Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Maintenance Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbon County Prison Board reviews server upgrades, animal-shelter dumpster problems and need for backup water supply
Summary
Board members heard maintenance updates including camera server replacements, repeated bear activity at the animal shelter dumpster, DEP correspondence saying the shelter's second well cannot be relied upon as a backup, and discussion about acquiring a backup water tank or new source.
At a meeting of the Carbon County Prison Board, members received a maintenance update covering camera and server work, recurring wildlife damage at the county animal shelter dumpster, and a notice from the Department of Environmental Protection that the shelter's No. 2 well cannot serve as a secondary water source.
The maintenance report said Johnson Controls changed out servers for the camera system and repaired a door-panel computer and two water leaks. "Johnson control came in and they changed out the servers for the camera system," the maintenance speaker said. The report also noted regular service by Seitz Brothers and replacement of outdoor filters at the dog shelter.
The board discussed repeated incidents of a bear ripping open the animal shelter dumpster. Maintenance staff reported seeing the animal on multiple mornings and said the bear had ear tags. "Maybe we can get ahold of the game connection? Maybe they can trap it and move it. I'm just because it already has 2 tags in 1 ear," Maintenance staff (Speaker 4) said. Board members considered options including moving the dumpster inside the fenced prison area, using the covered dumpster at the county 911/communications center, buying a heavier bear-proof dumpster with metal sliding doors, or building a fenced enclosure. One member noted the comm center dumpster has metal sliding doors to make repairs tougher.
No final procurement decision was made. The board asked staff to obtain price estimates for a bear-resistant dumpster and for fencing and to bring the cost comparisons to the next meeting. "But just for your information because I'm not sure what the additional cost was for the bigger dumpster or the repair proofing. Why don't we get a price and see what it'd be till next meeting?" a board member said.
Members also raised broader water-supply concerns. The maintenance report cited correspondence from the Department of Environmental Protection advising the county that the animal shelter's second well should not be relied on as a backup source. The board discussed options: identifying an alternate water source, installing a smaller backup potable tank, or other measures to reduce recurring tanker costs when the single, aging storage tank at the prison is taken offline for inspection. The meeting record notes the existing storage tank is about 30 years old and will require another inspection in a year or two.
A maintenance speaker recounted the last time the county brought in a temporary mobile tank and pump setup for the prison and reported a quoted cost: "I wanna say it was around $4,445,000. Yeah. Correct," (Maintenance staff, Speaker 4). The board did not adopt that figure as final cost; members asked staff to provide precise estimates and breakdowns (installation, pump equipment, recurring tanker deliveries) for comparison with the cost of constructing alternative solutions such as an additional fenced-in water storage or a second permanent source.
Discussion-track items identified by the board included obtaining formal price quotes for a bear-resistant dumpster and for fencing, checking whether the comm-center dumpster could be used (and whether unlocking/keys or extra fees would apply), and contacting wildlife authorities about the tagged bear. The board did not take formal action on procurement or on water infrastructure during the meeting.
