Board of Health Minutes
December 14, 2011

Present: John Paddock, Michael Murray, Elizabeth Spencer, Donald Bodeau, William Bethke and Merey Price

Staff: Richard Thoune, Courtenay Johnson, Kitty Rahl and Jeff Cipriano

Others Present:  Rod Eslinger, County Land Use and Planning
    Jeffery Johnson and Tom Woletz, Wisconsin DNR

John Paddock called the meeting to order at 5:20 PM.

Land use information / discussion – presented by WI DNR and Eau Claire County Land Use Department.

Rod Eslinger of the Eau Claire County Land Use Department discussed the three ordinances that apply to Frac Sand mining as contained in the material that was handed out to all present.

The three ordinances are:

1. Title 18 Subtitle 1 – Zoning Regulations – requiring a conditional use permit to be obtained- renewable every five years.
2. Title 18 Subtitle IV – Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation Code – Requiring Reclamation permits and establishes the requirements of reclamation.
3. Title 17 Chapter 17.05 – Storm water Management and Erosion Control – regulating the land disturbing activities or construction that may require permits.

Nine of 13 towns in the county have adopted the county’s land use codes.  Merey Price asked about those towns that have not adopted the county’s zoning codes.  Rod Eslinger responded that those towns will either have to establish their own zoning codes or adopt the county’s.  A third option of establishing a Licensing Ordinance and Developers Agreement was also mentioned with caution as there is a current court case regarding the validity of this as an option in the town of Cooks Valley.

Richard Thoune asked Mr. Eslinger to speak more about the air and water quality monitoring he touched upon in his information sharing.  Rod Eslinger responded that the county is looking at this but needs to first determine what the levels need to be, which standards to use, who will monitor and how it will be monitored.

John Paddock pointed out that we currently have several stone quarry (sand & gravel) operations in the county and asked about the additional risks that Frac Sand Mining will impose.  Rod Eslinger responded that we currently have seven such quarrying operations in the county now.  Frac Sand mines differ in four main areas.

1. Intensity – They operate 24/7 365 days a year
2. Volume – They produce a much larger volume of material mined.
3. Transportation –Due to the around the clock operation and much larger volume, they have a greater need for transporting their product, putting a strain on the roads and highways and increasing the traffic flow in and around the mining sites.
4. Chemicals – They may use chemicals in the mining operation, creating additional complications and concerns regarding air and water quality.

John Paddock asked if the new ordinances would affect all mining operations including those currently operating?  Rod Eslinger replied: Yes, if in a county-zoned area, all will be impacted with ordinance and    zoning regulation changes.  Those in un-zoned areas would not be equally affected.

John Paddock asked about our county’s current mining operations – how are they doing?
Rod Eslinger replied that based on his experiences with our current quarry operations, everything is good – there are generally no concerns and very few complaints. 

William Bethke asked if Air quality standards would apply to all types of land use, i.e. ATV trails etc?  Rod Eslinger answered that yes they will, but added that he is not sure what can be done as it is very complicated and referred to the use of maintaining the “Best Practices Solutions.”

Michael Murray asked about road use, and who is paying for the extra wear and tear on the roads due to the increased traffic from the Frac Sand Mine operation?  Rod Eslinger responded that additional fees will be charged / assessed through the permits that will be needed and highway department agreements.

Michael Murray continued with a question about the particulate issue in regards to air quality.  Rod Eslinger answered that there are State regulations and permits that are needed and these will have to  be followed.

Tom Woletz with the WI DNR had a short PowerPoint presentation covering several of the topics covered by Rod Eslinger.  He added that there are over 2500 mines in the State now.  The new Frac Sand mines are of a much larger scale than the other types of mining operations (quarries) with the older types typically in the 20 – 30 acre range as compared to 500 – 1000 acres for the new mines.  The DNR does have some regulations and requires permits for Air Quality involving testing, monitoring and fugitive dust standards.
Other DNR permits needed might include:

1. Storm water permit
2.   High Capacity well permit to protect the water quantity
3.   Need to conform to Wetland and Shore land Zoning that is currently in existence.
4.   Endangered Species and Archeological reviews required
5. Reclamation permits

William Bethke asked about soil borings and any pre-boring permits.   Tom Woletz responded that there are not any permits required but that logs are required to be kept and filed after the boring is completed.  This is a process solely reliant on the drillers and operators to submit these logs.  It is assumed that several of these borings have likely not been recorded and/or properly abandoned. Currently there are no regulations for pre-drilling or test sites.  Under current rules, these bore holes must be properly abandoned, but there is no mechanism currently in place to verify locations and to inspect that each bore hole is properly sealed. Eslinger added that these borings are a direct line to groundwater, and several of these happen under confidentiality agreements.

Courtenay Johnson asked that Jeff Johnson speak to the issue of air quality, as this is appears to be the greatest public concern and complaint associated with these mines.  Jeff Johnson went on to say that there are permits needed for both Construction and Operation of the mine.  The EPA does provide the DNR with some funding for the major sources or top priority projects while the minor projects are funded from the permit fees.  These sand mines are considered to be minor sources.
 
Mining companies are required to file annual reports and in some cases semi-annual reports of their air quality monitoring.  The companies do their own on-site operational monitoring while ambient air monitoring is a separate monitoring issue.  Fugitive dust (dust as a side effect of the storage, transportation or use of the area, i.e. wind blowing over the piles, dust stirred up from trucks etc.) is particulate matter and is incorporated in to the particulate standards.  Silica is a particulate matter.  Crystalline silica of concern is size PM 4. This size is captured in PM 10 monitoring, but there are no   separate standards for Silica   Should the DNR adopt Silica standards, an approved testing method would be needed, then legal and legislative review would result in these new regulations and standards would be at least two years away.  Currently there is no approved standardized method for testing Silica. 

Side note to discussion- Donald Bodeau left the meeting at approximately 6:30 PM.

Richard Thoune asked about PM 2.5 as a standard and how or if it could be used to monitor sand mine and processing plant operations and whether or not one monitor for our area is sufficient.
Jeff Johnson responded that PM 2.5 has standards and it is monitored through monitors placed geographically across the state.  According to EPA guidelines, one monitor is sufficient.  However, the ones that are in operation are for Ambient Air Quality monitoring and they would not be representative of a sand mine or processing plant operation.   Particulates are localized, as they are low to the ground and do not spread as easily as those coming from tall smokestacks for instance. PM 2.5 is a fine particulate of small size and these sand mines do not typically present a lot of small, fine particles that would travel long distances. He would be more concerned with major source industrial stacks, which contain PM 2.5 and travel long distances. Courtenay Johnson added that the Board of Health does have an agreement with the DNR to operate the Eau Claire County PM 2.5 monitor at the Hwy 53 DOT location.

Merey Price inquired as to what Jeff Johnson’s WI territory was.  Jeff Johnson replied that his current position is statewide, but regarding Frac Sand he is primarily concentrating Northwestern Wisconsin.

Jeff Johnson went on to explain Point vs. Non-point sources.  Fugitive dust from these sites are typically a result of Non-point sources, and usually this dust does not occur on the site until after the drying stage.  The DNR is dedicating more resources in Western WI through the next fiscal year. 

William Bethke asked about road repairs and how it is being paid for.  Rod Eslinger replied that Eau Claire is modeling its rules and regulations after those of Chippewa County and a Minnesota county with wind turbine fields.  Transportation concerns are being addressed through the Highway Department and will likely be referenced incorporated in the new Zoning and Conditional Use Permit requirements.

Michael Murray asked about out of county companies that use our roads – who is covering that added maintenance cost?   Rod Eslinger replied that intergovernmental agreements may be drafted to attempt to capture these uses, as they pertain specifically to one type of business or operation. However, these are very tricky because our roads are used by several businesses for the purposes of transporting goods, other than sand. If these agreements are made, they would hopefully be incorporated into the permits required and that adjacent counties cooperate with each other and share costs

William Bethke asked whether permits are issued and if others will be?  DNR answered that yes there are and yes there will be as long as the applicants comply with the regulations as they currently exist.  Improvements are being looked at.

6:53 PM Frac Sand Mining discussion ends.

Jeff Cipriano was introduced to Board members as the new Administrative Services Manager.

Business Items

3. a. Election of President and Vice President: Elizabeth Spencer nominates John Paddock for President.  Merey Price seconds the nomination.  There are no further nominations, a vote is called for and John Paddock is elected by a unanimous vote.
Elizabeth Spencer nominates Michael Murray for Vice President.  William Bethke seconds the nomination.  There are no further nominations, a vote is called for and Michael Murray is elected Vice President by a unanimous vote.

b. Approval of 2012 contracts with the WI Div. of Public Health in the amount of $583,321 as recommended by the EC City / County Health Department. – Michael Murray moves to approve; Merey Prices seconds the motion.  Kitty Rahl provides a brief update to the information previously provided regarding the contracts; one of the contracts has been negotiated as of this afternoon.  No change in overall amounts.  Richard Thoune also mentions that a new handling of some of these contracts will take place year with some contracts being split into two parts to better align them with the States fiscal year.  Michael Murray inquires if this is a new treatment.  Richard Thoune responds that yes it is. Motion passes unanimously as presented.

c. Appointment of Board of Health Personnel Committee – John Paddock discusses combining two currently separate but related lists.  There would be two people on the committee, which would help with such topics as Personnel handbook revisions, providing input on new positions, developing an evaluation process for the Department Director, and other topics.  The committee would be a review and recommend type of committee.  John paddock asks for volunteers, nominations or appointments.  Michael Murray mentions that he feels that the President or Vice President should be part of this committee.  John Paddock says that he has a list of suggested topics for the committees review started and solicits additional topics from the board members.  William Bethke Nominates Michael Murray and Elizabeth Spencer to be the Personnel Committee.  Merey Price seconds the nominations.  The nomination passes by consensus.

d. Adopt fees for Oral Health Program – Merey Price makes a motion to adopt the fees as recommended by the EC City / County Health Department.  Michael Murray seconds the motion.  William Bethke suggests that there is a need to consult Linda Bohacek about some of the severe needs that exist and that a referral program needs to be set up to take care of this need.  Motion passes unanimously.

e. Accept additional funds for strategic prevention framework – state incentive grant.  Motion by Merey Price and second by William Bethke to accept the EC City / County Health Departments recommendation to accept this grant.  Motion passes unanimously.

f. Approve 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan draft – Richard explains what has been done, the goals and strategies that have been laid out to date.  William Bethke moves to adopt with Merey Price providing the second. Elizabeth Spencer recommends acceptance with the provision that this is a rough draft that needs refining, review definition, and measurement tools established as well as tracking mechanisms put in place.  Merey Price explained that the main topics were highlighted and selected.  Thoune advised that the plan would need an implementation plan.  John Paddock asks if the basic format is OK.  The plan is now looked at by section.  A discussion follows about the mission statement and recent changes made to it.  The word “Communities” is explained by Kitty Rahl to mean all socio-economic, ethnic and cultural types of communities as well as the geographical type.

Michael Murray questions the word “People” in the statement.  Discussion follows that the Health department is charged with helping people and other agencies are available for the help of animals.
Approval of Mission Statement is gained by consensus.

Guiding Principals – Broad high level – OK’d by consensus.

Goals and Strategies – Elizabeth Spencer reiterates that this is a draft copy and that the final version will need implementation plans, measurement tools established and tracking mechanisms included. 

Thoune comments on why a specific person is mentioned in a goal or strategy verses a position that would be responsible.  Titles to be substituted for individual names.

Discussion regarding the current internal Strategic Planning Action Team (SPAT) of the Department and how it could continue to be the action body that moves the strategic plan forward to completion.    Board members who have participated in the strategic plan development process can participate in the SPAT with staff if desired.

Friendly amendment put forth to change the recommendation to be a draft version.

Approved unanimously – adopted as a draft version.

Consent Agenda

4. a. Approval of minutes from Oct. 26, 2011 meeting – Elizabeth Spencer recommends a change in the wording.  Richard Thoune will make the corrections and took down the exact wording suggested by Elizabeth Spencer.  The minutes are approved with the corrections to be included.

b. Director / Health Officer report – as presented by Richard Thoune – Nothing further to add to material handed out. Accepted by consensus.

c. Director of nursing report - as presented by Kitty Rahl.  Kitty went through the highlights of her report.  Two student nurses helped develop the sealant program that turned out good.  Pertussis outbreak in Fall Creek mentioned taking additional nursing time.  Michael Murray mentioned that another town out of our county had a recent outbreak and asked if this one is related and or where did this one start.  Kitty replied that this outbreak is of unknown origins and that it is typically on a three-year cycle and we are within the cycle and due.  Michael Murray additionally asked if this might be a para-pertussis outbreak as symptoms are similar.  Do we know for sure what we are dealing with?  Kitty answered that yes we do know through the testing that was conducted and it is Pertussis.  Report is then accepted.

d. Director of Environmental Health Report – as presented by Courtenay Johnson.  Courtenay indicates that she has nothing further to add to the report as distributed.  Merey Price asks about the time involved in the Frac Sand discussions and investigations etc.  Courtenay Johnson replies that yes it is currently taking extra time that is being absorbed by the department but they need to have some recommendations to the Board of Health by the January meeting so the Board of Health can respond within the 120 day deadline as imposed by the current six-month moratorium on Frac sand Mining.  She goes on to mention that there is also a meeting on Dec. 21, 2011 for internal staff  members on this topic.  Report is accepted.

Other information items from staff for the Board

5. a. Richard Thoune presented the Year to Date (YTD) financial report with the explanation that there are some revenue accounts that are being corrected due to miss-categorization of deposited amounts.  Also some expense accounts being used are new and therefore do not have a corresponding budget amount associated with them.  Richard Thoune also pointed out that the equipment expense was low when compared to budget due to postponing the planned upgrade to Microsoft 2010 to allow for a better alignment with the county’s upgrade plans and to allow for combined training with the county.  Further research is needed on some revenue and expense accounts to clarify why they are high or low at this point in the fiscal year. 

b. Reviewed correspondence – Richard Thoune asked if board would like to have some of the information (such as Local Health Department Newsletters) sent electronically as there often are links to articles embedded within the articles.  This would make it easier for board members to access the additional information provided by the links.  The Board approved having the correspondence information sent by E-mail.

Board Member informational items

6. a. Review draft of 2012 Board of Health meeting calendar – presented by Richard Thoune – discussion followed regarding the inclusion of program presentations.  Currently, this draft calendar does not include program presentations.  Staff wanted to assess for continued interest and the value of these from the Board.    The decision was made by the Board to add program presentations as the need or desire for them arises throughout the year.

b. Board self-evaluation – Elizabeth Spencer opens discussion that says that there are forms available that the Board may want to look at regarding self-evaluation.  Michael Murray brought up the fact that the Board did perform a very detailed evaluation two years ago that was very comprehensive and also very time consuming.  Decision was made to review the previous evaluation form and the two additional ones that Elizabeth Spencer mentioned.  The forms are to be sent to the Board members with the February meeting packet and will be included on the March meeting agenda.

c. William Bethke asks who is covering the costs involved to develop the program and regulations necessary for the Frac Sand Mining.  Courtenay Johnson responds that the Health Department is at this point just absorbing the costs.  There is currently no fee that can be charged for what is essentially staff work on this issue.

Requests from Board members for future agenda items to be given consideration –

7. a. John Paddock mentioned that Richards Thoune’s performance evaluation was conducted by himself and Michael Murray during Thanksgiving week.

b. There may be new members joining the Board in 2012 with City and County elections

c. Elizabeth Spencer asked about the status and results of the compensation study. Richard Thoune informed the Board that it is high on our priority list to get it completed with the consultant.  We are analyzing the draft report that has been received and will be providing feedback to the consultant for further work to be done..

Motion to adjourn put forth at 8:32 PM – approved by consensus.

Respectfully submitted by:

Jeff Cipriano as recorder