7/19/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 0 m CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ALSO DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE A PHONE CALL AND NOT BE RESPONDED TO PROMPTLY. COMMISSIONER LOY CONTINUED THAT SHE FEELS IT WAS ANTICIPATED WHEN THE COUNTY BOUGHT THIS PLANT THAT WE WOULD BE OUT OF IT WITHIN A YEAR OR S0, AND SHE FELT MR. LOHMAN SHOULD BE ON NOTICE RIGHT NOW THAT -THE COUNTY IS MAKING EVERY EFFORT IT CAN TO REMOVE THIS PLANT, MR. LOHMAN STATED THAT HE DOES MAKE HIMSELF READILY AVAILABLE AND CAN ALWAYS BE REACHED AT HOME IN THE EVENINGS IF NECESSARY. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THEY ARE STRAIGHT WITH THE DER, AND MR. LOHMAN STATED THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING THEY REQUESTED. COMMISSIONER LOY SUGGESTED THAT IF MR. LOHMAN WILL DO -WHAT HE HAS INDICATED AND STAY IN CLOSE COMMUNICATION AND BE PREPARED FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY REMOVING THIS PLANT AS SOON AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, THAT THE BOARD WITHDRAW THEIR REQUEST FOR TERMINATION AT THIS TIME. SHE INFORMED MR. LOHMAN THAT HE WILL NOT GET'A SECOND CHANCE. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF MR. LOHMAN WOULD APPROVE A 30 -DAY TERMINATION CLAUSE BECAUSE THE COUNTY AT SOME TIME MAY'COME UP WITH A COUNTY EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD BE A QUALIFIED OPERATOR, MR. LOHMAN STATED THAT HE REALIZES THE AGREEMENT CAN BE TERMINATED FOR REASONS OF NEGLECT OR IF THE COUNTY OR CITY PROVIDES THE SERVICES, BUT PREFERRED NOT TO HAVE A 30 -DAY TERMINATION CLAUSE, DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED TERMINATION CLAUSE, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION BY THE DER AND WAS NOT AS THE RESULT OF A ROUTINE INSPECTION, AND THE RESPONSE TO THE.PROBLEM WAS ENTIRELY TOO SLOW, COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED MR, LOHMAN TO CONSIDER THE 30 -DAY TERMINATION CLAUSE, WHICH SHE DID NOT FEEL IS AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY WILL REMOVE THE PLANT.JUST AS SOON AS THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT AS LONG AS THE PLANT IS BEING OPERATED PROPERLY, 57 35 FA -359 JUL I9197 ,y