And we're off.  Mr. King is reviewing that there have been a lot of changes in waste pickup over the past 20 years and we have a few new options available.  This is the first step in reviewing our solid waste services.  Mayor Ueckert has brought this before council because he's getting LOTS of letters about trash versus recycling and that we should incentivise recycling.  People are telling him they'd prefer twice a week recycling with once a week trash pickup.  (Interestingly enough we might also save money if we change to twice a week recycling and once a week trash).

Mr. Baccus states that this is primarily residential but might impact commercial (apartments are commercial).  Our current agreement ends 12-31-13.  Renewal contracts are 10 years long or until the end of the landfill.  We are allowed to modify our contract up until the end of this year.  Landfill has approximately 14 to 16 years left at current volume.  Mr. Baccus is now reviewing our current waste programs including household hazardous waste, landfill drop off, etc.  The city does lose recycling carts and has to replace them at $50 each.  We lost about 200 carts last year- many from people who move and take the cart with them. 

Apartments and commercial property are treated equally.  Waste Management bills the commercial entity directly.  Council sets the rates.  Tenants have access to recycling, landfill, and the household hazardous waste facility at no charge.  Mayor asks if we could require recycling at apartments.  We would have to change the waste ordinance and change our basic operating ordinance regarding waste.  There are a handfull of facilities that offer free recycling.  The city believes it would run between 50 and 60 cents per apartment per month to run a recycling program (150-160K total).  Trash rates would come down a bit to compensate.  The city is around 9-10% on recycling participation, some cities are as high as 20%, most in the metroplex are 12-15%.  UPDATE:  Per the city information officer I misunderstood the preceeding statistic.  It should read:  That the Percentage of our waste stream that is recycled is around 9-10%.  Recycling Participation in Lewisville is 50%, not counting Councilman Gorena's neighbors who use their recycling cart for garbage.

Basic residential services run from 12.84 for twice a week with trash carts and once a week recycling, to 11.34 for what we currently do all the way down to 7.30 for once a week garbage and no recycling.  Trash carts are the same as recycling carts that we currently have, residents would have to purchase any additional carts. 

There doesn't seem to be a yard waste program listed here which there should be.

There's also a review of the household hazardous waste facility which costs the city $127,000 per year and there is $0 charged to the community.  If the city were to charge the 19,145 homeowners for this it would be $0.56 per month.  There are another 19,000 apartment units which would further reduce this cost.  We could also go with a curbside collection program with a hazardous bag at each home that are then collected.  This would run $1 per month per customer.  The slide mentions that this would be a police nightmare what with pharmaceuticals, paint and other chemicals.

A yard waste program would run $1.70 per month to be collected weekly.  There would be no return of the mulch to the citizens and clippings would have to be either loose in a trashbag or in a paper container bag.  We could negotiate the mulch side according to Mr. Baccus.

Dumpster in a Bag program is next up.  Debris collection for home improvement projects.  It's basically a 3 cubic yard disposable bag that you could purchase at Home Depot.  You wouldn't need to rent a 20 yard dumpster for a small home project.  This would run $153 per 3 yard bag picked up.  The bag itself would be $30. 

Staff likes garbage staying at 2 collections per week and increases recycling to once a week.  The #2 option would be once a week garbage and once a week recycling.  We do increase our revenue from recycling (the city earns about $60,000 per year on recycling) with either program.  The experts believe that you will increase your recycling if you reduce garbage pickup per Mr. Baccus.  In the metroplex about 75% of trash is recyclable.  FYI a second recycling cart costs you $1.97 per month plus the cost of the cart.  Gorena notices that in his neighborhood they use the recycler for regular trash.  He wants to know about the numbers on that.  He also wants to see if we could start some type of apartment recycling program since it's 1/2 our household total.  Waste Management does report recycling containers not being used for recycling.  Gorena states that they're collected in his neighborhood and not left as Mr. Baccus states. 

The council is interested in exploring a different program.  We'll post the options later this week.  Tierney likes the twice a week trash, once a week recycling.  Durham states that this isn't the first time the city has discussed this and states that if you really want recycling crank up the trash pick up rate. 

Call your council if you want to give input since they're going to be reviewing the pickup options over the next couple of weeks.

Now we're reviewing the rest of the agenda.  Gorena has questions on item 2 and didn't realize it was a change order.  No comments on items 3-10.

Council meeting in 15 minutes.  Chesapeake is here to speak on the oil and gas suspension.

Proclamations:  July is "Recreation and Parks" month. 

Presentations:   Xtreme Response Camp recieves an Innovation in Programming Award.  New board and commission members are receiving their oaths and certificates  and outgoing board members are receiving plaques of appreciation.

Item E:  Moving funds in CDBG to align with Housing and Urban Development rules (This author's committee).  Moved Seconded Approved Unanimously (MSAU).

Item F:   Visitors Forum, no public comment.

Item G:  Consent Agenda  MSAU.

Item H 7:  Sign Variances for a new lit monument sign for the Medical Center.  This would be a 13 ft tall sign along the I-35 frontage.  MSAU.

Item H 8:  Temporary alcohol consumption for the Texas Firefighters Olympics in LL Woods, Lakeside, and Railroad parks.  No sales, but BYOB.  Thornhill asks if we had alcohol at the last olympics and the answer is yes.  MSAU.

Item H 9:  Brownfields program for 102 S. Mill.  This would allow city staff to research spending grant moneys to remediate 102 S. Mill as part of the EPA program.  MSAU.

Item H 10:  Temporary suspension of oil and gas permitting in Lewisville.  I've signed up to speak in favor of this since I believe our ordinances on emissions are currently weak.  This has been brought up by Tierney and Thornhill.  This would give the city 120 days to review the current ordinances and strengthen them or leave them.  First up to speak is Mercedes Bolin from Chesapeake as well as John Satterfield (director of regulatory and environmental affairs) with a presentation on oil and gas.

He begins with the responsibility to provide clean energy for the country.  He is now addressing the emissions headlines across the region regarding emissions.  He states that Benzene is already here and ubiquitous (but at increased volumes is it still ok?  Emissions of many other types of VOC's happen, not just Benzene.  -ed)  He states that there have been emissions issues and that the EPA, TCEQ and Chesapeake are all looking at the issues. 

He now reviews some monitoring and TCEQ reviews, stating the quantities and that at the majority of the sites emissions were below 'immediate concern'.  He's now mentioning that there is plenty of evaluation going on.  He now shows how Benzene levels are down and gas production is up.  He has now exceeded his 5 minutes.  Ms. Bolin now gives her 5 minutes to him.  Mr. Satterfield now reveiws background benzene levels of major cities and how we're on the low side.  He mentions that most emissions of benzene are from traffic. 

There are elevated levels around the metroplex but they're minute according to Mr. Satterfield and that there is no cause for immediate concern.  (why do people have to add 'immediate' to these statements? -ed).  There as been a permanent air monitoring station slated for Flower Mound.  He now states that since Chesapeake is a tax payer they have equal voice in this discussion.  He now shows a slide of the value of wells.  $159 Million for 12 wells in total economic impact.  (Sure seems like they could pay more to property owners if that's the case.  -ed)

Next up Debra Medina from the Williams Corporation.  She is now talking about William's safety record and that they utilize the latest technology to go above and beyond the necessary rules from the TCEQ for monitoring.  Williams hopes to begin drilling this year.  They emailed a letter to the council earlier today (which wasn't read during workshop).  Williams believes the suspension is supurfuluous. 

Lucas Smith is also here from Williams as their environmental specialists.  He states that their greenhouse gas reduction program helps provide safer air for employees.  They also work with Flower Mound to ensure they're drilling responsibly.  They check urban wells for emissions more than rural since they have more risk in urban centers.  These initiatives are so Williams can work safely with cities.

Tierney asks what Williams is doing that's above and beyond.  They mention they want to do these increased capture technologies so they can make more money and make things safer.  Tierney asks if those things should be done for other drillers?  Lucas states that this would make it better and safer.

Gorena mentions scare tactics from Flower Mound and wants to know the reason for the scare tactics and concern in Flower Mound.  Was there any evidence for problems in Flower Mound?  Lucas states that his specific sites are just fine. 

Ueckert wants to know if your ordinances require IR cameras.  Staff doesn't believe so.

Mr Cobb is now speaking in opposition.  He has leased to Williams and has worked in oil and gas and believes they will be safe and go above and beyond. 

I spoke first.... blah blah. 

Mr. Ferguson in favor of the moratorium from Holly Lane.  The gas will be there months and years from now.  There's no reason to rush anything.  The city doesn't lose anything.  Mr Ferguson enjoys the quality of life provided here and wants to make sure we don't sell it out on short notice.  Mr. Ferguson states that a restaurant wouldn't go next to his home, but a gas well can be placed there.  If you want to put it in an industrial area that's great but not in the middle of the city.

Mr. Southwell in favor of the moratorium.  He wants state that he's glad the industry is here and that not all operators are as conscientious as the two companies here tonight.  This isn't about politics, it's about making sure this is done right.  Facts:  natural gas is not oil.  We don't have a natural gas problem like we have an oil problem.  95% of our gas comes from N. America 85% from the US.  Increasing gas supply doesn't change oil demand.  Prices now aren't very compelling either.  He states that if we do have a problem, it's going to most likely be slow contamination and property value erosion.  The benefits- not many.  He believes caution and planning ahead are the order of the day.  He believes we can do this right with a clean conscience.

Ms Cora Bell in favor.  She has a drill 600 ft from her house in Corinth.  She states that things changed and that there is now a moratorium in Corinth.  Do our ordinances have all of the proper restrictions?  These companies have the money to drill right and they should.  The Barnett has been here for a long time, it will still be here.  We need to make these gas companies accountable and it is the council's duty to make sure it's done right.

Mr. Tim Hillary in opposition. experts have stated that there haven't been any increases in benzene.  He's signed contracts and wants to know what 120 days is going to buy the city.  Why wait?

Mr. Steve Hill  in opposition, he compares this to the federal moratorium and we need to support local drilling.

<Return after running out of batteries on the new laptop>

To summarize about 40 minutes of discussion- all of our councilmen see no issues with reviewing the current ordinance.  It comes down to whether there was enough to warrant a moratorium.  Tierney, Thornhill and non-voting Ueckert were for, Gorena, Watts and Durham against the moratorium.  There will be some ideas pitched to the council over the next few weeks to strengthen the ordinance, it will be interesting to see what follow through comes of it.

Now that the gas companies see that Lewisville is interested in reviewing the rules, we'll see if there is an influx of permit requests under the current ordinance.

Thanks for reading!