PFAS litigation assessment meeting
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 3m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 57% of 21 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Appreciate him staying along as long as he does show the comments. Um I've got one item. Actually I got a couple items, but one of them is uh the administrator. Oh,
I am not trying to. Thanks, Jeff. We were here so far so long.
Um but you're losing a quorum. All right,
County Administrator actually Well I do need to vote on one thing, so skip over and
I require
the question.
Is is he gone? Commissioner Weightman?
Yeah Commissioner Weightman Waity's still there come back but he wasn't he wasn't feeling well so he dropped off. Yeah, that's waiting
until
I was going on.
Um well I actually need you to vote as well. Um or at least give me consensus. Um I need a litigation assessment. As the board is probably aware, um you authorized me some time back uh apropos of this morning's discussion. to engage outside council um for
The
I keep wanting to say PVAS, but it's PFAS litigation if the um fire fire foam litigation that is ongoing. Um there are settlements that have been proposed with by 3M and DuPont. Outside counsel would like to meet with you in a litigation assessment meeting. Um I would propose uh Um based on chair's absence at the next meeting and the if
that's still on the the cards and the fact that we've got a bond signing over the break to do it on the November fourteenth meeting during your either immediately after morning business or at lunch.
I'd say it's too much. Well
I mean immediately after after the if you get done early we'll we'll have we'll be ready to do it. Or or whenever you break for lunch, th that'll be the first we'll get get you in and get you out. But if that's if that's acceptable to the board, um we'll take care of the necessary processes to do the litigation assessment meet meeting for that meeting for that meeting.
So Commissioner Oakley, we're looking to have an a meeting for litigation assessment on November fourteenth, as soon as we're done whether the morning part of the meeting or the at the lunch break. Okay. Okay. Here you go.
Thank you. That's all.
Okay. Mr. Mistriff.
So one good news item, but let me start with the the voting item here. So item C eleven on this morning's consent had a scrivener's error in it, and I I just need uh uh need to formally advise the board and just ask you to accept this. Uh the September 3rd hearing at 9 a.m. was incorrectly labeled with the location of Newport Ritchie. The meeting should be correctly labeled to reflect Date City or DC. If I could just vote to accept that and change the record, that would be great.
We