> judge, do you want everybody, all of the speakers to have the full court? If you do, I know that Karen and I are leaving in a minute. So -- I'm willing to sit here until midnight tonight and hear people talk, but I've got to go at 12. I know that Karen does as well. It may be fine for us two to leave and then you all stay. But otherwise I think that -- that they would probably like to speak to all of us.
>> we can probably get all of our comments in in the next 10 minutes.
>> we are not -- we are not able to have 10 more minutes.
>> and you can't.
>> and it won't happen in 10 minutes.
>> we have got to go at 12. I mean whether --
>> 12:30 p.m.
>> [multiple voices]
>> since we still have a minute, I will say good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners. My name is mary carter. I'm speaking today on behalf of the northeast neighbors coalition. This is a coalition that live near the b.f.i. Landfill, impacted by this landfill and the other one in the neighborhood. We are asking you not to approve this memorandum of agreement. Either next week or even after the first of the year. Although I agree with Commissioner Davis that voting after the first of the year would be at least a help to the neighbors. We certainly support a date certain foreclosure. And in fact sooner the better. But we are very concerned about the expansion and we cannot support the expansion. From the information brought forth today, doesn't seem like that expansion to the size that they are proposing is really needed. If they have five years, four to five years worth of capacity, doesn't sound like we really need a 75-foot expansion or 9 point million additional cubic yards. We are also concerned that the memorandum of agreement takes away the valuable rights that the county has to help protect their citizens. Primarily, what this memorandum of agreement does, in my opinion, is it validates land use compatibility with a tall, 795-foot above mean sea level landfill, in this location. That means that when waste management wants to expand their landfill, it's already to be considered compatible with the local land use. And if by chance the two landfills decide to combine and have a mega landfill, 795 feet will be the minimum that would be considered to be compatible with the local land use. The memorandum of agreement also requires Travis County not to comment to capcog on -- on land use compatibility issues with regard to this landfill. And public interest issues, which the citizens need. They need for you to speak for them. I'm also concerned that -- that there -- the enforcement of the agreement is -- let me say just somewhat weak. For instance, if the 795-foot expansion is approved and if waste is placed greater than 795 feet, the county cannot require them to remove the extra waste unless the tceq approves, which is just a longer process and may not result in the waste being removed. I certainly support working on the odors. The wind blown -- wind blown litter problem keeping the roads clean of mud, et cetera, but frankly these things should be happening now without a memorandum of agreement. We encourage b.f.i. To find another site, it sounds like they are working on that. We encourage the county to help them find another site. But I agree with mr. Nuckols that having Travis County participate in the contested case hearing is very beneficial for the citizens and I hope that you will consider that when you are making your decision. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is evelyn
>> [indiscernible], I'm a property owner just north of the landfill. According to Sunday's Austin american, it says: Travis County Commissioners Tuesday will discuss a deal that could help a landfill east of Austin expand. It also stated that you will consider an arrangement under which the sunset farms landfill would fwre to close by November the 1st of 2015. In exchange, you would not oppose an expansion that the landfill is asking for. I am appalled that the county Commissioners would make a deal with businesses that have not been good neighbors in the past. And by doing so put residents' health and welfare at risk. I cannot believe that you will not take into consideration the projected growth that will take place in the area prior to 2015 and the way the landscape will look with the expansions, not to mention the problems with odor, vulttures, air and water pollution. No deal, no arrangement with b.f.i. Or waste management on any part of their moa, just say no to these businesses' requests and recommend to tceq that b.f.i. And waste management find a site to locate -- relocate now. That I would like to comment on, the footprint that was referred to again today that they are abandoning, that footprint according to the picture that I have seen of the map, that's always been a wet area back when there was farmland out there, it couldn't be farmed because it was always wet. I don't think they are giving up anything, I think that they are just wanting an expansion. How would you like to look outlet from your front porch every day and zoo a 795-foot mountain of trash?
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, my name is trek english, for the northeast action group. I'm here to talk about this moa, when is call a mirage, not a memorandum of agreement, a mirage of agreement. There's a lot of things here that seem to be plausible, but they are not enforceable. And this contract is still -- still a contract for expansion. Not a contract for relocation. You keep telling us that the aim of this is to stop them from -- from staying in this location beyond 2015, but it's not about the expansion. But that's all that there is here, expansion talk and very little about relocation. I'm just really appalled and I'm -- I'm kind of disappointed that the Commissioner Daugherty is not here because I'm addressing this comment mostly to him. He had told us from the start that if the odors were still present he would not go along with any type of expansion. Well, I think that your duty is to protect the people and if the kids and mr. Nuckols you have a small child, you should know what I'm talking about, if the odors are hitting these children on a daily basis, you have absolutely -- your duty here is to protect those children. You cannot just say well we are fed up with this thing, we want to get rid of it. These kids are exposed to gases every day. They can't go outside to apply. Yet you are out there contemplating entering into an agreement for them to expand when they cannot control the odors with what they have. You all know that scanning a landfill is going to create more gases, expanding. It's not going to create less. Nothing is going to be less, it's going to be more. Please go back to your natural role here in this county and that is to protect the people and you must listen to what mr. Martinez told you that the odors are constantly present. Especially north on the site. Two, I was surprised by something that jon kuhl told you that he wasn't aware of anything they had filed. This makes me even more mad. B.f.i. Filed a major revision of their site operating plant in the last month or so. They actually received approval by tceq, yet the county was never given a copy of those revisions. Never. No comments could be made and nothing was given to us. We went to tceq, joyce and I went to tceq to try to get the records and tceq couldn't give us anything. Finally somebody walked by, in the back room, even though we had several carts with binders and binders, in the back room said here we think this is what you want. They came back, it was page 39, 18, 4, like six or seven pages, didn't make any sense at all. We requested to be given the full site operating plant that had been filed and I didn't get that until after the approval was granted. So even though I foiled a motion to overturned, it was overruled because the Commissioners did not take it. This is how b.f.i. Is showing how they want to work with the neighbors and the county. This is the major park, really the only one that the public and counties can -- make comments on because the rest is all engineering design and whatever. So this is the part that should have been --
>> trek, let me ask a question. If in the procedure, is it in the procedure, in the amendment to get a permit to expand, what trek is actually saying about the site operation, operating plan around
>> [indiscernible] tceq, approximate if the moa is also in the process with that perm process, is it by law, do we need to see that site operation plan or even be aware that a plan has been filed? Knowledge of that plan being filed. I guess john kuhl? You are talking about the site operating plan filed as part of the application for the expansion.
>> yes, but that was revised. So in other words what's part of the application is no longer valid. Revised to meet the new rules that were promulgated in '04.
>> the main issue with the moa is the dimensions of the expansion, footprint and the height. Site operating plan is not the piece of the application that says how high the landfill is, what the footprint is. Yeah, it would be nice information to look at the site operating plan but I don't know that it's directly relevant to the -- to the -- to the core terms of the moa which is what's their footprint, how high they can go.
>> but also in the moa, also talk about the -- about the -- looked at the debris, stuff on the road. Part of the evaporation. Part of the moa, it is a part of the moa, when you talk about the activity, the operation of the -- of the facility in itself. It is a part -- there are components within the existing moa that we have enforced that do have those type of activities.
>> let me say it this way.
>> say it another way.
>> assuming the court approves the memorandum, the memorandum sets out minimum operating procedures that they have to follow, if they don't follow those procedures then Travis County is free to oppose the application to expand. So assuming the court signs the memorandum, then yes the site operating plan becomes relevant and we should look at it.
>> so --
>> because if the site operating plan let's say falls below the requirements of the moa, then it needs to be corrected or b.f.i. Would be in breach. But that's only assuming the memorandum is signed.
>> the point is, though, I hi what she's saying is that we -- I don't have knowledge of the change as far as the site operation plan.
>> I don't think the t.n.r. Staff does either because it's totally irrelevant until the moa is signed.
>> well -- what if it may be to the to point whereby you do have features in the moa that's right now for approval. One way or the other. Disapproval or either getting postponed to next year, looked at further. So in my mind it is a part of the process because some of the components in the moa do have -- have a bearing on the actual site operated but a change in that is one thing. Now if there's something consistent as far as what we have right now before us, that's something else. But not knowing, not having seen that information I think that it would be good for us to get a copy of the site operations plan from tceq.
>> well, it doesn't hurt to have it. But -- but I would say we can look at it Commissioner. But at this point the staff is in limbo until we get direction from the Commissioners court on what you want to do on this issue. If you want on to sign the moa, we would look at it in context of the moa. If you choose not to sign the moa, prepare staff to be a party in opposition to the application, that's a very different issue. But the bottom line is the staff is looking to the Commissioners court and the county attorney's office and since trek once again since you have personalized this issue to me, I will point out the county attorney's office is here to implement the directives of our client the Commissioners court? Four members of the Commissioners court voted for this moa to be negotiated, that's why we are doing it. And once again as I have it, every time when you all have made this issue personal to me, the county attorney's office is just representing the interests of our client. But at this point the county attorney's office and the staff are simply looking to the Commissioners court for what direction to take on this issue.
>> can I get a 30 or 06 second response -- 60 second response at this time. 60 second, please, then we will let ms. English finish. Other speakers we have, too.
>> to assist you, you have a copy of this sop, it's the identical sop in the application which we have provided to you. All landfills in the state were obligated to upgrade their sop pursuant to new rules. All landfills in the state on the schedule were obligated to submit those revised sop's to the tceq at the tceq's request. Which we did. It is the same one that you have seen, it is an updated version and an improved version of the one that we had been operating under until the -- the new sop was revised and submitted.
>> sop stands for stand --
>> site.
>> state.
>> operating plan.
>> well, I still think that they should provide a red line copy of the site operating plan to john kuhl for his files anyway or for -- to the county and the reason that I personalized this issue, mr. Nuckols is because you know that I have been here from the beginning saying that I care about the children. And that these expansions bother me because of the children. I am going to go back to my original statement that it is mostly for the children of the northeast Travis County that I am here. The third one, the third point that I wanted to bring is mr. Dugas's mathematics, I would love to attend the same school as he does. They say 750 and 770, the reason they are doing that is because they are going deeper where 750 is. Going deeper because they are compensating in the height but they are going deeper, they are going 75 feet all over the place. Also, if you look at the paragraph 2 of page 2, sounds like a cosmetic company. It doesn't sound like a -- like a -- like a landfill but I guess maybe they are the same thing. If you look at the middle of the -- of the paragraph it says that they are not seeking a horizontal expansion because if they did it would have the effect of reducing the buffer provided by approximately 40 acres. Okay, well that's the way the cosmetics company because it will have the effect of reducing fine lines, of course, as they are reducing the buffer, either they are or they are not. The buffer is non-existent on that site anyway. So -- so what does that mean when they would have had the effect of reducing the buffer by 14 acres. What is that an illusion that we would -- they have lost 14 acres but in actual fact they haven't? What kind of people put this kind of language in a contract. And -- and that really upsets me. The 11 acres, they are not giving them up. They are going up so they need a bigger power plant and where do you put the power plant? You need a spot to put it in, that's where the 11 acres are going. So I mean, you know, it's just -- we need the violins here, we are such victims they are constantly crying about what they are giving up, giving up in this contract. So anyway since you are all trying to go to lunch I will make it short and ask you to please postpone taking action on this moa. You should at least wait until the public hearing. You should at least hear what people say about this expansion and listen to what the -- because at that point they have to say the truth at the -- at the public hearing, the landfills will make a presentation, which will be a little bit more than what we have heard for the last five years which are bits and pieces, then you will get to hear what the people have to say. You can make up your mind and decide okay well -- well we still want them out by 2015 so we are going to pass this moa. You shouldn't do that before the public hearing. You should at least give the people the chance to let you know and let the tceq know why they are opposed to this. And so -- so I beg you to please wait. You have time and the contested case hearing comes many months after that and that's when you have to decide whether you are part of it or not. So there's no rush. There's no rush for you to take action on this. In 2006. It can wait and you can be more informed and by then you will know how bad the odors are because obviously they are having a real, real problem getting rid of them. Thank you.
>> thank you, trek.
>> ms. Mcfee.
>> for the record, my name is melanie mac afee. Along with the others, I too find this unbelievable. Should I say corrupt? Let's look at some of the facts. This issue is brought up suddenly over the christmas holidays. This court is wanting to give only one week for the citizens to respond. Here we are two members are not even here to hear our comments today. They want a response christmas week. This court changes Commissioners with different views in January. This I strong opposition against this court's action by the citizens voiced over and over. This court is so blatant in their hypocrisy to declare in writing how horrible the landfill is and then conclude to give them a massive expansion. This court is passing the buck to a future court in 2015 to look at the damage of your actions now. This court knows this expansion is the same volume b.f.i. Wanted all along. B.f.i. Is asking for more volume than they can fill up in the contract. But this court refuses to tighten that discrepancy up. This court refuses to look at the bigger picture of how to reduce our waste stream. I invited had court to come here a wonderful speaker, heather rodgers on the history of waste management and b.f.i. Emphasizing how relevant her book was to the situation. No one came. This court does not address expansion right next door. This court is practicing the absurd to suggestion that 11 acres is a buffer for a mountain? Mountain. This court refuses to look at the comments from citizens. This court refuses to look at the negative impact of too much landfill capacities, ignore the fact that we are carrying the garbage load for over 30 counties. This court knows the approval of b.f.i. Will provide a good argument for wmi in their expansion permit that supposedly this court opposes. This court refuses to look at the impact of the 8 story addition and the horrendous visual impact to how many homes? This court obviously does not cair. Care. This court refuses to actively work with the city of Austin on a waste reduction plan. I conclude this agreement is a sham, a political cover to give b.f.i. Exactly what they want and then this court has the audacity to green wash is like it's helping the citizens. If this court want the citizens to have any trust they would address these many issues we have brought up, not slam this document down our throats before the new court comes in. Your vote on this, I promise, to let the citizens of Austin know all about and understand. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Mcafee don't hold back like ms. Mcafee.
>> I can skip some of the things in my speech actually. To the Commissioners -- two of the Commissioners not being here. A lot of my comments were for them. I will keep mine extremely short and say that the fact that this is, as the judge said after more than a year of not talking about it and not negotiating with these folks, all of a sudden coming up so that it is time to be voted on the Tuesday before christmas it stinks almost as bad as those landfills do, you know, I mean that is not going to go over very well doesn't seem like with anybody anywhere expected for the people sitting in the front row right behind me. So, you know, I -- I urge you to wait. There is no reason, as trek was saying, no reason to get the cart before the hours -- bee the horse here, wait until we hear the full explanation about what they are planning on doing and hear from the citizens and see, you know, maybe then I know part of your rationale is because of how you feel our odds are at the tceq. I think to do something before the citizens in this public hearing is kind of getting the cart before the horse again, you won't know what our chances are until then. We will know better what our chances are at this point in time. I urge you to put it off until the next year, there's plenty of time for us to take in -- more information and unlike the comment earlier, there is new information that's come to light today. It's about this sop at least. I know that part, isn't it? So no reason to jump on this, do it in seven days. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr.
>> [indiscernible]
>> thank for you the opportunity to address you today. I'm bob gregory, my brother and I own Texas disposal systems. We have a competing landfill, a competitor to b.f.i. In this community. I have also been involved as you know for a good well 25 years but for sure on this the last five years as we have gone through the process of working on siting criteria for landfills, how on site a green field site, bring other landfills in the area that would meet certain criteria with composting recycling, other kind of things, this has been a very, very extensive process and numerous -- numerous contract drafts have come about. Both to -- on how contract -- how landfills would be operated, the criteria that they would meet, even contracts that contemplating a siting ordinance that would allow landfills to do this -- to expand. You have before you in the past I suppose even now a contract requesting your approval for those siting criteria. I come before you recognizing that I'm a competitor of this. And recognizing that we are working towards a plan that you have known about for some time to an expansion of our landfill in southeast Travis County. I will represent to you in my e-mail that I send to you on Sunday, that I feel that this is a toothless contract. There are no monetary penalties. It requires specific performance, but it's so owe it is so loosely worded that the argument over what is required could go on for years. And only at that point in time if there is a court that -- that rules against the operator, would they just have to stop doing it from that point on. There's no penalty that requires them to pay anything, no penalty or requirement that makes them come back and remove waste. There are examples throughout the land where landfill operators have ignored contracts and let them go on because the penalty was smaller than the advantage that could be gained by ignoring them. In my opinion, that is clearly the case in this situation. The benefit to continue on far outweighs any potential penalty or any potential detriment from the enforcement against this contract. Not to mention the millions of dollars that it could cost or the hundreds of thousands of dollars it could cost the county to actually go through an enforcement in the legal process to enforce it. I submit to you that there is no certainty by this contract of the date closure. There's a date given, no refresh my memory that they will close on that day other than breaking their word, there's no requirement in the contract where they can be held financially responsible for it. The contract does propose a restrictive covenant that's not been presented what I'm aware of. I have not seen it. Of course I'm not that important but I don't know that the neighbors have seen it, I don't know that anybody has seen it.
>> that's incorrect, bob. That restrictive covenant was widely circulated the last time this agreement was on the agenda. That's incorrect to say that nobody has seen it.
>> as I recall the last draft that was circulated --
>> we are about to run out of time. I have a meeting at 1:00. Three interviews this afternoon from --
>> let me sum --
>> them lynn as county judge. Three people are here from out of town that we need to interview this afternoon. We have posted those for 1:45. I have got to hear from a committee that interviewed 10 or 11 people that got down to those three. Understood that, there are four or five other big items that we have to take this afternoon. So I've got to leave in 2 or 3 minutes, I'm diabetic, I have got to have lunch before 1:00. I don't know arguing about the restrictive covenant helps any. Other comments that you want us to get, please give them.
>> thank you very much.
>> I will circulate that restrictive covenant as well as a draft that we got electrically, we will get that out to the folks.
>> I appreciate that. There's no way that you can approve this and not have it directly affect the landfill next door. If this is an attempt by the county to give back door approval for waste management for continued expansions, then shame on you. Because you should not do it that way. This will be an improvement -- a huge value, for them. In getting the argument they can be 75 feet higher. They are not even asking for 75 feet higher at this point. They would have the position taken by the county that they can. You have known this for a long time. It's been the intention of these two companies to tie these two landfills together. I believe this contract does not preclude them from doing that. The last thing that I will mention is since we have been negotiating in good faith for a long time, with contracts that are enforceable in court, please don't ask me to come back and do a contract that's enforceable if you are doing contracts that are not. That's all that I have to same thank.
>> thank you.
>> john. When you you send this other corresponds, I have a copy of so many residents and organizations that are strictly in opposition to this particular moa and also a -- requesting that this be carried over sometime next year, hold on to -- whole lot of things need to happen. When we send out stuff always get a copy of that from the clerk to make sure that these folks are in the loop as we go through this process.
>> closing comments?
>> I'm anne mcafee. I will be very brief. B.f.i. Has a long, long history of operating in bad faith and to trust them now on this, particularly after the testimony we just heard about the things that are -- that are omitted from the memorandum of agreement, the -- that they will have a greater incentive to go ahead and violate the memorandum of agreement because it will mean -- cost them more money, they will gain more money than they lose and the violation. If you grant b.f.i. The 75-foot expansion they want you to adopt, you will take away the incentive for b.f.i. To get about the business of finding a new location. Now, I heard one of the b.f.i. Representatives this morning say that they are actually looking right now this very moment. But they can't tell you where they are looking. I strongly suspect given their history that they actually aren't looking and it's only as long as you continue to put pressure on them by not granting them this 75-foot expansion contract, they need that pressure to stay on them in order to -- to continue to actually get about the business of finding a new location for -- to expand their business. And the other thing is that -- that what they have now, even if they acted -- if they had a history of acting in good faith, what they have now is -- is such technologically I guess technology isn't the right word, but what they have now if they were operating the best, using the best practices possible, they still would not be able to do the right thing by the neighborhood, by the -- not just Travis County but all of the surrounding counties who have to breathe what they are putting out. Most of the people who come down here as neighbors come down at a cost to them because they are working people very often. They have to take off from their jobs. The people that you see sitting on the front row here, I don't know how much you all get an hour for sitting there, I know it's probably over $100 an hour, isn't it? Somebody says it's even more than that. But at any rate, her willing to come and -- they are willing to come and sit and spend all of their time working on nothing except this one thing on behalf of b.f.i. And also probably incidentally on behalf of waste management. Both of these companies have really, really rotten histories. If you look on the internet and put in b.f.i. Corruption you get amazing numbers of -- of things that come up. You -- if you look on -- on the vet and put in b.f.i. And fines for violations of things that they committed, lots and lots of things come up all over the country. So -- so Travis County shouldn't be snookered into thinking that b.f.i. Will do anything different here than they have other places around the country. Please postpone this, wait until January or February to really have a chance for people to look at this very carefully. Take into consideration the things that were just said about -- about the things that have been left out of the -- of this memorandum of agreement because -- because this sounds to me like those are really, really important things that ought to be in there. If you want it to have any meaning at all. So I appreciate your time and I hope that you all have a good lunch.
>> move to recess to 1:00.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes unanimously with two absent. Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> get those e-mails from my office.
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, December 13, 2006 10:35 AM