Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve continued environmental work as water-service issues persist at county facilities
Summary
The board authorized a GZA GeoEnvironmental change order not to exceed $93,300 for supplemental site investigation at the county's fire training grounds; commissioners discussed ongoing water testing and potential long-term contamination concerns.
The Board of Commissioners on July 17 approved a change order for environmental investigation work and discussed ongoing water-supply issues that have affected county operations.
The board moved to approve a change order to GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., not to exceed $93,300, for continuation of a supplemental site investigation at the county fire training grounds. The motion passed after commissioners asked whether the contamination and investigation might continue for many years; staff and commissioners discussed that mitigation options can be costly and that contamination could migrate, requiring ongoing work.
Why it matters: the investigation and potential remediation concern environmental contamination at a county-owned training site and could have long-term costs and implications for wells and water quality.
During discussion a commissioner asked whether the problem would ever be done or whether the county would continue paying for it over the next 10 to 20 years. A staff member replied that mitigation without a multimillion-dollar intervention would not eliminate migration, and that different chemicals at the site limit remediation options. The transcript records a reference to "PFAS" and to the complexity of addressing persistent chemicals; one commissioner described past examples where soil treatment was used in other jurisdictions but said that solution was not appropriate here.
The board also discussed an individual piece of the overall investigation: converting an area (referred to in the discussion as "Lehi House Number 2") into a PFAS monitoring site and possibly putting that portion of work out to bid. Commissioners described the effort as a sequence of targeted tasks rather than a single comprehensive remediation because of budget and technical constraints.
Discussion vs. decision: approving the GZA change order was a formal decision; commissioners also discussed broader strategy and uncertainties about long-term costs and remedial options, which remained at the discussion level. The motion to approve the change order passed unanimously.
