Neighborhoods Present Plan for Lookout Transfer Station.  

On Monday, November 23, two neighborhood association presidents and a representative from a third presented their case against tentative plans for the rebuilding of the Lookout Transfer Station. The three neighborhoods presented a Power Point presentation with their objections and some partial solutions to the current plans.

The Lookout Transfer Station is a 30-year-old facility owned and operated by the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) to transfer solid waste from local vehicles to trucks for the NTMWD’s landfill north of McKinney.

The NTMWD wants to upgrade the Lookout facility that is located on East Lookout Dr just west of Plano Road. The old facility gets complaints from neighboring residents because of claims that trash blows into yards of homes, the neighboring stream, and the local park. The smell and noise of the current station also is of concern to residents. The Transfer Station out dates the homes and park in the area.

The presentation started first with Rick Wilder, a member of the Duck Creek Homeowners Association. He presented a montage of places in close proximity of the current station and then presented a rather unflattering picture of the station.

“As you can see, this area represents the best of Richardson… Thriving businesses, both new and existing… Premier greenspaces and recreational areas… Culture and history… Established neighborhoods. It is an area of substantial investment –one that invites development AND redevelopment from the City, businesses and residents.”

The torch was passed to John Wallberg, President of Owens Park Neighborhood Association. He outlined four points:

1.Understand the negative impact of Lookout’s capacity expansion to Richardson’s reputation
2.Initiate steps to correct the inequitable trash-exchange relationship between Richardson and Plano.
3.Seriously consider our proposal to move Lookout east versus north of the current transfer station.
4.Understand the key concerns we have and possible solutions to protect Richardson.

Wallberg stated that the new transfer station location and design would make it the closest “large transfer station” to a residential area and the 10th largest in the state of Texas. It is currently the 14th largest.

He then asked the city take steps to consider the proposed alternative location and ensure capacity does not increase.

Wallberg then addressed what he sees as inequities that lead to the “inequitable trash-exchange relationship between Richardson and Plano.” He stated that Plano sends 33 times more commercial waste to the Lookout station than Richardson sends to the Parkway station in Plano.

Wallberg stated, “This is not a healthy relationship; this is an abusive relationship.” He then asked the City to, “Introduce regulation that would balance such distribution inequalities,” and “thoroughly understand the District’s plan to improve the entire system.”

Wallberg then passed the mic to George Human of Sherrill Park North & Foxboro Neighborhood Associations.

Human first proposed moving the transfer station not the north as now proposed but to the east of the current transfer station.

Human stated, “Considerable site and engineering analysis was performed to make sure the EAST site would work –our conclusion is that it merits serious review.” He did not say what that analysis was. (See current, proposed north, and alternate proposed east in the map. Lookout Drive is at the bottom of the picture. All pictures courtesy of the presenters mentioned.)

He then stated the fourth point with four key concerns: Add tall sound and screening walls higher than the tops of the large doors, add an effective odor-eliminating system, reroute trash truck traffic away from Plano Road by using Lookout Drive -west of Plano Road, as well as Routh Creek Parkway, and dedicate a safe bike path that connects Lookout Park to Foxboro Park and the Spring Creek Nature Preserve.

Mayor Slagel then stepped in with some comments. He stated that the City has meeting in two weeks in which they will receive the NTMWD’s data and that City manager Bill Keffler is “carrying on a series of meetings as well.”

“Our hope is that we can come to some resolution that makes sense for everyone,” Slagel said.

“We need to change the transfer station and rebuild the old one, but we only need to do that when we are ready,” Slagel said.

The presentation was then marred somewhat by whether or not the presentation was finished. Council rules put in place in 2007 state that individual presenters can speak for five minutes and only once per issue. There were still concluding slides left on the presentation but Slagel stated the group exhausted it’s time. Discussion ensued as to whether the group was finished and councilman Mitchell stated he would like to see the remaining presentation.

Mr. Wilder then finished the presentation.

Unfortunately the issue of procedure and rules overshadowed what was otherwise an excellent presentation as after the council meeting adjourned the discussion centered on whether it was appropriate to continue, whether the three men had exhausted their five minutes apiece, whether Mayor Slagel had “not wanted to hear them,” or whether Mr Mitchell had acted properly.

The presentation took place in the visitor’s section of the regular council meeting and as such Open Meetings rules of the state of Texas do not allow “deliberation.” The council and staff are limited to current policy and statements of fact.

Missing from the presentation and discussion was any discussion of the limitations or powers of the City of Richardson with respect to its membership and contract with the NTMWD. It is not the City of Richardson that executes or runs transfer stations in the District’s areas. It is not clear what power the City has to change the capacity or other details of the plans.
 

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 09, 2009
File Under: General News, Northeast, Sherrill Park, Duck Creek, City Hall
Comments
By David Chenoweth @ Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Very informative presentation on what happened Monday night. The council as a whole looks to be very reluctant to have an open and indepth discussion about this issue from what I have seen. Very obviously, the neighborhood is not content with the way things are progressing on this issue and have fought in some cases for an AG opinion to keep some information from public view. That is a hugh concern. Whether it is true or not, the failure to release the information requested in open records request, make it "seem" that information is being hidden. Add to that, the council appears to be stubbornly in favor of the transfer station mods by a lack of visually and actively taking up, in the open, residents concerns. It make for the appearance of the council taking side with the NTMWD and standing against the resident's concern.

But once again Andrew, very good article! Thanks.

By George Human @ Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:57 PM
Thank you, Andrew, for your excellent article.

After the Council meeting Mayor Slagel said he was really upset with us for making him look bad in front of all those people. I told him he made himself look bad, not us. But, I do understand his tough job of trying to inforce the 5 minute speaking rule.
(As an aside, the Water District has the same rule, but didn't cut speakers off after five minutes at their Board meeting the day after ours with the City Council.)

The Mayor has told me twice he prefered our recommended alternate site, but the staff has told him it wouldn't work. When I met with thethe staff again at the request of the Mayor, the staff told me they didn't I was telling the truth about the Mayor prefering our recommended site.

We were pleased that at the Council meeting, the Mayor pointed out to the audience that they may wish to look at the detailed alternate site plan I had prepared and had on display that night. We were also pleased that he said the Council wouldn't rush into a decision on the project.

The alternate site is also being supported by our good neighbors to the south, Owens Park, even though it would have it farther from them if it were rebuilt closer to our neighborhood. We are very thankful for their support. All the City's neighborhoods need to work together at times, especially when we meet continued resistance from staff.

I've been a civil engineer for 50 years and I have worked with many difficult sites and found workable solutions. That's what engineers do.

In your article, you said you didn't know what engineering analysis had been done on the alternate site. I've checked the topography, the flood plain, the grades the trucks would have and worked out an operational plan layout that works exacty as the District developed plan. Hopefully, now the City staff will seriously look at our recommentd layout.

Finally, our intent was never to embarrass the mayor by running over the Council's 5 minutes per person rule, as we had planned for a 4th person to present the last 5 minutes of the presentation. But that person had to go out of town on business too late for us to get someone else to take his place. So the introducer, Rick Wilder agreed to step in to do the concluding comments. We thought we had compressed it enough to do it all in 15 minutes after we lost our 4th intended speaker. And since a few weeks ago, the Council had let the Height's neighborhood speak longer than 5 minutes each, so we thought we would be okay if we ran over a minute or two, especially since we were trying to help the City find a solution to the major neighborhood issues of the site chosen and the abusive commercial trash imbalance between Plano and Richardson.

By Andrew Laska @ Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:37 PM
To Mr. Human and Mr. Chenoweth,
Thank you for your compliments.
To Mr. Human,
I'd like to make two comments.
First, you stated, "In your article, you said you didn't know what engineering analysis had been done on the alternate site." What I actually said was, "He did not say what that analysis was." That is, as a fact, the engineering analysis was not a part of your presentation. I did not know you were a licensed engineer. If you said it during the presentation I missed it and had I known that through other sources I would have mentioned it. Thank you for including that fact as it helps the reader's understanding.
Second, you stated, "...a few weeks ago, the Council had let the Height's neighborhood speak longer than 5 minutes each..." Actually the Heights presentation was 14:30 if my timing is correct. While some did speak more than others, the total was under 15 minutes. Given that I was a presenter, I will say that we went over the rules thoroughly with the Mayor with some back and forth discussion about how to fit our presentation into an acceptable format. We understood this had not been done before and the Mayor worked with us to try not to go out of bounds on the rules. We altered our presentation to fit the rules and in fact I would say the rules improved its effectiveness. That might not be true for every presentation of course. I think the up front communication and setting expectations was the key.

By David Chenoweth @ Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:50 PM
For the transfer staition presentation, was there conversation about the presentation with the Mayor before the presentation was made? If there was conversation with the Mayor before the presentation, how did that conversation go?

By Maitri Smithhsiler @ Friday, November 27, 2009 2:28 PM
I'd like to address Andrew's statement, "it is unclear what power the city has to change capacity or other details of the plans." While the city cannot directly impact any changes, whether or not the hosting muncipality supports the terms of permit weighs in heavily on TCEQ's (the state regulatory body) decision-making process for the permit request. This is why it so important that the council stands as an advocate for it's citizens and community and why we have been pressuring them to do so. THe NTMWD is quasi- public entity which in other words, allows them a great deal of lattitude to do anything they want without any accountability. They were originally created in the spirit of cooperative regionalism, but in the way they are actually structured, it is very easy for communities and municipalities to suffer at the hands of their cost cutting, most expedient "solutions" in the name of regionalism. In Richardson we have seen that with the "take and pay" water issue, recently McKinney is now feeling the pain of having their beloved Heard Nature Sanctuary come under attack through an eminent domain lawsuit by the NTMWD, and there are other instances as well. It may very well be time to review the NTMWD structure and start to talk to our state legislators on how we, the people, can take back some of our authority and control over this seemingly maurading entity. For starters, it would be nice if our councilman would stand up! Note too, that when we presented to NTMWD Board last week, NONE of our city reps were present. Where are they in this process?
Finally on the presentation, as I said to you in person Andrew, we were inspired by your presentation with fellow HOA's a few weeks before. You guys gave a great presentation and set a precedent for all of us. We went home and put together what we felt was a thoughtful, respectful, but strong presentation on this development which affects all of Richardson--a project that we do not believe has had the proper due diligence performed. Furthermore, the citizens most directly impacted have been left out of the process. The Lookout trash station is not your typical development or redevolopment project, this is a polluting entity that is being proposed to be expanded right in the middle of an area of Richardson where substantial investment has been made and is continuing to be made. For this reason alone it cries out for the utmost scrutiny.
The city was aware of our presentation. We talked to the city secretary the week before and delivered a copy of it on Monday by noon. We did not speak directly to the mayor until just before the presentation took place. Didn't realize that was the protocol! That said, if you go back and time our actual presentation sans the extraneus comments by the mayor, we were just under 15 minutes including Rick Wilder's conclusion. Granted George Human's comments at the end of his presentation might have led the mayor to thinking we were through. (George got a little nervous I think as is easy to do when you have someone(s) glaring at you and tapping their watch, and so he ad libbed a bit at the end) but thank God Steve Mitchell jumped in and saved face for the mayor. We also appreciated being able to finish our presentation since the chamber was full of people who came specifically to hear it (and we still had not used up our alloted time.)
It is important that the council stand behind the citizens on this. It greatly increases everyone's chances of receiving a "win-win" solution, including the council's re-election.

By gay riley @ Monday, November 30, 2009 3:30 PM
BTW, Maitri and others. What information is being witheld from the public records. I think you should share it with the blog.

By David Chenoweth @ Monday, November 30, 2009 4:00 PM
Gay Riley: I don't know what is being withheld. On Nov. 11 I filed for an open records request with both the city and the NTMWD for the following:

All document and correspondence, including but not limited to reports, post mail, and email, between Richardson ... and the NTMWD concerning the Lookout transfer stations redesign, upgrades and current and futures plans."

I receive a certified letter that there were 400 pages responsive to my request from the NTMWD and they wanted to know if I wanted it all or narrow it down. I told them no, I wanted it all. About 2 hours later I got a call from some attorneys down in Austin that they were representing the NTMWD and they said they advised them to "not release a single page" to me. They were taking it to the AG. So you can take a guess as to what information might or might not be there.

They are being tight-lipped about it. The secrecy is more of a problem than any thing. There is a revolt by these three neighborhoods about not being included in the whole process. I don't live over there, but I see the problems they are having as problems with the council. The council does not seem to really care about what they have to say. Why would that be?

But I do not know what information they are not releasing and just the fact they are going to such extremes indicates a much bigger problem. Chuck Eisemann proclaimed on his website "Finally some transparency." Oh really Chuck? What do you call what is going on here?

By Patrick Maher @ Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:44 AM
The comment "There is a revolt by these three neighborhoods about not being included in the whole process. " ... not true.

The Lookout Transfer Station issue impacts the entire city of Richardson. For example, the property northeast of Renner/Plano intersection will be developed. That development will be impacted by increased trash truck traffic at that intersection. Businesses that might locate there (or might not, due to the trash issue) impact the entire City revenue, not just a few neighborhoods.

And the term "revolt" ... Three citizens, presenting a well thought out, polite outline of issues and solutions to the City Council. That's what I saw on the video. They wanted the City to have citizen facts AND opinions in front of them when the most recent figures and plans from "The District" finally are available.

That's not a revolt. That's foresight, research, and a spirit of cooperation between citizens and their elected officials.

By David Chenoweth @ Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:12 AM
Patrick Maher, is was not just three citizens from the neighborhood. The room was packed with residents who live in those three neighborhoods. I talked to several of them there. The three presenters very very kind in their treatment of the city council. But the packed room was not there to pat the council members on the back for a good job. They were there to impress upon the council their frustrations and their feeling of the city being dismissive of their concerns. The council by all appearances, sees to be doing the bidding of the NTMWD, not the bidding of the people who voted them into office. Why the council appears to back the NTMWD over the residents is a curious unanswered question for me.

Click here to post a comment
Copyright © 2010 by the Richardson Echo

  |  Login