Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff recommend switching hazmat vendor; commissioners moved to earmark first $10,000 for emergency costs
Summary
Staff explained a proposed change from a retainer‑based hazmat contractor to a vendor with no retainer but potential county exposure; the LAPC recommended earmarking $10,000 in the hazmat savings account to cover costs if a responsible party cannot be found.
County emergency‑services staff told commissioners the county’s previous Act 165 hazmat retainer had been $2,500 annually, but a new contract notice from the prior vendor raised the retainer to $7,500. In response, staff said they vetted an alternative vendor, Eagle Response, which charges no retainer but could leave the county liable for up to $10,000 if a responsible party cannot be identified or refuses to pay.
Laura, speaking for emergency services, said the Local Accident Prevention Committee (LAPC) recommended earmarking the first $10,000 in the hazmat savings account to cover that potential exposure. Laura explained: “the retainer fee under that contract have been $2,500 … this year the price went up … showing an increase in premium to $7,500,” and described Eagle Response’s structure whereby the county would only pay when a responsible party could not be found.
The commissioners discussed the recommendation and the typical frequency of incidents without an identifiable responsible party (staff said it is uncommon locally). The board reviewed the tradeoffs — predictable retainer costs versus pay‑as‑needed exposure — and agreed to move the LAPC recommendation forward for implementation.
Next steps include earmarking the initial $10,000 in the county hazmat savings account and updating procurement records to reflect the vendor change; staff said they would return with contract documents and any required waivers to the state under Act 165.
