Travis County Commissioners Court
January 23, 2007
Item 11
Number 11 is to approve contract award and contract modification number 1 for refuse collection, ifp number b 0700004-oj to the low bidder, waste management of Texas. And Commissioner Davis has abstain odd this.
>> I voted no.
>> voted no in the past.
>> I will vote no again today.
>> cyd grimes, county purchasing agent. We have had a contract for four years and that contract has finally expired. We normally have a one-year crs with three option s to we new, which we have done. We were at the end of the four years, so we put it out for bid again. We received two bids. And the lowest bidder is waste management. Waste management did some calculations wrong. We discovered those calculations. We are also moding this contract at this time to make those corrections, and it in fact is in our favor and they are still the low bird. So we are recommending that you approve the contract and the crot modification number one which correctly amend the amount and make the award to waste management of Texas.
>> and if we don't make the award, what happens?
>> well, our garbage just collects where it's at. I mean, our bins out back would collect. Someone's got to collect our waste and dismoaz of it.
>> so in the absence of this contract, then that garbage would just be out, loose?
>> right. It's like at your home. If you didn't have garbage collection, what would do you with your garbage?
>> we don't go to the other bidder?
>> he wasn't the low bidder. We have to go with the low bidder.
>> (indiscernible).
>> ms. English, are you here on this item? Mr. Davis?
>> I guess I want to look at behavior and stuff like that. I want to look at notice of violations, I'd like to look at all these other things. I think there are attributes in my opinion that shul a part of who -- that should be a part of who gets what. And I just really feel that there's some behaviors there that -- and I know that I'm not going to support it, but I've never supported it because of things that have happened in the 290 east landfills. It's just not a healthy environment over there. The odors and a whole lot of things that take place over there and it appears that we are contributing to that, so how can I support something that is causing problems in the community that has brought up issues such as children and playground areas around those schools, for example, an leament school fwagging -- an elementary school and gagging when they are exposed to odor that are intolerable and they can't even have recess according to sources in that area. So it just appears to me that we need to revisit that and I think -- and I don't really know if we can or not under the law, but it appears to me that if it poses such problem in an area, fwheed to look at that. I can't support that. I'm sorry.
>> cyd, who is the second bier?
>> allied waste.
>> was there a third?
>> no, just two.
>> so in other words, you either give it to waste that's next to the schools or you give it to bfi that's next to the the schools for a higher price. Are those our choices?
>> about 20% higher, yes, sir.
>> because we don't have bob gi gregory as part of this. We don't have tbs. So the only two that wur are the two that are out there next to the schools. Are those our choices?
>> those are the two that bid, yes, sir.
>> and then we have the bid process that we go through that (indiscernible), otherwise we just make a big farce out of the whole purchasing system. And then too, if we don't award it, as bad as the result could be, some Travis County citizens generated garbage at this other place and if we don't pick it up, won't it be unhealthy for other people who come around that trash that isn't picked up? It's a huge dilemma that we all generate trash.
>> is there -- in the bid process I imagine it's the contract terms that are dictating the bid process. My concern is -- what I would like to see is us hold the waste industry to a higher standard so that we do have more palatable options than two landfills that are in a part of town that has been recognized as now no longer appropriate land use. So I would think that through the drafght of drafting of the contract that we could set a higher standard. I know that's sort of out of your bailiwick.
>> well, it falls to the specifications and what you specify that you want. I would essential have to work with the attorney generals on if -- with the county attorney's on if we were make ing it a proprietary type situation. It's a tough one.
>> ms. English?
>> good morning, Commissioners and judge Biscoe. Happy new year. It's my first time this year. Unfortunately it's my fourth court that I've dealt with since this landfill matter started from Commissioner baxter to Commissioner eckhardt. I understand there's a dilemma because of the two landfills that fwoid this contract -- that bid for this contract, but I wanted to remind you that when you first awarded this contract, you had awarded tds the contract as a backup. That was in case something happened to your waste management contract. And I'm not sure that that matter is not coming up for a renewal backup contract. Because it was on every agenda for the last two, three years, so I don't know that this is not actually one of your options. The reason I'm here and I'm asking you not to award this contract is because the vulture problem is becoming real serious and worse problem, especially in the area of tier one. If you're going to make that area a park, you're going to have a serious, serious problem. The vultures are now causing areas to become really infected by their droppings, which are excrement and bile. There was a segment on the radio last month about the vultures and Austin energy. They roost in the big power lines near the landfill. Well, if they're supposed to roost in the power lines, why are they roosting in our trees? They were not here in the trees today, but yesterday they were all over it. They were not just roosting, they hoover around the sky about 10 feet above my head. We had a little window yesterday of sun and I went outside for a little while to enjoy the sunshine and there was shadows all over and these birds were right there. And they are just concentrating in that area in such a way that I'm concerned that if children are playing near the creek or near the area where all these trees are, they're going to be exposed to things that -- I'm not sure what it's going to cause to their health at that point. And I don't know why they're roosting in neighborhood trees and not the power lines. The power lines are costing money. The guy from Austin energy was telling the radio person that they cause voltage dips and voltage surges. And last year there were nine voltage dips and it cost the city of Austin 2 fwiflt thousand dollars. So this is not a cheap problem, it's an expensive problem. And he called the area by 290 a prime real estate for the vul churz because the landfills, because of 290 which has road kill and because of the high power lines. And now the high trees. I've been here on many different problems, but the vulture problem just started two years ago and it has increased. Where we used to get them a counselor of times a year we're now getting them all year-round. And a few days ago the trees were just full of them. I'm not sure I understand and I think this is your chance to do something. I have written and documented this with tceq. Tceq wrote me back and told me to contact parks and wildlife. I did the same thing with parks and wildlife. I wrote the director with photographs that I sent to him and they wrote me back and said it's not their problem, they can't do anything about it, for me to contact tceq because they have tceq other the landfill. So it's like basically what happening was the vultures, you shoot them and they go to another tower or another tree. And you can't shoot them, I know, they're a protected species. But the same thing happens with this problem, that tceq keeps bouncing it back and fourth. The only tool that you have is this contract. And think need to address this vulture problem. They cause it and they need to address it. The other places there are problems in town, it seems to be addressed. We seem to be gifted with problems that nobody nts to address. And I think the city of Austin and Travis County should get together on this vulture problem. It's not a health issue. I also would like to bring up the fact that I was on tceq last week on two occasions, all day Thursday and Friday working on the 305 rules which tceq is promulgating or changing. And this would allow the landfill s to do more and more permits by modification or notice mod, but not -- it would limit the area of the permit -- of their facility that you can actually comment on. So in other words, -- before they would reopen the permit that you could comment on something and bring another problem that's causing -- that may be causing a problem on this notice mod, you cannot. It's a very limited process, and the reason I'm bringing this up is because you're going to be faced with more and more people complaining in the future, especially in the nine to 10 year window that you're giving them, and you won't be able to do anything because everything is going to be done by notice mod and very little -- very little will be able to be done. The 305 rules are posted on the tceq website if anybody nts to comment on them and ask for either longer notification or a broader scope of comments on -- by the blifnlght these very few people that are commenting on that. You're spending a lot of money helping the situation or helping to solve the situation, so I think in order for you not to have so much work in the future dealing with complaints, you should probably ask tceq to look very seriously at these modification that they're doing on the 305 rules.
>> is this a new contract or contract renewal?
>> this is a new contract. And on page 31 we have the three sait questions, and of course -- the three safety questions, and of course -- I believe this is the waste management incorporated contract. Is this the current contract that I have a copy of?
>> no, this is the old one.
>> do we have a copy of the new contract?
>> yes. I don't have it with me, but we have the contract.
>> do we have those old provisions in the new contract?
>> on the safety questionnaire, yes, we do.
>> what are the answers to it? On the old questionnaire they answered question to two out of the three questions.
>> I meant to pull the bid and look at it.
>> and of course the three questions, one is whether you've been cited by osha, two is whether you've been cited by the health department or tceq or e.p.a. And the third is I think whether have you suits outstanding.
>> I would assume that they answered those questions the same.
>> the language as posed to me that if we become unhappy with their performance of their contract with us or if they're guilty of significant osha violations, we reserve the right to go to a second vendor, which was tds. Now, I guess a good legal question is that if tds did not bid on this one, can we go to tds as an alternative vendor as we did the last contract?
>> my understanding is that contract with tds is still in place and we have a couple of ongs s to renew for a couple of months. But the department did not want us to go that route. So if y'all would like to postpone this item a week and let me do some more research on it, I can do that. It will cost us more whichever route we do, but of course that mightbe why --
>> but if we have tds as fall back vendor like last time, that will only cost more if we go to the fall back vendor?
>> I think. So.
>> how long is it in place?
>> the bids are good for 90 days.
>> do you want another week? I don't need one.
>> I'm not going to change my vote, judge. I'm going to go no.
>> would you like another week to get your questions answered?
>> I would just I just received the language to the contract.
>> out of respect for the Commissioners, because I'm definitely going to vote no. Because the location and things happening over there. But again, I can wait another request for your week -- wait another week to take action.
>> we'll try to get those questions answered and have this back on the court's agenda next week.
>> thank you.
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:
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:33 PM