Travis County Commissioners Court
October 30, 2007
Item 32
32. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. Draft agreement with bfi waste systems of north america, inc. And giles holdings, l.p.; b. Response from executive director at the Texas commission on environmental quality (tceq) to proposed amendment to tceq municipal solid waste (msw) permit no. 1447 bfi sunset farms landfill; and c. Other related issues. We will need to take up this item with legal counsel probably this afternoon. With an eye to addressing whatever issues we thought we may want to address on Friday. There would be four members of the court present on Friday. And -- and the vote this morning may well indicate whether that makes sense or not. But in terms of a and probably b as far as we can get today, let me finish, b as far as we can get today, I do think we ought to try to take action this morning.
>> I agree with you on that. Take action one way or another. These folks --
>> but we are posted for Friday and when we were asked to put that on, it was in order for us to address whatever we needed to do, if we needed to do anything. For the -- for the November 4th deadline. It may be that -- that after today we don't need the Friday meeting anyway. Even if we don't the majority of us need to call that meeting to order, right. We will have at most four on Friday, we have five here now, we should make as much progress as we can on a and b so residents will know, also. That really is an indication to legal whatever advice that you want to give us, had planned to give us on Friday, we need to receive that by Friday.
>> on taking the action today I think it's the prudent thing to do, I think. We have been dealing with this issue for a long time. Time to bring it to closure. If there is a vote to -- to oppose b.f.i.'s sunset farms permit to expand, tceq
>> [indiscernible] to take place Friday.
>> if the vote was taken today again it would not have to be done Friday. It would give us enough time to prepare all of the documents --
>> in other words you still would have to have documentation to address the county's position on opposition.
>> right.
>> would that still --
>> earlier the vote would -- the earlier the vote the easier for our people upstairs to be available to fill out the documentation.
>> the proper documentation accordingly, either way.
>> correct.
>> I just wanted to make sure that that's clear. That the public and viewing audience understand whatever action we take here today, there is a -- there is a process that we must follow that's dictated by a time line of November the 4th that we must respond to tceq. So if they are opposed or in support, then those documentations will be prepared accordingly.
>> right.
>> is that correct?
>> yes.
>> I wanted to make sure that the public understand that before we proceed. Thank you.
>> we have been discussing some changes to the -- to the agreement regarding those protections. You want to cover those with us.
>> I can now.
>> draft language?
>> there is. And would it be helpful if I went ahead and printed out copies of those agreements and made it available for whoever you wanted to have a --
>> I say you may as well give it to everybody.
>> okay. I will have my secretary print copies of it for everybody.
>> that's five, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, I would say 50.
>> okay.
>> would cover -- include everybody including the court.
>> okay.
>> I will get her started on that.
>> one or two pages, right? One page.
>> if you are talking about the entire agreement I assumed everyone would like to see the entire agreement. I had mind the changes between last week and now. I'm sewaging that the general agreement did not -- I'm assuming that some of the -- that the general agreement did not change. I'm assuming that -- this is like any other conflict that I'm ever faced with in the public sector and we bring both parties together to try to -- to reach an agreement. I want to make reality sure that everybody understands, I have heard you, I have seen your signs I understand what you are saying. And in an effort to try to be helpful, I think that I have worked on -- on some of the changes some of the changes to see if those will meet, what I think would be helpful for the northeast community and -- and so -- so, judge, I think we just need to go through them and see and -- and certainly this is my way of trying to be helpful, trying to hear what you have said, let's see.
>> I guess in some same note, though, it appears to me that we are talking about an agreement here but there is opposition to the agreement.
>> I understand that.
>> hold on Commissioner, I wanted to make a point to legal. I wasn't addressing this to you. My concern is here we have an agreement as if everything has been approved. By this court. It hasn't happened yet. It appears to me there always need to be some documents available to show what the opposition would be recommending. Opposition to 1447 a under draft permit for this particular expansion of b.f.i.'s sunset -- 298. My opinion at this time the minority report or the minority vote because every time I voted against this I have been on the minority end of it as far as the votes are concerned. Appears to me there ought to be legal, I'm addressing you guys, there ought to be similar documentation that -- that should look at the views of the opposition as we go forward. I am not crossing your path, Commissioner Gomez, I'm not doing that, it's just the fact that I think that same type of opportunity should be afforded to the -- to the residents and I have some questions I guess, judge, as we proceed that I need to ask the -- the options as far as their permit to expand this particular -- as they seek a permit to expand their particular current operations. It's just some things that I need to I think flesh out and make apparent. But I do -- I will do that when my time is allotted to do just that. But I definitely would like to like I say these folks I think need to know where we are, where we're going on this today. I hope that -- that if we do go into executive session and look at this item, that we will have someone out here to bring a report back to. So that's my concern that's why I would really like to go take care of business. At any point that's my view.
>> john, can you summarize the changes. Certainly, there are two cosmetic changes basically. One where we just incorporated the recitals that were listed out, those whereas clauses, I had forgotten to do that, I got good advice from the county attorney himself that I needed to do that. He actually read the document. The second one is that the letter of credit I got excellent advice from the law firm of armbrister brown, I want to thank them again for looking over this document a couple of different times and giving great suggestions. They suggested that the l.l.c. Broaden the ability to use it rather than a specific way that I had drafted it. I thought the changes made a great deal of sense, flexibility on how to use that letter of credit. The major change that my secretary will be bringing copies of in just a moment. It's all one page, there's a new section 2 c which lays out -- the pace that -- that the contractor would be allowed to -- to bring in waste at the site. It starts off at the amount they brought in last year, increases at a rate of 7%, up to a final amount of -- of -- that stops, caps out in 2012. In addition, there's a requirement to use the efforts to keep the height as low as possible, they have to engineer it as best they can to keep the height low. There are a couple of exceptions that would allow them to continue to take waste above that capped amount each year. Those would be in case of a natural disaster, if -- if another governmental entity needed them to collect waste for them, in Travis County, or if -- if there was a temporary closure of another landfill in Travis County, it would need to step in and help out. And there is a history of that.
>> those will be events that happen specifically in Travis County. Not anywhere else. Just Travis County.
>> right. Each one of those is identified specifically in Travis County. That's the only changes that have been inserted from the previous week's agreement.
>> okay. Your secretary is bringing down the wording for the third one.
>> yes, sir, she will bring down the whole page so you can see what's on that page.
>> one and two I think I know what the exact language is, but can you read the precise language.
>> certainly.
>> b.f.i. Further chits that throughout the life of its amended permit it issued that it will limit its annual waste acceptance rate increases to comply with the position capcog has expressed in the fifth bullet point in its letter of April 23rd, 2006, which is attached as an exhibit 2 to the contract. Specifically, b.f.i. Commits that each year it will only increase its annual waste acceptance rate by a maximum rate of 7%. So that it's annual waste acceptance rate tonnages will be capped as follows. In 2007 one million tons. 2008, one 70,000-tons. 2009, 1,145,000 tons. 210, 1,225,000-tons. 2011, 1,310,000 tons. 2012, 1,376,000-tons. However, this annual waste acceptance rate limitation shall not apply in any given year in the event of an unanticipated natural disaster in Travis County. A one-time short term
>> [indiscernible] contract with the local government entity in Travis County or the temporary closure of other landfill facilities in Travis County.
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference] b.f.i. Will exercise optimal efforts to keep the height as low as possible, consistent with its permit application and the draft permit issued by tceq in this matter.
>> the language on one and two? Just the new wording? That was number 3, right?
>> correct.
>> okay, one and two?
>> in the now therefore section it says now therefore the parties and the new language is incorporate the above recitals and covenant and agree as follows. That's the extent of that page. The last change was in section 6 c. There was a sentence that described the llc as provided to set aside funds for Travis County to spend on attorney's fees and enforcement costs in the event owners breach this agreement has been replaced with a sentence that reads: the county may use the llc to enforce the requirements of this agreement in the event of breach.
>> okay.
>> the other really important question is that the accounting -- the county attorney's office believes that they can enforce this agreement.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> would this be a good time for the court to provide input. When they get that document distribute that to residents, so if any of them want to make comments it will be after --
>> I don't have any problem with that, judge. I guess I need to have t.n.r. Staff around also. Questions they need to answer. John white and those folks, also with the applicant.
>> [multiple voices]
>> john if you are next door, come to court.
>> questions. It's imperative I think we as elected officials must protect the health, safety and welfare of all residents of Travis County. I've tried to do that since I've been here regardless of where those health and public safety issues have come up. I have voted to do that all across Travis County. We've heard a lot of gut wrenching testimony from the residents here. Encroachment on school activities at bluebonnet elementary school, encroaching on their homes and the quality of life they cannot be realized as realized in other places for the county. What are we talking about here? Is -- we are talking about an area 5,000 by 2,000-foot area. 5,000 feet by 2,000 feet, that's the base of this area we're talking about. We are also talking about according to staff we are talking about almost an eight story building. This building, where we are sitting right now, this is the first floor, add three more stories to this building, that's what we are talking about as far as the height. That's not the point of this particular christmas and the type of encroachment. We are talking about a pyramid form of an expansion, vertical expansion, of course, but a pyramid type of expansion. If you look at a pyramid you know that you have got a wide base, then it arcs to something like this. This area, if you can imagine putting all of this in a shoe, we are talking about 251.5 acres. That's what we are talking about. Now, we have heard from an elementary school, residents, I have received calls from folks that have complained about this atrocity, encroachment on their well-being, their lifestyle. When children in this county are not able to participate in outdoor activity at a school because of this -- this type of encroachment, it just appears to me that the neighborly thing for them to have done a long time ago was to look for a new site, a green fill site. But that didn't happen. I'm concerned about this continued encroachment, allowing them to continue to exist. Going up with vertical to about an eight story building. The young lady that came here last week, I can't recall her name, she live on the west side of town. She mentioned she live around westlake. She said let's bring the landfill over to the west side. Let's fill up some valleys over here. We have got a lot of valleys because we are in the hill country. Let's fill the waste up with -- with this type of -- of collection of garbage. When this idea is brought up, placed me in an uproar. I don't want it to go there. I would fight that, also, but what I'm willing to do as I stated earlier, is to support the relocation effort of this facility which we've been trying to do, I know that I have, since 2001. To find another site to locate. The encroachment on the quality of life of people. We're talking about people. That's what we are talking about. The grant -- to grant an expansion to such a degree is a slap in the face of a human being with something this close. Now the applicant, I would like to ask a question, to the applicant and that is this that -- that would they be willing to -- for the court -- if the court end up opposing this particular -- this particular permit expansion, would the applicant be willing to work with the 13 county, with -- well, I don't know how many cats it is in capcog, 10 or 11, 10, 10 county capcog regions to look for another site immediately? And I think that I have been crying that out for a long time. But nothing has -- has availed itself as far as getting an answer. The answer to that question has not yet been answered. Even if you are looking at a 215 date to shut this operation down. We are talking about eight more years of activity here. 8 more years of intrusiveness and encroachment, an unwanted type of stench and odors and things like that that folks that have thrown their hand up, have nowhere else to turn but us. That is a question still --
>> can you answer that for us? Give us your full name, your relationship to -- to we appreciate your answers to that and any other answers to questions that we have today.
>> thank you, judge, brad dougas allied waste and b.f.i., south central district. Commissioner Davis in particular response to your question, we are looking, we are actively looking, we continue to pursue a green field site. In an around the Travis County area to meet the needs of the capcog's growing disposal issues.
>> how long have you been doing that? The same question on relocation -- I've been working on that since 2001.
>> I moved here in 2004, they were actively pursuing it at that time. I know that I have been intimately involved in doing a site assessment of search sites. We have come close on a few to be the denied the access to purchase them and their reasonable method.
>> I guess -- I guess my concern is that we -- we are now -- you are -- you are running out of capacity, we will -- the capacity will conclude around 2011, we will have no more space to deal with intake from -- from -- from the day to day operations. Knowing that this day was coming, I mean we knew that date was upon you, and you heard the cries of this community, you have heard the cry from many folks, yet looked like the cry has fallen on deaf ears. It almost appears that you have waited, and waited and waited and now you are asking the county to support you in an expansion effort and -- and it's hard for me to digest the effort because remember I asked you about those things as you have processed and gone through this, what about the relocation effort, what about your green field effort, what's the deal on that and it really had gotten to the point where we weren't getting any answers. I hear you this morning. However it almost appears that -- that time has eroded the opportunity to move and relocate in a -- because the way I understand it, it takes three to five years, three to five years for a new green field site to be up and operational. Now that has been -- we've been wrestling with this for over six just about. Something is wrong with that with this process, especially when you -- I think that you've had ample enough time. According to what sources are saying. That three to five years is ample enough time to locate a brand new landfill.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> as well as pursue a green field sightrelocation in dual courses, we had to continue down that path. This has been before this particular permit amendment, before the Commissioners for at least three or four years now in consideration, and hopes that it had been passed through years ago, and we continued to look for a green field sight. There permit amendment is not our end all. We want to continue to the provide disposal opportunities for Travis County. We want to be here for a long time and find a new site. As all the explosive growth has gone on in the county area, property has become more and more illusive for a landfill, in consideration, especially, of the pending county ordinances of setbacks and the new 330 rules, it's taken a bigger piece of land to do the same amount of landfill air space. And that is just difficult to put our hands around at this point.
>> I understand. You just basically specifics are targeting Travis County. This is what I have a problem with. In other words, we serve a ten county region and probably points beyond. I don't know where all this intake is coming from. It can be coming from other than just the cap cog region. I don't really know that. However, the situation that I'm referring to, I'm referring to not only, referring to outside of Travis County, I think I've stated that point a few times, in the capcog region. Now, is there a contract bfi has with polk county as far as the relationship with the county allowing you to collect certain fees are allowing you to operate your landfill operation there?
>> which county was that?
>> I think it's bend. Bend county. That is true?
>> my attorney en informs me we are. That's outside my district. I don't know specifically what that is.
>> in other words, if your attorney can explain it to you, what is that relationship that you have currently with that county? How does it work?
>> for the record, judge and Commissioners, my name is paul goslin.
>> how you doing, paul?
>> I'm doing good, Commissioner Davis. Thank you. It's good to see you again.
>> good seeing you, paul.
>> in forbet county, bfi, allied waste, reached an agreement with that county to provide a fee to the county based upon the amount of tons disposed of at the landfill, which goes directly to the county for their use as they see fit.
>> okay. Has that particular relationship been voiced or echoeded to the capcog ten. County region? Anyone suggested to any county? I know it hasn't come to travis, but other counties in the regionrb since we have taken waste from all of them. Has that been presented to them, any one of the counties?
>> judge, Commissioners, not in my teen you're.
>> not --tenure.
>> not in your region? There has been an opportunity for counties to receive financing for allowinging this to happen. I'm not against landfills per se but I am opposing the location when it encroaches on safety and health and well being of people. That is my difference in all of the this. So, I just think that there are other opportunities that can be explored other than the opportunity that you are trying to reveal itself as far as relationship with Travis County. There are other counties that may with open arms, say, come on with your green field site, we'd like to have you, because there is money that can be made in this particular venture.
>> judge and Commissioners, those agreements do exist on facilities up there and they certainly will be contemplated as we pursue green field site. There are economic factors that play into relocating at distant locations, which make it uncompetitive effectively. I would remind you that initially when we were pursuing the mer mitt amendment, it was a major expansion looking for a date of like 2025 as we began our negotiations it became clear that we needed to compromise that. We have come to a date that we will close date certain November 1, 2015, with this agreement. In fact, if we find that green field site and get it permited in that 3-5 year window, we will abandon any existing air space that is at the sunset farms landfill and go to that new green field site so that is a part of the this.
>> well, that green field site has been kind of illusive, just like the butterfly. Can't grab hold to it as it flies away from you. I know that has been talked about and I know there is a process and a procedure that you can go through but I just think in my opinion, due diligence may have fallen short. I say may was I haven't been in the room as far as trying to pursue this. Again, I would encourage to you really consider, and you mentioned economic, economic, amount of economics. When you put money, you making money and you put that over the amount, you equate that and trump that over the well being and health and safety of people, I have a problem with that. I have a problem when you are dealing with little children that can't speak for themselves or defend themselves. And yet they can't, do you have any children that live in that area, sir? No, Commissioner, I do not.
>> you have no children that live in that area?
>> I personally live in new brand field Texas and my children are all out of school.
>> okay. Do any of you at the table representing bfi, do you have any children that live in that area? Do you have families that live there that area? Can you answer that question, please, for me?
>> I do not have any family that lives there.
>> okay, so none of you have family, that I'm aware of this morning , coming before this court, that have children that are overwhelmed with health, hazardous sources, odors, stench all these folks have testified, I guess it doesn't make any dicious.
>> Commissioner Davis, I would beg to differ with you. It makes a huge amount of difference.
>> why can't you demonstrate it?
>> we want to, I think we have demonstrated in our improved operations at the facility, and we want to be a good neighbor. We have contacted blue bonn et elementary school. We haven't gotten any calls or complaints from the school or the daycare center, which both have our contact numbers, and we meet with them periodically just to ensure that we are meeting whatever needs they might have in the form of school tours of the facilities or any other impacts.
>> have you heard the testimony of these folks that have come down here before the court?
>> I have heard the testimony, yes, sirdo you think they are lying?
>> i--
>> do you think they are lying sm.
>> I did not say that, no.
>> all right. Have I heard that testimony and I have taken it to heart, just as I am taking everything that you say to heart. We are putting all the evidence on the table. It appears right now the evidence that has been presented to me, in my opinion, does not support a permit expansion of an eight-story building, 5,000 by 2 000 foot base, which appears to be 251.5 acres, intrusive in the back yards of people. That in my opinion is no defense for you to proceed. I feel that, very strongly about this issue. I have dealt with you for a long time. In my opinion. What I'm hearing from you really doesn't warrant support of your expansion. I thank you for your comments, but I just think there are some other windows of opportunity and those windows have not been raised at all, in my opinion, from hearing what you are saying to look for another site. And to also take advantage of some opportunities that someone in another county might want to offer you. So thank you very much for your comments. There may be other questions thank you for answering mine and hanging in there. Thank you very much.
>> junk, judge, Commissioner Davis, I can assure you there is nobody in this room that wants a green field site more than I do. There have been a couple of related to height of the landfill. We have done some graphic drawers that I think would be a good time to show you that show the impacts to 75 feet and the impact to the landfill. We have a foam core and handouts that we can give you guys to look at.
>> why don't we receive this since we have it at the table. Commissioner, you have questions for john white next too, right?
>> yes.
>> okay. Paul, while he setting that up, let's say engineers were to get together and find way to achieve the same capacity in a different configuration, to reduce the height and magemaybe expand more horizontallilve would changes of that nature need to be approved by tceq or can they simply be made if you don't exceed the per milted height?
>> at this point in time any change that we would make would constitute a lage amendment to the landfill application. The tceq would need to approve them and the tceq would require renotification and recommencement of the entire process with meadings, been da hearings, starting all over again.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> judge and Commissioners, bear with me.
>> you can pop that mike right there.
>> very good. We tried to depict through color contour changes that will happen through the proposed amendment before tceq right now.
>> tell us the roads.
>> this is blue goose here, east and west.
>> the school--
>> the school sits up here. The daycare center sits over here. Waste management facility is add adjacent here on the property line. Just to reiterate, we have eliminated in the drawing the 11 acres from the original permit. We have abandoned the 14-acre expansion horizontal in our original desires. What we are showing here is the areas impacted, exist--Commissioner Davis was accurate on the landfill footprint on the 354 acre property site. The shaded area is the impacted area which rents about 60 percent of the 251 acres. The area shaded in the light tan up to the first dark color is less than 50 feet. Goes from zero to less than 50 feet. The area that is in the dark tan all the way to the black line is the area that is actually 50 feet and above on the property, which rents about 50 acres or 20 percent of the land fill footprint. In fact, the area that ultimately reaches 795 is this black line. It really is going to be about a 10-foot wide space that goes the distance of that line or less than an acre that will ultimately be above the grade of 75 feet higher. Everything else will be 75 feet or less going down on the slope.
>> help me understand, if I were to look at this today, where would the top be?
>> the top is sitting today at about 720 elevation so we are in fact going to go up 75 feet on this line up to 50 pete above that where this dark shaded area is, and zero to 50 feet up to that area. I don't know if that sloping makes sense to you or not. It's not an exact pyramid. If you notice as well, we have several landscape architects lookinging at this early on and suggested we go to the two-tier concept to give everybody a more pleasing finished product. We also moved this to the south as far as we could so that the ridge was not further north we have actually moved it south and moved it down here so it's not coming towards the neighborhood and the school.
>> okay. Questions?
>> tell me again, brad, how much total acreage would be at the 795 maximum height?
>> about an acre at 795 itself.
>> from there it.
>> it tiers off. It's a larger footprint as you go.
>> that's correct. It is sloping at five percent until it gets to the slide slope which is a four to one I can show you a quick section of that. We have a drawing. This explains why we captain go versically, of the landfill. This drawing really is kind of tough to tell, amatically.
>> okay. On that depiction the gree amendment.
>> okay.
>> any questions on that?
>> so right now--
>> 720 is the permit height today.
>> okay.
>> we're going to 77.
>> so that 750 today is measured from where?
>> mean sea level. Not measured from the existing ground level, if that is the question. The average mean ground level, I believe, 640 or 645. Right?
>> (inaudible)
>> right.
>> 610 to 650 is the mean street level.
>> that's right right. The average level of the property was running around 640, though, not the lower.
>> okay. Questions?
>> my question to john white is if we, looking at what is being proposed, the seven percent of the acceptance rate, what, in your opinion, does that do to the 75-foot or the expansion? Does that affect how that looks, how that would look?
>> okay, I'm john white, environmental officer. With the, starting with the base acceptance rate based on the 2007 recently reported data, it was just over a million tons. With a seven percent increase per year, and then a cap, I believe, has been discussed of 1 376,000 tance, you with reach that cap in about 2010.
>> right.
>> and filling at that rate, you would basically reach capacity sometime in the year 2014. Middle of 2014.
>> at that--
>> that would take it right up to that 795.
>> to the 795.
>> that is correct.
>> in what year?
>> tell me again what year?
>> about the middle of 2014. That is based on averages between the rate or the tons and the volume that has been taken up with those tons. So that is a plus or minus.
>> okay. What I'm trying to address is to not have a mountain of trash, to address that. The seven percent address that in 2015 so it does not look like a mountain?
>> that is not going to affect the profile of the mound. Basically, it takes you all the way up to the permitted or the proposed permitted height of 79.
>> that is how it would look.
>> you would have to have appropriate scale in order to look at what the mound would look like.
>> can you come up with the appropriate scale for us? I would like to see it, you know what it looks like. If the we are going to spend time in executive session this afternoon, perhaps we have time to draw it up for us so we can see it.
>> I understand that it's a one-to-one-scale. It does got give you an impression of what it would look like for a distance.
>> perhaps a google map before we go into executive session.
>> I would like to see it. It's easier to understand if you see a picture of it.
>> I think a three-dimensional view of what the mound would look like, we have to get the bfi folks to produce that.
>> and then can you look at it to make sure that an environmental officer has seen from the perspectivetive make sure that we come together in the middle?
>> our concern in this case would be visual appearance?
>> an accurate pick you're of --picture of what seven percent intake would look like in 2014.
>> that would be no different, rate really does not affect what the ultimate mound would look like. The mound is defined based on what they have done in their drawings and their design for the mound itself. It's just a matter of how quickly you fill it up. So if they were to restrict their acceptance rate to just what they did this past year, they would fill up, well, they would fill that one up in 2014, with the increase actually in 2013.
>> may ski a question.
>> it would not affect the person of the mound. It would simply affect how quick will you you get to the final appearance.
>> to that point, in reviewing the calculations that you did for us, john, ank thank you for that, it appears there has been about a 9.2 increase between 2006 and 2007 in the tons accepted?
>> correct.
>> so I was lookinging at the percentage increase over the previous years, and for the once that aren't clear outliers, like the 2002-2003, knock that one out because of the snafu. But for the once that look normal, what I'm getting is on average about 4.63 percent increase annual y.
>> that seems appropriate.
>> and it's a compounded percentage. It's a significant increase over what has been the annual increase in the past?
>> there hasn't been any particular pattern of overall increase over recent years. It's fluctuated so much up and down that it's really hard to say what the average increase might have been.
>> that is a good point.
>> certainly mere than what you are seeing from 2002 through 2006.
>> that is a good point. What we are seeing is a range , from a reduction by two and a half percent between 2004 and 2005, that is the low. And the high is 9.2 percent increase between 2006 and 2007, is what I'm seeing.
>> yeah. There's also significant decrease from 2000 to 2001 of about 70,000, near nearly seven or eight percent.
>> right. I didn't calculate that one because it seems like an outlier. So I didn't include the swinging reductions of the that seemed unfair. I only include the the smallest reductions, two and a half percent. My concern, as I've stated before, is that the use is incompatible today. The application is asking for what at least appears to be an increased intake on average over what has been the increase previously. At least in real tons it certainly increased. And that goes specifically to the heart of the neighborhood complaint.
>> can I respond to that?
>> certainly.
>> these are maximum amounts of growth rates that are in those years and I would add that if you factor out, week took a last minute response in 2003, the city of Austin in 2003 and 2004, there's a swing backwards. Of a little uptick and backwards swing of 66 or 60,000 a tons a year they took an emergency response to contract there. What we have really seen from 2004 to today are growth rates when you factor that out, if excess of eight percent. And there's not been any singular contract that has driven that up. This is just normal intake. I can't point to any one big job that has happened since I've come in and been involved in this landfill. So I think if you took those and averaged them out, our annual increases have been in excess of eight percent growth there.
>> I respect that. I am not taking issue. It doesn't appear that you have exponentially growing with input. Laying that aside, still in reason tonnage terms it's still a significant increase to the neighborhood that has already plainly expressed the incompatibility at the current rate. So even though I'm mindful of what you are saying, that it's not, a seven percent increase annually is not wildly out of line what what has occurred in the past. Nevertheless, it is an increase over the current activity, and it is an increase, no matter how you slice it, whether an increase over your intake annually, it's a real increase in the number of tons, ie, the number of trucks going up and down the road, through the neighborhoods, laden with trash. And the processing of that trash on top of the working base, which is at the very heart of what makes it incompatibility m--in what has now become, not by y'all's doing, but what has become an increasingly dense residential area in Travis County with, without the buffers necessary to isolate the noxious aspects of any landfill from the surrounding neighbors.
>> would appreciate that, Commissioner eckhardt. I would point out that, again, these are maximum numbers. What we were trying to do was eliminate the concern. We heard the word fire sale come that we might doublor triple our volumes to get it all filled up. What we tried to do with this agreement, in putting specific tonnages in there, is to say, hey, we are never going to exceed that and you will never see an exponential ramp up in one year over the next. We thought we have addressed that with this lank in here.
>> --language in here.
>> I appreciate that. That was a concern of mine. I will frankly admit it. And while I don't see an exponential increase, I also know, and I think we would have to concede, I think every one around the table would have to concede that it is in the business interests of bfi to use every last square, every last cubic yard that is made available under the permit. It would not be in the interest of bfi to walk away from capacity.
>> to comment on that, we are interested in that, although we had to design to what we thought we would grow at. This has at been about time for us am we are looking for the green field site. Being there to 2015 is more important if we didn't find the green field site. If we finally the green field site, we get it permitted, we're gone. But the timing of is really what we have compromised down toment it's not that last year that we are so interested in.
>> of course, the statement that you would be gone is not moment more alized anywhere. You are not bound to be gone by--
>> I think we are in the agreement. We have made that commitment in the attachments and the agreement.
>> in the agreement you r but if there is no agreement, are you not.
>> that's correct.
>> you don't have any kind of--
>> thank you for clarifying that that is correct.
>> if you reach your tceq approved capacity, then basically you are gone. If you reach that earlier than November 1, 2015, you have to cease to operate the facility under the tceq permit.
>> that's correct.
>> am I correct that what tceq will do is, I guess, whatever they normally do in terms of quantity, and then put the, apply the special provision if they follow the executive droke --director, on top of that quantity. So tceq gives you basically two standards, a deadline, and also a quantity limit?
>> the tceq typically has a quantity limit, you're correct, judge. In this case, we have requested based upon the negotiations and assistance of the county for a time limit as well and asked that it be included as a special condition. It is proposed as a special condition as well. Predicated upon an agreement with the county. So, the tceq permit, if issued in the same way that the draft permit is issued, will have us bound both ways.
>> okay. And of the eight years that are listed in the document that john distributed beginning next year, we have built in seven percent increases for the first five years and zero increase for the next three.
>> that the --that's correct, we have attempted to address the fire sale concern.
>> okay.
>> any other questions for bfi? Then we'll go back to Commissioner Davis. For bfi?
>> no. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> john, looking at the agreement, if a future Commissioners court decides to not honor this agreement, and let's say that 2015 comes around capacity has been reached according to this agreement, and let's say that the members of this Commissioners court are available in 2015, any other court in futures years, can a future Commissioners court revisit this agreement and support maybe another expansion request? From bfi if the court at that time deemed it necessary?
>> the contract can be amended. The parties negotiate.
>> right. So in other words, there's wiggle room for amendments in the contract that can support just what I said.
>> right. As well as the restrictive covenant. The restrictive covenant, if the treatment was approved today it would be on file tomorrow which has the 2015 date in there. And the restrictive covenant would also have to be amend but.
>> --about--
>> --but it's in the realm of possibility that future court or theen court could modify.
>> right, the contract do be amended.
>> that needs to be, I think, really, highlighted because this is nothing etched in stone, folks. This agreement is not something that is etched in stone per se. I have had my ups and downs with promises, things that the neighbors have brought back to us and said they didn't do this and they didn't do that. My experience is that with these particular operations, they have not done some other things as far as going to capcog to look for another green field site. So I'm having some very difficulty, something of this nature, an agreement, that can be broken or amended as such to allow these folks to never move. That's basically what we are talking about. They don't never have to go anywhere depending on what the court deems at that time. And I would hate to put my eggs in the basket, all my eggs in the basket of a future court when it comes to protecting the health and public safety of the citizens of Travis County. I refuse to do that. Thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thaunge.
>> --thank you, mr. White. If you will stand by, please.
>> I need the ask a question. Sorry, I didn't get a chance to get to you. But the judge and everybody that asked questions to you were some of the questions I was going to ask.
>> residents who would like to address the court on this matter please come forward. Give us your name. We'd be happy to get your comments. We are quite mindful of testimony that you gave last week but some changes have been made to the document before us, so additional comments may be necessary. If you would give us your name we'd be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is joyce bette. I would like to ask your indulgence. I do have a statement here from terk english who was not able to be here today, and I have some additional comments on my own. And I will do my best to be brief.
>> okay.
>> ms. English does address a number of items in the agreement itself, and I will try to notate exactly where those are found in your agreement copy. Deer judge Biscoe and Commissioners, incidentally, all of you will have received this e-mail, I think this morning. P so if you want to go back and look at that, it should be there. Deer judge Biscoe and Commissioners. Dackly six years ago, on October 30, 2001, Travis County held a court meeting to discuss and vote on a proposed solid waste ordinance to protect the citizens of eastern Travis County. The citizens urged you to pass the ordinance. The attorneys for the northeast lands fills immediately threatened to take you to court if you passed such an ordinance. Paul goslin was already the attorney of record for the bfi allied way landfill and was vocal about case law. The attorneys had no option to passing the ordinance if you excluded their existing land filges. Or they said let's discuss the language of the ordinance and not rush into a decision shortly after the meeting waste management rushed to enter the 1990 permitted expansion aheads of schedule declaring they were 90 percent full. Of course, the county ignored the fact that they had sworn in their report filed with the agency that they will years left in their capacity that they had bid there 1999, declaring they had the 30-year capacity immediated to fulfill the contract with the crit. We have indicatored to their wishes, talked and talked and talked to no avail. All they wanted was an engs pangs and they worked hard to make sure all wade operators had restrictions on their permit. The results of all these talks have been a total waste of the lives of the residents. The residents have cooperated by writing letters and comments, attending meetings of meeting for six long years, thinking that the existers were working in good faith and really intended to protect us and prevent these landfills from expanding in their present location. However, after six long years the citizens are now faced with air filled with stench, vul tours in their back yards, dust from the skyscraper dirt mountains blanketing their property, and the cost of fighting two expansions while Travis County enters into a contract for expansion of the bfi landfill. The citizens have not received a single concession. As a matter of fact, the original expansion requested by bfi in June of 2002 was 65 feet, not 75 feet. Not only is bfi asking for more expansion than they originally proposed in 2002 without any of the amenities they originally offered, but please remember that the majority of the court already approved a 10-foot expansion of their landfill in 2003 so that in actual fact bfi will be expanding their landfill 85 feet after six years of talking and meeting with them. Please see the cd provided to you by the landfill companies of their powerpoint presentation of June 29, 2002. According to the landfill attorneys, a 65-foot expansion would have extended their capacity another 11 years. In 2010 they had seven years of remaining capacity to 2009 and another 11 years would have given them into 2020. Strangely, now they are getting 85 feet of expansion that they will fill in just six years. Is this what the county Commissioners swore under oath, quote, protecting the health and welfare of their citizens. Unquote. There are many problems and accuracies and some disturbing statements in the proposed agreement. I have listed a few of them below and I will try to quickly itemize what ms. English has summarized here. On page 1, the first whereas, whereas Travis County desires that cost effective environmentally safe sanitary solid waste disposal services are 158able to its sit zince, bfi has cost Travis County hundreds of thousands of dollars and has not proven to be environmentally safe or sanitary based on the numerous letters of complaint filed by the neighboring residents. Page 1, the last whereas, given that tceq and the courts could either allow the maximum possible expansion despite the best efforts of the county or deny an expansion despite the best efforts of bfi, both parties find it in their interest to compromise. Ms. English's statement, bfi's expansion is filed and no agency or court can change the amount of the expansion requested and certainly cannot grant, quote, maximum possible expansion, unquote. This is another miss conception created by the legal machine to intimidate the Commissioners. Page 1, the fourth whereas, Travis County beliefs the continued operation of a landfill solid waste transfer station or recycling facility would no longer be a compatible land use after November 12015, with the neighborhood in which the property is utilized. In a lengthy document to capcog Travis County went to great length to write that the continued operation of the bfi landfill is no longer compatible at its present location at this time. Not in November 2015. What kind of misrepresentation is that? As for the transfer station there were never any talks of their transforming their landfill into a transfer station. This idea was another scare tactic brought about by the landfill legal machine to intimidate the Commissioners. To operate a transfer station an applicant must file a separate permit. Ms. English notes now, page 2, the thirds whereas. Whereas Travis County has recommended and capcog has issued a determination that the proposed expansion will continually conform with the capcog regional solid waste management plan and the owners have agreed with the conditions identified in the letter of August 23, 2006, attached here after as exhibit 2, her comment is, capcog has issued a conditional determination based on the fact had a they are leaving in 2015, not that the proposed expansion will continually conform. Her reference to page 2, the first whereas, whereas the owners have agreed to limit the extent of the landfill expansion cease the receipt of waste and initiate formal closure of the landfill on a certain date in exchange for Travis County's agreement not to oppose the --application, her comment, the owners are not limiting the landfill expansion, they are limiting the time. Because the Travis County commissionrs insist on allowing this absurd huge 75-foot expansion and have not attemptd to limit the amount of expansion the citizens are left with massive abuse in a shorter amount of time. Is this legal? The results on human health and the environment are the same if not worse. The whole paragraph to rewrite history. It does not even state the date certain. Similarly, paragraph b of page 3 has the same loophole that it has always had. This is a big out for the bfi landfill and Travis County cannot enter into a good faith agreement with this language in it. She states, there is a lot of disturbing language in this document. Travis County should not enter into this agreement. At the very least the Commissioners should wait until the contested case hearing is well underway to hear what evidence is going to be presented to the administrative ef law judge but the citizens. Bfi has already filed their application. The executive director has already ruled on that application. All the other scenarios are a mirage at this point if not mere threats. If bfi is willing to refile, then they can refile for a smaller extrangs. Sincerely, trek english, east action group. My comments, a group of neighbors would like to ask thu question about the proposed bfi agreement. If the executive director the of the tceq has added to the special provisions of the bfi permit the requirement that they close the landfill to all garbage operations by November 1 2015, if the county's primary reason for wanting the contract is to secure the 2015 date and the judge is confident that the tceq will grant the expansion with the 2015 date in the special provision, why does the county want to pursue the agreement? It can't be to help the neighbors by enforcing any additional operating standards since they have not been attempting to enforce anything during the six years this contract has been on the table. More puzzling, why does bfi continue to pay high prices for consultants and advisers to sit at the court meetings and pursue this agreement and the acompanying restrictive covenant if the main continue the county seeks is already included in the special provision. Does bfi has some knowledge to the tceq would not try to enforce the date in the special provision and that would leave bfi free to negotiate breaking the contract with a future court? Or does bfi have knowledge that strong united opposition from governmental groups involved could be so deentertainmentel to their case that there would be great risk of not getting the permit, so they are doing this to prevent Travis County from opposing? A key point is that bfi was the initiator at the first draft of the agreement in 2002. Even after neighbors rejected that agreement and every other agreement presented, bfi has continued its legal maneuvering to propose and repropose variations of this agreement, what seems like several times a year since then, including just enough tweaking to warrant getting us downtown again to say why the neighbors don't want it. That must mean that bfi desperately wants such an agreement. At the same time, for some puzzling reason, the court continues to pursue the argument even though judge Biscoe has asked for input from the community several times and has received almost unanimous opposition from thousands of neighbors saying they want no agreement that includes an expansion. What am I missing? Last week a speaker at this court gave some confusing figures about the proposed height of the bfi air fill compared to another landfill in the area. Rather than comparing height above sea level comparison should be made of the portion of the waste column that peers above ground level. At the present time the permit height above ground of bfi is approximately 74 feet. That includes the 10-vertical expansion received in 2003. Their own powerpoint presentation indicates that after the expansion, quote, sunset farms will be approximately 155 feet tall from its base to its peak. That is more than a 100 percent height increase above ground level by contrast, the maximum permitted above ground height of the other facility mentioned is 85 feet, 70 feet lower than bfi's proposed 155 feet. These figures give you a completely different picture than the one painted last week. We have spoken before there court about the fact there is no shortage of landfill space in Travis County. The rw beck report prepared for capcog in 2005, based on 2003 data, figures that the remaining waste capacity in the capcog region based on the number of vary and assumptions that may or may not come to pass. Its figures are conservative when compared to the remaining capacity documented on annual reports of the landfills in Travis County. And I have to refer to an analogy that trek english uses about this. She compares the way the capcog capacity figures were col located to going to the bank to get a loan and having the loan officer determine your ability to repay, assuming that at some point in the future you would lose your job and that a family member would have a devastating expensive illness, that is being so overcautious that no one would ever get a loan. In some respects that's how these figures are looked at in terms of future capacity. Excess capacity encourages sheeper rates and the generation of more garbage per capita than the generally populace. I may have to hire an attorney to explain to me, but the language about the restricted covenant sounds like it can be disposed of by bfi pretty much at will. So I'm unclear as to exactly what the benefit is of that. I reiterate ms. English's comment, there is no need to sign this agreement now. You should wait until the contested case hearing and hear what the testimony is before you make a decision. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Best.
>> (applause)
>> I'd like to start, name is robin schneider for the record. I would like to start by giving you more communication from the constituents on this matter. Thank you. These are new letters.
>> thank you.
>> you are elected to represent county residents and to govern in a way that serves the public interest. This deal has been under consideration for many years. The neighbors have not been included in these negotiations in a real way. And I believe that when you are trying to help people, that the best course is really to include them as an equal partner in those negotiations. With only the county and bfi being parties and the landowner of the landfill, as Commissioner Davis said, a change in the composition of this court can bring changes in the agreement. You are saying that you might have a meeting on Friday with only four of your members present. However, as few as three of the Travis County Commissioners constitute a quorum. So theoretically, would two Travis County Commissioners constitute a majority to change this agreement? Regardless if it's two or three our four, this agreement is subject to change by future Commissioners court. The bfi lawyers told you that they would have to start over if they were to change the shape. I really don't see the point of this new paragraph that they will exercise optimal efforts to keep the height at low as possible consistent with the permit application, when the permit application has the landfill going up an additional 75 feet. What we are talking about is putting a seven-story building on top of an eight-story building out in northeast Travis County. In its current incarnation, this proposal would stop the county from opposing the seven-story building on top of the eight-story building that is already permitted. Eventually, a more than 37 percent increase in trash every day going into a problem landfill. If we were in a crisis situation there might be a reason to consider such a proposal, but we are not in any kind of a crisis when it comes to landfill capacity. This community is ready and will to fight bfi's proposed engs pangs--expansion. City council members have reiterated that they remains opposed to the expansion. Community folks and residents from all parts of the county are urging you to oppose had this deal. Why? Because it's not good for the resident nearby the rand fill, not good for the recycling efforts that need to be promoted and expanded in the county and the region. It's not good for Travis County to reward companies that have vee late the laws and--violate laws and still continue to have problems with noxious gasses and stormwater runoff and a variety of other problems. It's time to fight bfi and not to provide them with an agreement. The people of this county overwhelm ammingly oppose you signing this agreement. And we hope that you respect this wishes and that you represent them fairly and fully with a no vote.
>> thank you, ms. Schneider.
>> (applause)
>> thank you, judge, county commission, I'm jeanette klots. First of all, did I understand the expansion would be filled by 2014 with a seven-percent annual increase? Do I understand that?
>> if they put the maximum amount in, then they will reach capacity before November 1, 201.
>> okay. So the date and the seven-percent annual increase, as far as the act actually final height of the permit, is kind of a mute point.
>> it's 75 feet.
>> it's going to be that regardless. Okay. That was what I was afraid of. According to tceq's calculations I live approximately three miles from the landfill, and I am still getting the odors. It's a problem that has not been corrected. It's very frightening to think what the implications of an expansion like this would be as it pertains to the odor problem itself in addition to other problems. Everything else pretty much I was going to say has been covered by either robin or joy. I would just like to reiterate that we can't be absolutely certain that there will not be changes or agreements to any, or amendments to any agreement with bfi in the future. The only thing that we can be sure of is that they will have a permit for a 75-foot height in ex. From where I live, I can go into my next door neighbor's yard and look toward the landfill and have a very clear view of those landfills, both bfi and waste management. The visual impact currently is enormous. It is really very difficult to imagine the actual height increase being there if this expansion permit is approved. I believe that was it. The prospect of this kind of height increase, I can't see in any way, since I've lived m--in that area of Austin for 25 years I can't see any way that this kind of height increase could be anything but extremely detrimental to that whole part of Austin. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> may I ask you a question?
>> yes.
>> in your experience having been there for 25 years, at what point would you say, at what point would you say the use became incompatible for you? At what point would you say the odors, the traffic and other , when we ecamco could see the mounds start building very pidly. Up of the landfill.
>> thank you.
>> who else would like to give testimony during this public hearing, during this meeting? We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seats available. Please come forward. We are about to try to decide what to do by 12 noon. If you would like to give testimony on this item today, please come forward at this time. We have two more speakers. Is that it? Three mour--more today. These are our last speakers. Last call. We have three more speakers today. Mr. Or ms. Mcfee.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. My name is make macafee. I wanted to clarify for the public a little more about the process that these corporations have to go through to get a permit. We fight them at many different levels. The city level, we fought both the waste management and briveexpansions and scored a hundred percent victory, unanimous vote by the city to oppose. At the county level, of coffers, that fight--course, the fight is still going on in terms of bfi and waste management. You all voted in your great wisdom to oppose. Then there is the 10-county region, capcog. And at the capcog level, the waste management permit came up first. And capcog voted against that permit. When the bfi permit came up they were leaning heavily toward voting against the bfi permit when all this talk about the 2015, November 1, 2015, came up. They were basically swayed by the testimony of Travis County to vote in favor of it because they thought it was the guaranteed way of getting or a better way of getting them to for sure closure. That was they were led to believe.
>> I did support that, mark. I did not. I want to be sure you don't include me.
>> no, stopping short of saying which representative from Travis County supported it down there, today. They basically were swayed by the testimony of a Travis County representative. So, though we felt like it was about to go our way there, they changed at the last minute and can approve that. As has been stated here already several times. These corporations would not be down here with their high priced attorneys year after year, meeting after meeting, if it did not matter where you all vote, your vote on this issue. Obviously, it is of --utmost importance for them to move forward. Yet, the people who inquire are neighbor whoz wonder about whether to come down. Everyone who inquires is led to believe the fight is over. They are being told that the state has basically already approved this contract. Yet we haven't gotten to that fight yet. That fight hasn't begun. It is fought at a contested state hearing. We haven't had any input on the the state level basically on this yet. Unless you count the capcog region as being at the state level, which I don't. So, the residents and local governments are allowed the opportunity to request a contested case hearing. At that contested case hearing that is where we get to fight at the state level, who ultimately has the decision to approve or disapprove. So, it is really hard to get those residents to come out when they are being told repeatedly that the fight is already over, the state has basically already approved this permit, when they have not. And it is really misleading the public on that matter to represent it that way. So, if the county asks for a contested case hearing, it is almost a 100 percent guarantee that we will get a contested case hearing. If the county does not, then we may not get one. If the we do not get a contested case hearing, then, folk, it is over for us. So we really would like for you all to ask for a contested case hearing, and to oppose this landfill expansion. So, you say this is your way to get a certain closure, why is this a better way of getting a certain closure than just fighting alongside the citizens against this permit application? I don't see it that way. Especially since as the county attorney has just testified this morning, this deal can be modified by a later Commissioners court. On a technical matter, in terms of the daily intake, I just want to quickly point out that last year, 2015, is not the same cap. That is almost a 17 percent increase over the year before that in terms of the daily intake the. Remember, they are closing on November 1, 2015. They don't get the whole year. So if you take the daily rate in 2015 at this 1.376 million tons, 137,600 tons per month, you take the rate, as we know, this permit has been in the application process for quite some time now and I don't think it's fair to say that they are not doubling the rate based on the 2007 statistics. They have been working on this permit since before 2005. In 2005, if you take the 2005 daily intake, you will be at almost exactly double that daily rate intake when you get to 2015. So they really are doubling the intake on this. So I really urge the county Commissioners and judge to oppose this landfill expansion and fight alongside the citizens. We really need your assistance on this and the landfills need your assistance too. I think it's become quite clear just from all of these proceedings down here. Thank you very much.
>> judge, the city of Austin since they do really oppose this particular expansion, have they also greed to enter before the tceq administrative judge in a format of a contested case hearing?
>> their wording, if I remember right, they would join in had a contested case hearing if there is oneif there is one. Can they request one also?
>> in their language in the resolution did not say they request one.
>> they can.
>> in the resolution it was not.
>> but they can request a contested case hearing. Is that accurate?
>> yes, they can.
>> I don't know that they would have time to move on that at this late a time. I don't know they would have time to move on it. I think their basically assuming there will be a contested case hearing. Like I said a moment ago, if this body right here requests it there will be one. The city of Austin will be right there with the rest of us fighting against these permit applications.
>> okay.
>> john, what is the time frame for moving for contested case hearing at tceq?
>> I'm glad you asked that question.
>> no problem.
>> enforcement folks?
>> mr. Macafee, you and I fought the expansion application filed by waste management last time. The tceq categorically rejected us and granted the expansion. We fought the tds application for a landfill in southeast Travis County. Tceq categorically, they were another name then, rejected our claims and granted that anyway. When I started working on this item at the request of residents including you, it was basically landfill orders and some other stuff. Everybody told me, including ms. Shnighter, tceq has never turned down an expansion application. Together we started looking at a deadline, and we worked our way to 2015. I didn't pull that out of the air. And 2015 is important because waste management right next-door has enough capacity under the current permit to get to 2015 or 2016. And at one point my strategy became let's try to get rid of both of the landfills 2015, Travis County will help them try to locate green field sites. So we worked toward that since. Now, that is not saying everybody was in complete agreement. But I came back to this court, and you all came with me 25 or 30 times after meetings. Then the vote was four-wown. Vote is now three-two. Is the nature of the this democracy for things to be susceptible the change. We can't control future courts they do with the contract, restrictive covenants, et cetera. That is part of government and american life. What we can do is put in place the best protections that we can and that is what we are trying do here today. So it was part of a strategy, basically. And I can tell you, and I talked with members of the capcog for over a year, your reading of what they were willing to do is overly optimistic. I was surprise that had they supported 2015. I thought they would just reject et outright. These are the same cnsts that depend on these three landfills in Travis County to pick up their waste. They were not about to reject any of them immediately. And they bought into the Travis County trying to get rid of both of them, trying to getting both to relocate November 1, 2015. They bought into that strategy. And if they had not, I didn't see them voting just to go out and vote against bfi. They voted against waste management because, I argued, they got enough time, enough capacity, under the current permit to get to that 2015, 2016 days. Now, this is a complicated issue about which reasonable folks can disagree. I just disagree with you all that it's that black and white. And when I read the tceq letter and I said based on my reading of the letter, tceq seems to be inclined to grant an expansion application. So why don't we try to get as little additional time as possible. A whole lot of stranges that come into place here. I don't know that everybody has to agree with them but I still think that that 2015 date for both of them is the best strategy possible in us getting in there and trying to help them relocate is the best tradge possible because finding and an acquiring and permitting a green field site is not easy and it would be very difficult. And we have pretty much run out of space here in Travis County. No add adjacent can't will welcome a landfill. Their re residents will be the same as ours. When they learn that 70 percent of the waste there will come from Travis County, they will be even more opposed. Right now we say what we want about capacity, 70 percent of the waste that goes into the tree landfills in Travis County comes from Travis County. We ought to recycle. We have an award winning program. We ought to get residents do that. I don't see those being separate. We ought to stress di version as much as we can. But we will still need landfills. Not because I say so but because of the american way of life. Even the counties in other states that have model recycling programs also have landfills. They just have less waste going to the landfills than we do. We ought to try to get there. We bought into a whole lot of this. It's just that the 2015 date, the height of that out there, I don't like it. A compromise is a compromise. The other thing is, this court told bfi, you don't ask for more than November 1, 2015, we won't oppose your application I never told a single resident, don't go over there and object. I think that 12015 deadline is--the 2015 deadline is an important date and I think it's more than we would have gotten out of tceq had we opposed it. Time will tell whether I'm right or wrong. But I still think that is the best strategy and everything I've done since I've become an expert on landfills over the last five or six years, thanks to y'all, tells me that that is true. I mean, so, we are looking at the same facts but giving them different interpretations. We will know soon who is right and who is not.
>> may I respond, judge?
>> yes, sir, please do.
>> by that same logic, I don't understand why this body voted the waste management landfill. If sher just going to be predisposed to giving them the permit, then why--the 2015 date. That--
>> the 2015 date. That is the only way to get there tor for both of them.
>> the logic for the county fighting for no expansion is that they are going to get it anyway. I believe had a that is what you just said. If that is the case then waste management is going to get theirs too. You all are opposing waste management but not bfi. Something doesn't at up to that logic. I know about the 2015 date. Let me say that, of the two landfills side by side, we are rewarding the one that filled up fastest. Bfi filled up more quickly than waste management. That is the only reason waste management has more time remaining on the permit. We are going to take the one that stuffed it in as fast as possible and say you get more expansion.
>> they have a larger permitted area. When they purchased the wilder track they got 200 plus acres of land that is untouched. And they have sales remaining under the current permit.
>> they have a larger area? I'm not certain that's true, judge. Maybe they can answer that question.
>> I think they do have a larger area. I think there is a point in that waste management and bfi, bfi is being equalized from a market perspective by this agreement if it's signed. They are being equalized in a circumstance where they didn't plan for an exit strategy, whereas waste management, arguably, has in pursuing yet another landfill site in Williamson county.
>> right.
>> my final point.
>> I appreciate all the time spent, judge.
>> why is 2015 important? Because without the agreement on 2015, bfi had indicated they would ask for much, much more. When we started talking with them, they were thinking about many, many, many tons of capacity that would get them way--yes.
>> it's the reality if I put myself, if I'm the owner of bfi, if I want ten years, at some point you go over and ask for 15 or 20. I certainly wouldn't ask for 2015 if I thought I could get 2018, 2021, 2025. When we negotiated that and looked at the history of the state regulatory agency and their inclination to grant these applications, we were all in pretty much agreement early on. We have not been in agreement lately. At one time we just put this stuff on hold and stopped doing anything. Then the thing was okay, you are saying 2015, how do you enforce that. And so we got assistant county attorneys and said let's put something in place. When psalm b--sam Biscoe moves on, hope give I will never encounter another landfill battle, but there will be another county judge here. When I came to office I didn't try to turn on everything the previous Commissioners court had done. I fried to build on that--i tried to build on that. So clearly, anything can change. Anything we do can be changed.
>> one way to lessen that, and you have asked for that, is to put citizens on this agreement so that citizens have the people who are right out there in the neighborhood, have an ability to in effect, keep a future Commissioners court from changing this agreement. Or helping to stop it. I don't know. We never really explored that route so I don't know how far, you know, what that would do for us. There are some other ways that we could help to ensure what the intention of this court is gets done.
>> my intention is 2015 for both of them and we do what we can to help them find green field sites and make the determination as to whether green field sites are available in Travis County. And if not, speaker mentioned previously, have you to sweeten it for one of the adjacent counties to accept this. Even with that it's an uphill bat am because residents in other counties would view landfills same as we do. Not as positive. Everybody wants the trash to be picked up. It's got to be put down somewhere.
>> it doesn't have to be put down and so poorly operated.
>> I agree.
>> luckily in this county we have examples of landfills that are decent neighbors and don't have people coming down here and everywhere else protesting their operations. That the my point about rewarding a bad actor. Judge Biscoe, just to set the record straight, state courts have thrown out expansions of bfi landfill. And the other history is that bfi has violated agreements that they have signed with communities, to not go off certain heights. They violated those. To trust this landfill I think is a perilous journey. Mark's last point, why haven't you made the neighbors a party to an agreement. That would prevent the future Commissioners court from having the complete flexibility to alter the agreement. That's a fundamental flaw of the agreement. Bfi is in the business of finding landfill space. In most states they operate under strictor conditions. We only have 150 foot buffer in landfill law. That is with the new rule. Under the old rules if they had found a site before March of last year, all they needed was 50 feet of buffer. Both of them are inadequate. But they find sites in other states with much higher rules for buffers and other operating agreements. I think that when they put their feet to the fire--
>> 150 to 500 acres of buffer. If they don't understand anything about this area, it ought to be that. They ought to get a larger enough tract of land to have hundreds of anchors of buffer. But we can't impose that where the facility is now.
>> that's why they shouldn't expand any further because it's not adequate now.
>> the county approves 60, 70 contracts weekly, probably. Residents are not parties to any of them unless they are directly affected, meaning one rest dant because he owns whatever is being--
>> you think these residents aren't directly affected by this agreement? I beg to differ.
>> I mean owner of the land, et cetera. My point is, we don't routinely make residents parties to the agreement. Who would it be? Robin schneider or mark macafee?
>> I think that could be determined. We could figure that out for you if you wanted to, zudge. If you were serious about what wanting to keep this agreement in place to a 12015 deadline.
>> the answer to the question is because historically we never have. To be honest I'm surprised to learn that residents want to be party to the agreement. Residents have always wanted an opportunity to provide input.
>> we brought that up at the start.
>> okay. Ms. Macafee.
>> well, I think everything has been said so I'm not going to really say what I had planned to say. Just that after listening to all this, I think it's quite evident that this contract and agreement is over our dead body. So I find it very strange that here you say that you want to help the neighbors, and yet you are just going over our dead body to do what we have told you over and over and over, we don't want. We would prefer no help than what you have done, and you ignore that and March on. I just find that very puzzling. And as to all of these changes, I really find it an insult to my intelligence. You know, we know, bfi knows that these clauses that talk about, that they will try to keep their height as low as possible. Those are not written. It's insulting to even put them in there because it is such a sham. I am insulted by it.
>> what kind of language can you get at the 11th hour?
>> part two doesn't work very well in the contract.
>> I agree with that. That is not real precise. That is just the best we could come up with overnight. So we are sort of pushing to try to address some of the objections that are raised to make it more palatable. I wish I had never seen a landfill issue. It is five years too late for that, though. So here we are with a November 4 deadline where we let tceq know something or, I assume, they proceed with the executive director's comments anyway. I read--
>> we consider other requests for contested case hearing. The neighbors will request a contested case hearing as well.
>> okay.
>> it's not a slam dunk like it is if the county would do so. But if you want to wait at trek english proposed, to hear what the evidence is from the neighbors, you can wait. I mean, I hate to suggest that. We have been down here for year in and year out spinning our . But --our wheels. But it is true that if you want to wait, you can wait.
>> okay. Sorry to cut you off.
>> that's fine.
>> I was trying to say that water the down language was our best effort to get something better overnight.
>> (inaudible)
>> that doesn't surprise me at all.
>> I'm evelyn rimirt. I have an issue with the picture important --portrayed a while ago about what the lapped fill looks like now and what it will look like at completion after 75 more feet of frash is piled on there. When I go to my property line which is is right at blue goose, all I can see is up. 75 more feet on top of that, all I can see is up. 25 years from now after they may close in 2015, all I can see is up. What I'm trying to say is, this mountain of trash is never going away. It's always going to be there. You can plant trees on it, you can plant roses on it, whatever you want to go.
>> you can't plant things on, is my an understanding on it.
>> you might beautify it, but it's always there. The picture that was portrayed here is no way adequate. It looks worse than that now. I would invite you, before you do anything on this contract, could make a visual inspection yourself, to come out there and look at all of this, what is going on. If you haven't been there, you need to come out there first and then decide if you think that the school is too far away. Go stand in that schoolyard, in the park right by the schoolyard and look at the mountain that is there now, and then imagine what a seven-story building on top of that is going to look like. I don't care if it's a pointed hill, if it's a flattened off or what. If it's round or if it's standing straight up, whatever. It's still a mountain, and it's never going to look any better. To me, this is in the middle of what is going to be a very dense area. It already is with residents. But there is going to be different kind of disigss, different kinds of businesses to come out that way with 130, and this is going to be right in the middle of it. Why do we want it there? Thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thank you. You askeded for that distinction. I don't they if they can get that together.
>> I had kind of wanted a visual view of it. I amp really puzzled by the whole thing, because this county and the sit keep growing and we keep approving, both here and at the sit, more subdivisions in that area. We know that each household has about 2.4 people in it, and each one of those human beings generates seven pounds of garbage per day. We can't get away from that. On the average. And so, I think that we need additional landfill space in Travis County. I have always been in favor of trying to find another green field in Travis County, and I would prefer for us to keep our own garbage in our own backyard. I think that would help trigger all of us to go out and educate everybody that we know to quit throwing away so much trash. Let cut that back. Let's make sure that the packaging that we get our things in is reduced. But I think that if we send our garbage somewhere else, then we are not going to be as concerned about how much we generate and what we generate. So this is a real dilemma for me I totally agree, robin, I totally agree with you that citizens have to be part of the solution a lot of times. All public officials, whether we are appointed or elected, need to listen to pee. That--to people. That is what I have done for six years and I am still in a dilemma about the issue. I was trying to work with staff and with the county attorney's office to see if I can minimize the size of that, the height of that then I was also concerned that this be an enforceable agreement. I've been assured, yes. A lot of the citizens don't think so, but you would still say that it's enforceable.
>> yes, I think the comments that you heard was that it could be amended, but it is enforceable.
>> and it could be amended. And having been around the county since 1973, learning how the county operates, I don't believe I've really ever seen anybody try to change something that was done in the past. Actually, I think improvement has been worked on. As the judge said, times change as time goes about. Nothing remains static. And so, it's a huge dilemma, for me. I've really paid attention to everybody in the time that I have worked on this, and I really have tried to work on trying to find improvements to the agreement, to meet the needs and meet the issues that you have raised. I suppose if I can't help in this manner, then I guess we need to just let it, go out there and everybody try to get the best they can from the public, from the hearing. And so, I'm disappointed that I can't help with an agreement. Because I think that that would be more, a more certain thing to find a date that can be controlled. And so, I suppose, I would move that we oppose the permit.
>> second. Did you say oppose?
>> absolutely.
>> those are word I wanted to hear.
>> (applause)
>> please, please, there's no need to applaud a public official when she is doing her joblve please, please.
>> I agree with that. Totally.
>> I think that, I certainly have tried to do everything I can to help.
>> right.
>> and I know that a lot of assumptions have been made about me, mr. Macafee. I didn't approve, I don't approve of that. To make assumptions based on no facts is not the problem thing to do.
>> Commissioner, let me say this. I'm not going to applaud. I'm just going to say that if you didn't make that motion, I was definitely getting ready to.
>> I waited long enough to try to make a decision.
>> thank you. Let me say this also.
>> you seconded the motion?
>> yes, I already seconded, judge, thank you. Let me say this also. I'm kind of ee lated. I don't want to break down.
>> let's not take another six year, Commissioner.
>> no, no, no, no. But as far as green field sites are concerned, if someone can provide me with the evidence of new green field, meaning new locate, of course, for landfill, if someone can show me where tceq has denied a permit process to take place on a new green field site. Right now I don't think they have. Pardon me?
>> they have.
>> they have?
>> oh, yes.
>> okay. They have done that.
>> yes.
>> okay. I wanted to get that clear because I heard some stuff earlier that I wasn't sure of as far as testimony. That is why I posed the question to the attorney. This is --
>> I don't know the answer to that question, if you are posing to me.
>> I'm posing the question to you.
>> I don't know the answer to that.
>> can we find that out?
>> sure.
>> I understand even with tds, I understand that people opposed and yet--
>> I can do the research and find probably the answer to that question over lunch and report to you after lunch.
>> I appreciate that.
>> any discussion on the motion?
>> I wasn't through yet.
>> procedurally, discussion of the motion is in order.
>> that is part of the motion because this is all tide in to--tied into new low cade and also tied into the opposition to the expansion. But it's also addressing whether or not Travis County needs to enter into this particular public hearing that is going to take place before tceq as an entity that would suggest recommendation for contested case hearing. So all of this is interrelated, judge, as far as the motion that Commissioner Gomez brought up. Commissioner, does your motion include Travis County becoming a party in the contested case hearing?
>> my motion is only to oppose the permit.
>> oh, just to oppose. Okay. Would you accept--
>> anymore discussion of the motion?
>> would you consider a friendly to include in the motion moving tceq for contested case hearing?
>> I think we need legal advice on that this afternoon because I have legal questions. That is what it is posted for. I was told it's posted for Friday. Let's do it this afternoon and get it over.
>> okay. If that's all, are you denying--
>> Commissioner eckhardt has been recognized. Any other questions?. There is a motion to oppose--
>> motion to oppose the permit. Does that implicitly--
>> it would be based on the posting, to vote no on a which is the equivalent of opposing the application.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> that doesn't address b? I thought it was the whole nine yards.
>> that is on a. There are three our four issues that we really need though discuss and get legal advice on. As to there is an agreement, I understands the motion--as to whether or not there is an agreement, I understands the motion is no, and that covers a.
>> to oppose the permit and oppose the draft agreement.
>> right. Okay.
>> that's the intention. Anymore discussion of that motion?
>> this is just on 32 a.
>> a.
>> all in favor. Motion? Show Commissioners Davis, eckhardt, Gomez. Those oppose? Mr. Daugherty. Show the county judge present but not voting or abstaining. More that we recess until 1:30. All in favor?
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, October 31, 2007, 18:30 AM