8/9/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Bird noted that in making the proposed settle- ment we are paying out a lot of money, and he wondered if staff has researched whether we have any possibility of recovery from the chemical manufacturer for improper labeling of the product that we used or failure to place proper warnings on the product. Attorney Collins commented that he was not certain that it -_ was improperly labeled. Road 6 Bridge have indicated it was labeled and applied as labeled. Some question was raised about insurance coverage for pesticide damages, but this was specifi- cally excluded from the insurance coverage. As far as any recourse we might have against the chemical manufacturer, he stated that he would have to get back with Road & Bridge and see exactly what the circumstances were when the chemical was applied. Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to see us explore that possibility. He would feel if this chemical is that deadly to trees, etc., there should be a broad warning label on the product, and possibly there is. In discussion it was noted that this chemical came from materials confiscated by the Sheriff, and Attorney Collins noted there could be some question raised as to whether what was in the barrel originally was changed from what it was labeled. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the cash settlement of $6,779.71 as recommended by staff subject to exploring and verifying the circumstances under which the chemical was applied to see if there is any possibility of some recovery as discussed. (7) Release_ of County_ Liens The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac: 9BOOK F.�;E. -360