COMMISSIONERS MINUTES                                          AUGUST 29, 2005

 

The Elmore County Commissioner’s met in special session on the above date in the Commissioner’s Room, basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho, 83647.

 

Present at the meeting were Chairman Larry Rose and Commissioners Mary Egusquiza and Connie Cruser.  Also present at the meeting was Clerk Gail Best.

 

Commissioner Cruser reported that she had investigated the liability insurance for dairies and other agricultural pursuits to see what extent the coverage was.  She had checked with Farm Bureau.  Commissioner Cruser learned that the maximum paid out is $75,000.00 - like for a spill causing contamination.  Also, if DEQ or the EPA or similar agency is involved then no money is paid out for the incident.

 

The Board began to work on the draft copy of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) ordinance.  Commissioner Egusquiza, referencing section A on page 2, asked why is it Chapter 3?  She wondered if that now should be Chapter 4?  It was decided perhaps they needed to ask Bonnie Sharp.

 

Commissioner Egusquiza stated that on page 5 she had written down that Dead Animal should be defined.  Clerk Best stated she thought the Board had decided that was self explanatory.  DEAD ANIMAL: Carcasses, parts of carcasses, or tissues from dead animals, including domesticated livestock, sheep, goats, poultry, pets and commercial fish - shall be added.

 

Clerk Best stated that on page 7, USGS: United States Geological Survey should have a space added before the placement of that definition.

 

Commissioner Egusquiza stated that the numbering is still wrong on page 8 - 8 should be 7, 9 should be 8, 10 should be 9, and 11 should be 10.

 

The Board discussed #10 on page 10 and asked that the first line read “the Idaho State Department of Agriculture may”.

 

Commissioner Egusquiza, for #11 second line, after the word insurance ‘a closure plan shall be submitted” and Commissioner Cruser stated the word “annually” should be put in after “County”.

 

There was discussion that perhaps the Closure Plan should be defined in the definitions.  Commissioner Egusquiza stated there was a definition she had which reads “A plan describing the procedures for final closure of a facility that ensures no adverse impacts to the environment and waters of the stated and that includes: a. The estimated length of operation of the facility; and b. A description of the procedures, methods, and schedule to be implemented at the facility for final disposal, handling, management and/or treatment of all animal waste.”  There was discussion whether that language could be used in the CAFO ordinance since it was part of the Swine and Poultry Administrative Code.  The Board agreed that “CLOSURE PLAN” should be part of the definitions on page 5 following the definition of CAFO SITING ADVISORY TEAM.

 

There was discussion on page 11 Section VII item 2.  An agreement on language could not be reached prior to the next item of business on the agenda.  The CAFO workshop was recessed for the day.  The next meeting will be September 6, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.

 

John Cristobal of Cristobal Construction appeared before the Board, at their request, to define for them the differences between a General Contractor and a Construction Manager.  Mr. Cristobal stated he had prepared a handout to help the Board of a Breakdown of Division 1 items.  Mr. Cristobal had listed what a Construction Manager would charge comparing what a General Contractor would charge.  Mr. Cristobal stated that there is a large difference in what total charges could total to under the two different methods.  Mr. Cristobal stated sometimes owners will be told that the Construction Manager is the better choice and that it will save them money and that simply is not true.  Mr. Cristobal stated that a construction manager will not save you money.

 

Mr. Cristobal stated that another issue is bonding.  With a construction manager the owners have all the liability because the sub contractors don’t bond.  With a general contractor, the contractor will bond the entire project.  Mr. Cristobal stated that bonding really hurts the little guy, because they can’t bond - therefore they can’t work on the project.  Mr. Cristobal stated that there is more chance of some of the locals being able to work on the project if the Board uses a general contractor.  Mr. Cristobal again told the Board that he would not be bidding, he plans to retire.

 

Russ Moorhead, of Lombard Conrad Architects, stated that they have been working on the preliminary overall schedule for the jail facility and he presented it to the Board.  Mr. Moorhead also has been working on the schematic design for the jail and gave the Board a presentation on how it stands so far as well as the new opinion of probable cost.  The cost is $7,372,275.00 as it stands now leaving $127,725.00 for any unexpected expenses.

 

Earl Engelman of Rocky Mountain Corrections appeared to answer any questions the Board had about the contract.  Prosecutor Schindele had sent a red line copy to both the Board members and Mr. Engelman with a few minor changes and clarifications and Mr. Engelman stated they had no problems with the suggested changes made by Prosecutor Schindele.

 

Motion by Rose, second by Cruser, to approve the consulting contract between Rocky Mountain Corrections and Elmore County in the amount of $130,000.00 to be paid over a period of 20 months at $6,500.00 per month.

ROSE - AYE

EGUSQUIZA - AYE

CRUSER        - AYE     Motion carried and so ordered.