Notes From Commissioner's Meeting 4/7/2009 taken by CCFS secretary Ann Graham

1 – Don Reimer spoke about necessity of additional consultant reports.

 In regards to the economic analysis report, county consultant EPS was given a scope of work that entailed reviewing Nestle’s consultant THK report to find errors and discrepancies, and 1041 missing items in their report. They found errors and 1041 missing items. As a result, county staff recommendation is that the 1041 regulations have not been met and that they need resolution. In response to Bruce Lauerman’s ‘bewilderment’ that the economic analysis was incomplete, Don noted that in Staff’s 2/27 recommendation they had said that the 1041 requirement had not been met and the economic standard was not adequate and that their position had not changed. Cost would range from $4.5k-$8k.

 In regards to the water system analysis, the specific issue that was not addressed in either the Wheeler report or the CNHP report had to do with the hydrological interaction between ground water (i.e. springs) and the aquifer and its subsequent impact on wetlands. As a result, there are gaps in the research. He indicated that Wheeler did not have the expertise and CNHP was hire by the county to review the applicant’s reports and is not an hydrologist. Don also said that CNHP won’t be testifying at the 4/21 Commissioner meeting. He indicated that CSU needs to remain neutral and there is a perception that they are biased. Consequently Staff needs someone on board to review the wetlands and CNHP will not be continuing to serve the county in that consulting capacity. Cost maximum would be $8.

 2 – Frank Holman was sympathetic to Nestle having to pay for additional consultants and was concerned why the information was not complete. He suggested that Staff had not requested sufficient ‘scopes of work’ and debated with the other commissioners that the county did in fact have adequate information and that maybe it was buried and needs to be found. He also wondered if the Staff didn’t have the expertise. This was disputed by Staff and the other Commissioners.

3 – Tim Glenn said that he was the one that went to Staff requesting more information because he was uncomfortable with the gaps in information. He mentioned testimonies from the public hearing and has realized that there are issues that were not initially considered and needed to be addressed. Economic impact of traffic emergency responses was an example. In addition to the critical information about the interaction between the wetlands and the aquifer, he has additional economic issues that he would like answered. He feels the economic report is faulty and needs a complete review. He stated a couple of times that it was unfair to everyone for the commissioners to make a decision without full consultant information.

 4 – It was mentioned that this is the first 1041 application to the county since revision in 2003, therefore, this is the first time the process has been tested.

 5 - Dennis Giese said there are 2 issues:

      1 - Needing additional information to make a decision regarding the Nestle 1041 application. This is an immediate need and what they are deciding today.

      2 – 1041 application process and the probable need of updating and improving said process. This is a longer term need and one to be worked on in the future. Dennis also indicated that he needed additional information in particular on the interaction between the springs and the aquifer. He also noted that he answers to citizens and wants to have accurate information.

 6 – Jenny Davis reminded the commissioners that the burden of proof is on the applicant and incomplete information requires denying the permit.

 7- Bruce Lauerman expressed frustration with 1041 process. He questioned why the issue of new consultants was not brought up at the P&Z meeting last week. Don Reimer said that the meeting was strictly a status update meeting and new topics were inappropriate to discuss. Bruce also complained about the draft version of the CNHP report being publically circulated. Jenny Davis said that because Nestle had requested the CNHP draft version if automatically became accessible to the public. Bruce expresses concern about the proposed wetlands consultant indicating a relationship with the former consultant. Don spoke to credentials and experience in the Breckenridge and Summit County. It was agreed that Mike Allen could sit in on Don’s meeting with the new consultant.

 8- There was some discussion about Nestle monitoring plans and the need for 3rd party monitoring. A wetlands consultant will be critical to this process. Nestle reported that they had CDOW review the preliminary wetlands monitoring plan. In public comment, it was noted that CDOW currently has no wetlands expert of staff since Bruce Goforth retired.

 9 – Tim Glenn made the motion to hire new consultants to be specific about the interaction between the wetlands and aquifer and to provide a completely new economic analysis. Dennis Giese seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously.