Copy of Complaint sent to TCEQ office in Austin, Texas

Dear Sir/Madame,
                I am writing to relay my dissatisfaction with the
results of investigations from complaints filed with your Laredo TCEQ
office. My name is Darrell Mills and I am the former Superintendent of
the City of Laredo MSW Landfill. I filed three complaints in October
of 2013 with the Laredo office of the TCEQ, only two of which were
investigated.
     The first complaint was about a ware house within the Laredo city
limits, surrounded by a residential area, which the city leased to
store comingled recycling in from July 2013 through the end of October
2013, while the MRF was upgraded. I complained to the TCEQ that the
sheet metal ware house was stuffed from the floor to the ceiling with
recycled material. My observations of the ware house revealed no
ventilation, no discernible fire system, blue bags and other refuse
littering the immediate area outside the ware house, and a putrid
smell emanating from the area creating an environment conducive to
creating health vectors. In short, a public health hazard as the
temperatures outside the ware house exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit. I
can only imagine the temperatures inside the ware house without
adequate ventilation.
    The results of this investigation, as reported by the Laredo TCEQ
investigator, stated that there were no actions to be taken because
the TCEQ had no jurisdiction over government storage facilities  or
they were exempt from the rules. However, I maintain.that this is not
the case because the ware house was leased from a private company and
was not within the boundaries of a permitted area or within the
confines of a registered processing or recycling facility. I believe
this issue needs to be revisited or at least reviewed by another
investigating body.
    The second complaint was in reference to water from the facility
truck wash being emptied into the leachate containment area. I
photographed the containment area which had the black water stagnantly
growing dark green algae on its surface. Also, I commented that the
leachate pumps had not pumped water from the liner in at least a
month's time. Further, I complained that the mud from the wash rack
reservoir is taken to dry where the street sweepings dry and are then
taken to be disposed of in the landfill along with the absorb all from
the mechanics shop. My whole complaint, aside from the lack of
leachate pumping, was the high amount of THP's, through the wash rack
water, being introduced to the landfill working phase and most
recently to the leachate containment area, which is not supposed to be
disposed of in any water plant. This wash rack is used to clean refuge
trucks and landfill heavy equipment. The washing of these pieces of
equipment includes the removal of hydraulic oils, transmission fluids,
engine oil, fuel leaks (diesel),and other unknown chemicals from the
solid waste.
    In response to my complaint the investigator's findings only
addressed the leachate pumps being inactive and that the landfill was
using the leachate water to mix alternate daily cover as is approved
in the facility's permit. My original complaint of THP laden water
went uninvestigated to my knowledge as indicated by my copy of the
investigator's findings.
   Lastly, I would like to address the third complaint which went
uninvestigated. In regard to my complaint about the storage of
recycled material, in the above noted ware house, the city transported
the putrid waste from the above noted ware house to the landfill and
disposed of it in an inactive phase without recording the grid
location in any electronic or manual log; in stead, opting to
fraudulently record that the material was disposed of at the active
working phase from the last week of September 2013 through October
2014.
     I hope these issues are revisited, because I do not believe they
were investigated in the spirit of good environmental stewardship, but
in the spirit of appeasing the local municipal government.

     sincerely,
    Darrell P. Mills

The Laredo CVB in Monterrey, Mexico

            I would like to apologize for my absence of late. Events presented themselves which I needed to attend. In no way did my silence signal an end to my resolve to expose a pattern of corruption within the City and among elected official, nor did it mean I had exhausted my personal knowledge of corrupted practices. In order to exhaust my knowledge of corruption, the municipal government, as we know it, would have to be abolished and rebuilt. In the spirit of the Holidays, let us move on to our next subject of questionable legitimacy…

 

Yes Virginia, there is a Casa Laredo

 

            In 2012, during budget workshops for City of Laredo Departments, I became aware that the Laredo Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) were operating an office in Monterrey, Mexico. I became intensely interested in this because during the presentation I thought I heard the department director requested $780k to budget Casa Laredo’s operation. The figures I received for the operating costs for that fiscal year (FY 12-13), through an open records request, are listed as $155,750. However, the proposed amount to be budgeted for contractual obligations for this department for this same fiscal year is listed as $1,933,798.00.  I have petitioned for an open records request for an itemized list to detail where this money is going and to whom.

 

OK, so what? The CVB operates an office in Mexico!

            First, in response to this question, I would like to know has anyone ever visited this office, besides city officials. If anyone has please email me to the address below; a picture of you there or just of the office would be greatly appreciated. Second and this is in tandem with the first question, how do the majority of us know this place exists? I mean how do we know this is not just some table set up with pamphlets and a telephone, such as they have done in the Mall del Norte?  Last, does a municipal government have the right to operate a satellite office in a foreign country? According to Art.1 section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marquis and Reprisal. In other words, these archaic terms mean that no state, let alone some dinky department of a municipality, is allowed to have a privateer act on behalf of that party. I am not quite sure, but if a city department is operating in a foreign country and no city worker representing the City of Laredo in that office is present then it stands to reason that a foreign national is acting on behalf of the City of Laredo’s CVB. Surely there must be a technical foul somewhere in this charade.

           

Who is paying for the staff of that office?

            Assuming a municipality can operate a satellite office for one of its departments in a foreign country, how are they paying the staff and who was responsible for hiring them in the first place?  Is the city paying them directly through the City of Laredo payroll office? Have they contracted an employment agency to act as a middleman? If so, did the city follow its own purchasing policy and receive quotes from more than one source? I really do not know the answers to these questions. I have heard that there are ten employees who work for Casa Laredo, and it receives less than 10 visitors per week. At this point, there are some who might feel this is no big deal, however, I believe it is because how do we, as taxpayers, verify the existence, legitimacy, and effectiveness of such an entity? Transparency is key to accountability, but since so few people have heard of Casa Laredo, how can anyone be held accountable for this endeavor and how do the taxpayers gauge its effectiveness; assuming taxpayers disregard the premise it may be operating afoul of the law.  As demonstrated in my prior entries, there must be someone or multiple persons benefitting from this Casa Laredo arrangement, it is just the modus operandi of Laredo politics.

 

What is the Laredo Connection?

            The operating of this satellite office in Monterrey, Mexico seems almost a clandestine operation. According to the City of Laredo web site, the address of Casa Laredo is: Plaza Fiesta San Agustin in Monterrey, Mexico.  The real key to this whole endeavor is to ascertain where the Laredo Connection lies. If we search hard enough, I am sure there is a connection back to Laredo. I know since November 8, 2013, when the City entertained my open records request regarding Casa Laredo, the City website has added two pictures of city employees who are a part of Casa Laredo, where no pictures were shown prior to my request. To me, this makes the whole issue even more suspect than when just a number for Casa Laredo was listed on the web site. Until I can get more open records requests answered, this alleged Laredo connection will have to remain unknown, but I am positive one exists. The reason I believe this so strongly is tied to First Recycling and Councilman Narvaez. I remember how he was the one lobbying for a private company to profit from the recycling program which the city could have managed without a third party. It appears the connection lies within The International Business Advisors, LLC. Two members of this business, Saul Villarreal and Neal Garcia, have business interests here in Laredo; further, Villarreal is a member of First Recycling, LLC. So what is the connection? It would seem Villarreal’s fellow member of Business Advisors International LLC, Neal Garcia, is a nephew of Councilman Narvaez. Is this all a happy coincidence? I doubt it, but apparently, because of the structures of these businesses, they have avoided a conflict with the city’s ethics ordinances. I digress, back to the topic at hand. I imagine having an office in another country could be beneficial. After all, it could serve as a retreat for the elected city officials and department directors, it could be a nice place to hide funds within the budget, or it could be a good place to launder money. Yes, I went there! I am not saying that city officials or local business owners for that matter are doing anything of the sort. However, where no transparency exists, people can suppose all sorts of misdeeds are being perpetrated.

Does Casa Laredo exist?

            Still, after all we have examined, we know some people say Casa Laredo exists. Money is allotted for its operation, and more importantly, city officials assure us it does indeed exist. I very much want to believe, but still remain somewhat skeptical because of the trauma I experienced in childhood when reality chased away my mythical friends, but I want to believe! However, the problem is, much like Santa Claus, I was assured he existed. Adults told me he did, and he showed up for appearances and photo ops. The fact I was told he lived in a dangerous and faraway land which the majority of people were unwilling to travel to verify his existence did not shake my sincere belief in his existence. Given all these parallels between Santa and Casa Laredo, I must say, “Yes Virginia, there is a Casa Laredo.

 

Happy Holidays to everyone!

 

 

As always, anyone wanting to contact me may do so at: darrell.mills@yahoo.com

 

Is city management negligent if they fail to disclose to the public the presence of  city employees who are registered sex offenders assigned to work at city sponsored events?

A Fox in the Hen House

In this entry, I will not be addressing the intimate, almost romantic relationship between special interests and city officials. Instead, I will be demonstrating solid waste management’s violation of the public trust by withholding pertinent information about a registered sex offender, in their employ, from school administrators and the parents of children who attended a recycling day event in 2011. This event is held annually at the City of Laredo Landfill on Hwy 359.  The event is designed to be fun for children while teaching them the importance of recycling. The festivities are open to a limited number of schools who are invited to bring elementary and middle school children to the facility for a tour of the landfill /recycling areas, have lunch, meet representatives of environmental agencies, and participate in contests for chances to win prizes. In November 2011, solid waste management failed to notify the schools wishing to participate that a solid waste employee was convicted of indecency with a child by exposure and obligated by law to register as a sex offender. Further, management failed to disclose that this employee would be at the facility during the hours the school children would be participating in the recycle day festivities.

A  Lapse in Judgment or Damage Control?

            Prior to the event in 2011, several supervisors expressed their concern about this employee’s presence being inappropriate; given the target audience were children. However, department management responded that the employee would not be an active participant and would have no contact with any children. Further, management asserted the offender’s parole officer was consulted and fore saw no conflict with the terms of this person’s parole and his presence at this event; so long as he remained away from the children. This employee was then assigned to answer phones in the customer service office while the children ate their lunches in the employee lounge. The children and he were separated only by a single door.I can verify the offender stayed away from the children as a group; however, I cannot verify that no individual child might have experienced coincidental contact with this person. I do not believe appropriate steps were implemented to avoid unintended, coincidental, or accidental contact between children and the person in question.

            I have never understood why solid waste management would create such a huge liability for themselves and this employee. Further, I cannot understand how a parole officer would reason such a situation is not a conflict of parole terms and basically an acceptable idea. Perhaps solid waste management lied to us and never spoke to a parole officer in order to maintain silence on the issue; thus, avoiding bad press. In reality, there were many better ways to have dealt with this situation. The best solution would require that this employee use a vacation day and avoid all controversy by not physically being present. It is odd to my way of thinking that the employee, himself, would not possess the foresight and good sense to remove his presence from this situation through his own cognizance.

Do Parents Have A Right To Know?

            The purpose of this entry is not to punish the offender beyond what the law has deemed his just deserts. All people, regardless of their backgrounds, have the right to earn a living and I do not begrudge him that right. However, my point is solid waste management was negligent by not divulging this information to the schools, and equally negligent in creating this conflict in the first place by not removing the employee in question from the equation. In either case, solid waste management was remiss by not providing some form of a disclaimer warning school administrators of the possible, inadvertent contact a child may have with this employee. The willful concealment of this vital information denied parents the ability to withhold or grant permission for their child to attend this event because all the known facts regarding this event and the attending personnel were not disclosed.

            I contend parents had a right to know that such a person would be present at this event in 2011. If parents have a right to know, do sponsors who are supplying food, volunteers, services, and prizes have a right to know as well. I believe they do. If such information is withheld from a sponsor, does it make them appear to be negligent by association? I believe it does. The disclosure of this information likely never happened because such honesty, at least in solid waste management’s estimation, would have sabotaged their efforts to perpetuate their propaganda, obtain sponsorship, and effectively nullifies the recycling coordinator’s position as necessary.

Besides Solid Waste Management, Who Else Knew?

            I, as a parent, was greatly disturbed by the negligence solid waste demonstrated in handling such a delicate issue. Feeling disillusioned and disgusted, I attempted to notify the public of what I witnessed. I wrote an anonymous letter a day after the event detailing the information I relayed above; along with the employee’s name to verify it on the DPS website. I made copies and sent them, via the U.S. postal service, to the Mayor’s office, the City Manager’s office, the City Attorney’s office, LISD public information officer, Mary Help of Christian Catholic School, and the Archdiocese of Laredo. In January of 2012, an administrator from Mary Help of Christian called solid waste to verify that a registered sex offender had been at the facility on the same date and time as their students. I was still disappointed that Mary Help of Christian, at least to my knowledge, did not relay this information to the affected students’ parents. Since this event in 2011, Mary Help of Christian has not attended anymore solid waste events. Also disappointing is that, to my understanding, no one else ever enquired about the authenticity of my assertions. Of course, the local media would not help me, I asked and they refused, unless I agreed to an on camera interview. Since I did mail the letter anonymously, I cannot verify that all parties received a copy of the letter. I am sure this is quite a convenient fact to those parties.

Where do we stand now?

            Solid waste did approve a day off for this employee during the 2012 recycling event, and I hope they do the same for the event in 2013. However, they were still unwilling to divulge information about this employee to schools and parents of children attending other tours of the landfill/recycling facilities. Sadly, during this past summer, July 2013, several field trips for children were arranged to tour the landfill/recycling facility. While I do not recollect the names of any schools which attended this past summer, it is my understanding a head start program from Webb County did attend. Given this information, it is apparent the department remains negligent in disclosing this information.. How sad it is that solid waste management still chooses to create a liability where none should exist.

            In closing, I want to make it clear, as a former administrator, that I believe registered sex offenders deserve a certain degree of privacy in the workplace. However, I also believe that this privacy should not be extended to them when their workplace becomes directly involved in activities which specifically place their privacy at odds with the safety of the public and the very demographic their registration is designed to protect, our children.

 As usual, if anyone wishes to contact me, they can do so at darrell.mills@yahoo.com. I do not know if parents have any legal recourse since almost two years have passed. However, if any parents decide to seek legal counsel, I would be available to their attorneys to make statements and identify in detail the parties directly involved.

Which Came First, The Corrupt Politician or The Special Interest?

            In my first two entries, I have been focusing on the inappropriate relationship of special interests between the City of Laredo management and elected officials. I very much wish to continue along this trajectory; however, the focus will not be First Recycle and the revised city recycling program. I will be focusing on CDM and the methane feasibility studies. What I am writing, I am writing from firsthand experience and the conversations I have had with members of city management. My testimony is not from speculation or second hand information gained from third person parties. This is not my opinion! It is expert testimony and as such would prove invaluable to any court interested in indicting individuals involved in the abuses mentioned to determine if infractions of laws were committed. (SIGH)…I know where the “bodies” are hid, but it seems no one is interested in finding them.

            Let us now proceed to exhume this body. CDM is an engineering firm with an office based in San Antonio, Texas. Their area of expertise, at least the San Antonio branch, and their association with the City of Laredo has been with waste water and water utilities. In 2011, CDM, along with other firms, responded to a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) in reply to city management’s interest in a possible waste to energy program using the methane gas produced at the landfill. The purpose of the study was to assess the potential of the landfill’s digester gas, methane, as a viable long term, sustainable resource. RFQ’s which meet the specifications prescribed by the city are scored by department directors, and the firm with the highest score is generally awarded the contract. The scoring system is in place to ensure all companies capable of meeting the specifications have a level playing field and an equal opportunity to do business with the city. This system, when properly administered, is also advantageous to the city by guaranteeing the most competitive price for a service is obtained.  Unfortunately, this is the point where the system is most likely to be corrupted and the integrity of the system undermined. I will demonstrate this shortly.

            CDM was awarded the contract, in 2011, to conduct a methane feasibility study which was completed in 2012. According to the scoring system, CDM was the highest scoring vendor; despite not being the least expensive vendor. A few months ago, there was some media buzz about the city’s interest in conducting a second methane feasibility study.  This proposal sparked a lot of debate about the need for such a methane study and the costs associated with it. What most people did not realize was this will be the second study conducted. So why is a second study needed?  It is not needed. The cost of the first study was $138k. The real problem with this study is the cost associated with it. I have talked to two independent firms since who stated they could have performed this study for $30k. So why did it cost $108k more than it need to? The answer is because of special interests supported by our city management and our elected officials. This is yet another example of taxpayer subsidization of private industry. This second study is going to cost over $330k to conduct and millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money if it is implemented. The awarding of a second contract  for a second feasibility study with CDM allows me to demonstrate what I meant about the scoring process being corrupted and  not fulfilling its potential and designed use in  providing a level playing field for vendors and guaranteeing the most competitive price for the city. Violating this scoring process is a violation of state law. City management awarded CDM a second needless contract for the methane feasibility study despite the fact that another firm scored higher and should have been awarded the contract if, indeed, a second study was actually needed.

            I was privy to the results of the first study. The results indicate that attempting to use methane to power a generator in order to produce electricity and feed it back to the electrical grid would produce a whopping $0.04 per kilowatt hour over a ten year period. Do these results sound like our city management and elected leaders are being fiscally responsible? Of course it does not. I wonder if they read a prospectus for a stock that stated the same dismal return on their capitol over the same time period, if they would willingly and gladly fork over their hard earned money to buy shares. I doubt it.  The problem is someone is profiting while the taxpayers take a shellacking. This example is one of the “smaller” examples of taxpayers’ money being misappropriated. I will be exposing all the abuses I have a personal of knowledge of, but my exposure of political corruption must continue in gradations for two reasons. First, I want to establish a pattern of corruption and abuse of power within the city management. Second, I want to ensure the culpable parties do not become comfortable and their criminal actions do not cease to be noteworthy after a week. Until my next entry, think about how all this abuse is just from one department. Count all the city departments and estimate how much taxpayer money is potentially being wasted annually.

If anyone would like to contact me, they may do so at: dmills1679@gmail.com

Laredo City Mangement Lack Morality

This blog entry is meant to compliment my last contribution dated Oct 8, 2013.    

I used to believe that a lack of investigative journalism was responsible for the continued political corruption Laredoans witness. I now know this is not the truth. The cause of the corruption in Laredo is due to a lack of morality. People may not accept my assertion and counter that they are moral because they do not hurt children, murder, or rape; however, refraining from such actions does not necessarily affirm morality. What I mean is most people would not commit such heinous crimes in the first place. A person who actually lives by a code of ethics and possesses morality should be experiencing internal conflict when attempting to, or are being coerced to commit an action they know is wrong, because they are searching their consciences for ways of reconciling that action with their personal code of ethics. If a person is not experiencing this internal conflict, or lack the intestinal fortitude to speak out against the immoral; then they have no ethics. Now that I know the cause of this corruption, I can illustrate how a lack of morality, by our City management, perverts the current Recycling Program allowing it to become more of a benefit to special interests than to the taxpayers.

            In July of this year, 2013, the City of Laredo Solid Waste Department stopped delivering collected residential recyclables to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at the landfill because of upgrades to equipment. Instead, they began to deliver all recyclables to a warehouse in the 900 block of Logan Street off of Market Street. Further, all stored recyclables which had not been processed at the MRF were also transferred to this warehouse. This is no big deal to some readers; however, think about what the conditions inside a metal building without A/C, during the hottest months of the year in Laredo, would be like. Further, consider what those extreme conditions would do to any residual organic materials which were comingled in the recyclables. Correct! They began to decay and a putrid odor was detectable in the neighborhood and blue bags and other plastic items were strewn across the landscape. I know this for fact because I witnessed it firsthand. I witnessed rotting materials piled to the roof of this warehouse. The unacceptable conditions in this warehouse had persisted for almost two months and were becoming difficult to conceal from the local residents. The City management realized this too because Solid Waste began working overtime during the first week of October to remove this offal from the warehouse and store it outside at the landfill. After witnessing these abhorrent conditions, I personally went to Fox News and then called KGNS Pro 8 News, on October 4, 2013, to inform them of this offensive health hazard. Sadly, no reporters investigated until a week later when all the recyclables and the offending odor were removed and the area tidied. A coincidence? Perhaps. In any event, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) did respond to my complaint and is investigating the incident.     

              I would like to make clear that the length of time the recyclables were stored at the warehouse was due to poor planning on the part of City management and not directly linked to a lack of morality on their part; however, it is also important to realize that failure to formulate a contingency plan in case of unforeseen delays in the upgrades of the MRF stemmed from their stupidity, but I digress. The storing of trash/recyclables in such close proximity of a residential neighborhood does, however, stem from a lack of morality. In fact, which councilman allowed a neighborhood in his district and his constituents to be treated with such contempt and disrespect? More importantly why? The answer to the latter questions is because of City management’s commitment to subsidize First Recycle with taxpayer dollars. The warehouse in question is owned by AX Forwarding; a sister company of First Recycling. Since the City was nice enough to foot the $8 million dollars, courtesy of the taxpayers, to create a recycling program complete with updated equipment and curbside delivery which First Recycle will profit from, a person would think AX would just allow the city use of its facility free of charge. This is not the case. The City was paying AX Forwarding $5K a month for its use. If prodded, City officials may try to justify their actions by stating it is a violation of the City’s Code of Ethics to accept donations or gratuities from companies or persons they are doing business with, in this case AX Forwarding, and are justified in their payment for use of the facility. However, this is not a defense because the City did not seek at least two other quotes from other warehousing companies in order to benefit from the lowest bid. This is a direct violation of City of Laredo purchasing policy. While this infraction of their own policies may not be illegal, I maintain it is highly unethical and demonstrates a lack of concern by City leaders to consider the welfare of the taxpayers as priority. Instead, City leaders openly favor the private interests they currently support.

            While writing this piece, my thoughts kept returning to the people of the District III neighborhood who were shown such disrespect by City leadership who allowed this hazard to defile their communal residential space. If this had been a warehouse near Shiloh, Del Mar, or Regency would the councilman/men of those districts have allowed such a hazard to be created in the midst of their constituents in the name of special interests? I doubt it. What about the media? Would the local news outlets have taken my complaint seriously and reported the facts surrounding this health and fire hazard if it existed in an upscale sub-division? I bet dollars to doughnuts they would have. Would the City Health Department have issued citations to the owner(s) of the warehouse if it operated in a more northerly locale? Of course! Would the City fire marshal have issued citations to the owner(s) for creating a fire hazard? In a heartbeat. If anyone doubts my assertion, just think back to the Big Green Monster. The objection to the Monster was a matter of aesthetics and not incited due to health and fire hazards. So just imagine…

 SIGH… The above listed hypotheticals just reinforce, at least in my mind, that a lack of morality is the reason political corruption is so prevalent and wide spread; especially in Laredo. If we study the events as I have described them, we will see that if one councilman would have exercised a sense of morality and shielded his constituency from unethical practices (which is what he was elected to do) he might have forced the rest of City management to act with integrity by default. What could be more immoral than politicians using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private businesses? In concluding this rant, I proclaim that the only thing more immoral is the lack of respect and the contempt that residents of this District III neighborhood have been shown by City management, the local media, and sadly, their own elected councilman.

Taxpayer Subsidization of Private Business in Laredo, Texas

It is regrettable that self interest and greed can sabotage the best of programs and the best of intentions. It is little wonder that people have become so apathetic towards our political process, to even the Municipal level. Below is just one example of the consequences of political apathy:

The City of Laredo has invested a lot of money into its current recycling program. In the past, they had partnered with Southern Sanitation, and the partnership produced negligible results at best. When Southern Sanitation declined to renew their contract with the City, the recycling program fell entirely within the scope of City of Laredo operations. To the surprise of no one, the program blossomed and produced better results than it did while in partnership to a privately owned business. This is why it is so surprising that City Management would insist on allowing a private business to sabotage the recycling program once again.

             The amounts of recycled materials reported for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, by the City of Laredo to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) were about 1% of the total residential trash collected for those years. In other words, to realize a savings of one year’s worth of air space in the Landfill, it would take 100 years of recycling efforts at the current pace.

            Given these stats, I was enthused when the City announced it was implementing a mandatory recycling program citywide. My enthusiasm was short lived, as a partnership soon formed between the City and the company First Recycle. I found this partnership particularly disturbing because I saw no reason to privatize a program that City services could manage alone, with potential profits never realized during their partnership with Southern Sanitation. The fact of the matter is the City owns the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and the trucks that collect and deliver the recyclables. The City also pays for the fuel and maintenance of these trucks. Further, City employees collect the recyclable materials and City revenues pay the $1.25 per-ton fee the City must pay to the TCEQ for all rejected materials that must be landfilled.

            The commitment City Management has made to this endeavor and their partnership with First Recycle is one which is not to be taken lightly. The City has invested $8 million of a $12 million bond acquired for this purpose. The City has invested $2 million dollars in purchasing blue bins and an additional $6 million in modernizing the MRF with updated equipment. What has First Recycle invested in this program? Not one dollar! Of course this is such a sweetheart deal that First Recycle has recently extended their  current 3 year contract with the City to a five year contract .Why do City Management and our elected Council members insist on supplying all the necessities of running a successful enterprise yet insist on allowing a private business to profit? The answer—special interests.

            It is regrettable that a program with so much potential has been reduced to nothing more than a Trojan horse. The program appears excellent, but it actually hides a deep, exploitable flaw. In its current form, the recycling program is now nothing more than taxpayer subsidization of private business. Can council members really defend this decision?