My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/20/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
6/20/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:40:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/20/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5 <br />would not foreclose because of the possibility for tremendous <br />liability due to contamination. He considered the only way to do <br />a proper clean-up was to hire a professional company to remove the <br />tanks, the pumps, and take care of the soil contamination, from an <br />environmental standpoint. Then County workers probably ,courd <br />remove the building safely. He predicted it would be a long time <br />before the expense could be reclaimed or reimbursed, because nobody <br />wants to claim ownership. <br />Commissioner Eggert inquired about liability if we do nothing <br />and someone got hurt, and Deputy County Attorney Will Collins <br />advised there could be some liability because it could be <br />considered an "attractive nuisance" and normally should be secured. <br />He added that the real problem with this site "is the laws on <br />environmental liability for cleaning up' hazardous waste. If the <br />County undertakes clearing the site, there will be'the burden of <br />proof that any environmental pollution was not as a result of the <br />work done. Thus the County would be in a position of being <br />responsible for not just cleaning up a discharge that may have <br />taken place through the demolition of the building, but any <br />contamination that had occurred in the past. <br />Attorney Collins relayed that the Environmental Health <br />Department had recommended first pumping out the tanks and removing <br />them from the ground. At that point, we would have done whatever <br />we could have done to not cause any further discharge before taking <br />the building down. Public Works people think if we go in with <br />heavy equipment, there would be some shifting or settling and there <br />is no way we could ever prove that we were not responsible for some <br />discharge if the tanks were still in the ground. <br />It seemed to Attorney Collins they had two choices: 1) treat <br />it as an attractive nuisance, board it up, and avoid the <br />environmental liability altogether; or 2) have the tanks pumped <br />out, removed, closed, and then take the building down. He <br />predicted that if the building was taken down first, it would be <br />like signing a blank.check for whatever the cost of clean-up of the <br />entire site might be. It could be a quarter of a million dollars, <br />there was no way to know. Another possible option is doing the <br />work by hand, without heavy equipment, to assure nothing is <br />disturbed underground. That might be expensive, however. <br />Commissioner Adams thought boarding up the building would not <br />solve the problem. <br />Attorney Collins advised that the owner of the property is a <br />dissolved corporation which had walked away from the property. He <br />38 <br />June 20, 1995 <br />M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.