A jury unanimously awarded Wright $1.6 million for his claims plus the attorney fees bring the total to be paid by the citizens to $2.46 million. Wright had appealed a previous dismissal from another 4th District Judge to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supremes overturned part of that decision, forcing the new trial.

On Wednesday Judge Kathryn A. Stricklen denied the county’s motions to not pay Wright’s $664,527 legal fees and to order a new trial.

“It is quite clear that both Case and Tibbs were acting together, and that their conduct was highly unusual,” Stricklen wrote. “Not one witness criticized Wright’s performance. The Court does believe that the verdict for Wright was in accord with the clear weight of the totality of the evidence.”

Stricklin termed awarding legal fees as “appropriate” and “reasonable.”

The case was filed as a “whistleblower” action after Wright was fired the day after Tibbs and Case took office. Larry Maneely, a former TV sportscaster and close friend of both Tibbs and Case was appointed the next day–lending credence to the Judge’s conclusion.

Case and Tibbs assumed the majority of power on the three member board in January 2013. Their first big legal move back then was to make a $2 million settlement to Dynamis over the failed Trash to energy scandal brought forth by the previous board. Had they treated Wright the same as Dynamis, it would have saved taxpayers some cash.

Some say a picture is “worth a thousand words.” The one at the STATESMAN website is worth well over two million dollars.”

The school bond elections were well run political campaigns and despite claims to the contrary, taxes will go up. The RATE may not increase, but the $172 million for school facilities doesn’t just appear by magic.

While the elections were wins for the schools, the manner in which they won is the focus of a bill in the Idaho house aimed at preventing any agency (including schools) from spending tax money to influence an election in which the agency will benefit.

Then there is the costly lawsuit in which Rich Wright won $1.7 million in a “whistleblower” suit against Ada Commishes Jim Tibbs and Dave Case. The commishes have also cost taxpayers nearly $200,000 in legal fees.

They fired Wright four years ago, the day they took office. Wright was the head of county Administration under the Sharon Ullman and Fred Tilman era. A 4th District jury made the award after after the Idaho Supremes sent the case back to the district court.

Wright had claimed he was fired as recrimination for dismissing a former employee who was a friend of former Commish Vern
Bisterfeldt.

Lest we forget, one of the factors that led to the defeat Ullman was a contract she had entered into with Dynamis in an ill-fated “trash to energy” scheme. Tibbs and Case paid off a multi million dollar claim to Dynamis soon after they took office, saying it was cheaper than a prolonged legal battle.

That may have been a good move in the Wright case as well.

By KAREN DANLEY

On the ballot once again, Sharon Ullman must possess a wicked sense of irony in positioning herself as a fiscal conservative, just weeks after the Ada County Commission cleaned up the remaining fallout from Ullman’s Folly—the Dynamis debacle that cost taxpayers $4.6 million. The people of Ada County were left holding the bag, wondering how the half-baked scheme ever got approved and why it found a champion and cheerleader in then-commissioner Ullman.

To recap this sordid tale of wasteful spending, fraud, and deception, let’s start at the beginning. At the urging of Ullman, who gave numerous assurances as to the legality, propriety, and built-in safeguards of the deal, Ada County entered into a contract with Dynamis Energy, fronting the start-up company $2 million to design a plant that would turn trash into electricity by burning it at the county landfill.

According to an Idaho Statesman story (Sept. 30, 2012), more than half of the $2 million went to personnel, including engineers who were paid more than $350 per hour, outrageous rates by any standard and more so for a public project. Under-capitalized and ill-equipped to do what it was promising, Dynamis required that the county buy their high-end Apple computers, in addition to charging an extra 10% for “overhead and profit.” That’s like hiring a plumber and finding out that in addition to standard labor charges, you’ll be charged for the wrench and all other tools, and then an extra gratuity for good measure.

By late 2012, following delays and complications, public opposition was mounting and environmental and contractual concerns were surfacing. Ada County, and in particular recently appointed Commissioner Dave Case, began looking for ways to exit this ill-conceived scheme. It wasn’t until Ullman was voted out of office that Case and newly elected Commissioner Jim Tibbs moved to kill the deal in February 2013, even though it meant cutting their losses and foregoing the county’s right to recoup damages.

Adding insult to injury, the episode cost taxpayers another $2.2 million, when the County was forced to settle with Fortistar, a company that for years had been successfully reclaiming landfill methane gas, which it converts to electricity. Fortistar sued the county when the trash was promised to both Dynamis and Fortistar. The $30 million tort claim was mediated, with the current commission having to settle, incurring nearly half a million dollars in legal fees.

Of course, there’s much more to the story: alleged closed-door meetings, public input thwarted, county employees resigning over their disgust for the way it was all handed. But here’s what voters need to remember: Ullman’s Folly took $4.6 million away from hardworking taxpayers—$2 million to Dynamis, $2.2 million to Fortistar, and another $450,000 in legal fees.

Sharon Ullman is no fiscal conservative and has proven that she is ill-suited to any office, much less the one she brought disgrace to with her unyielding promotion of this ridiculous and costly fiasco. Dave Case is a thoughtful and earnest steward of the public’s money and deserves to be reelected.

EXISTING METHANE POWERED GENERATOR AT LANDFILL

When the new commishes took over three years ago, they decided it was in the county’s best interest to payoff Dynamis about $2,000,000 to go away after it became apparent the outfit was not able to live up to its claims to produce energy from trash. The county ended up with a set of plans for some sort of burner that was never built.

Today they announced yet another “money saving” move. Ada agreed to pay off Fortistar, the outfit that captures methane gas from rotten garbage to make electricity. This settlement is for $2,200,000 plus another $451,000 in attorney fees. Fortistar had cut a deal with the county and Idaho Power to generate electricity. Fortistar claimed that diverting trash (fuel) to Dynamis would reduce the gas produced. But since Dynamis is gone, we are at a loss to figure what injury they can claim.

So far Ada taxpayers have been tapped for $4.651 million in energy-related settlements at the county dump and most of it goes for “rights, attorney fees, and settlements.” There is some cash royalty from electricity generated using the methane gas that is captured at the site. It appears the commishes were victims of previous bad decisions, but we cannot readily tell you what they purchased on our behalf. There is a good chance that Ada County will be in the gas/electricity sales business in the future.

This link provides a good background PRIMER.
Here is the Ada County press release spin:

Ada County has settled a lawsuit involving the Ada County Landfill and through this process has secured the rights to future energy.

“The Ada County Board of Commissioners chose to end this lawsuit because it’s what’s best for our citizens,” said Chairman Jim Tibbs. “We continue to focus on the future of the county and work towards being even more environmentally responsible to sustain our quality of life in Ada County.”

3/31/16 UPDATE

The DAILY PAPER‘s Cynthia Sewell offered up more details in today’s story. Bottom line seems to be the county paid $2.65 million for the right to burn off excess gas into the atmosphere!

The GUARDIAN has sifted through the Ada County records and learned Ullman, former bombastic Ada commish of Dynamis fame, overpriced canned soft drinks, and endless topic for news stories has filed an “Appointment and Certification of Political Treasurer” as a candidate for Ada Commish seat 3, currently held by Dave Case. The treasurer named is Mary Ann Porter of Meridian.

Perhaps as a harbinger of what will follow, Ullman shows an address on AMBUSH AVE.

Word on the street has it that TJ Thomson will also be running for a county seat as part of the Team Dave effort to control or at least have a command presence on all elected boards in or near Boise City. Mayor Dave Bieter–one of the most adept politicos in Idaho–has strong advocates (some say operatives) on the Highway District, CCDC-urban renewal, GBAD-auditorium district, Idaho legislature, Boise School Board, but currently no one on the board of county commishes.

Thomson would be running for the district 2 seat currently held by Rick Yzaguirre who is not expected to seek reelection. Regarding a run for commish, Thomson told the GUARDIAN, “I will be making a formal announcement regarding my interest in running for Ada County Commissioner in the weeks ahead.”

The primary election for county officers is on May 18 so there is plenty of time for maneuvering and politics ahead.

Neptune has a demonstration snow venue at Eagle Island State Park which is currently adrift with manmade snow. County Resident Joan Johnston lives near the Horseshoe Bend Road site and opposes the new venue. Her guest opinion is posted below and we offer equal space to any opposing views.

By Joan Johnston
There have been plenty of opinions, for and against the proposed snow terrain park at the Ada‐Eagle
Sports Complex. Let’s look at the issues that surround this proposal….

In the beginning, the lease agreement was the issue between Ada County and the City of Eagle. The lease agreement doesn’t allow for long term of 20+ years, exclusive use of facilities, land or parking lots.

Historically, the land was purchased to be a landfill buffer because at one point the land fill was to be filled towards the west. Ada County’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that the park land is not to be developed. However, despite this there’s been an accepted offer on 34.45 acres + 6 acres to include the
BMF track at $4,000 per acre. The Ada County Commissioners have made a difficult decision, but only one of the Commissioners considered the citizens concerns and issues into account. The other two sold out the Ada County residents by not taking at least the minimum appraised value of $5,500 which is leaving $51,675 on the table. The County is still cleaning up the Dynamis debacle and its financial drain of over $2 million that Commissioner Yzagguirre help to create. Why couldn’t we at least ask for what the land is worth?

The issue really isn’t about a snow terrain park; it’s about a for‐profit private business having exclusive use of land for 20 years plus 2 option periods of 10 years, parking lots, and public facilities to do business with no investment into the property. There will be lost property tax revenue by the County. Ryan Neptune should purchase the land himself instead of placing the financial burden onto the City of Eagle residents. So why shouldn’t all those folks that are for this for‐profit business having exclusivity on public land step up and help buy the land for Ryan Neptune. The Ada County residents have contributed by reducing the property value by $51,675. So far the City of Eagle has footed most of the bill for Ryan Neptune.

They’re planning on “spending $240,000 if this goes through” according to the Eagle Parks
and Recreation Director. Since the City of Eagle submitted the Design Review application on Ryan
Neptune’s behalf, one can wonder if they also paid for or waived the application fees. It’ll be
interesting to see how long it is before Eagle resident’s taxes are raised particularly after the intersection of Floating Feather and Old Horseshoe Bend Road has to be re‐aligned to make it safer and to accommodate the marked increase in traffic going through the intersection. Some of the traffic will no doubt be alleviated by flowing through the neighboring subdivision to avoid the intersection which
should make those residents really happy.

Ryan Neptune said in the Idaho Statesman on January 8th, 2014 that “in the first 5 days of ticketed use, the park had 3,100 visitors.” So now ACHD has traffic and attendance data that they can use when they consider what road improvements that will need to be made to handle the increase in traffic. But ACHD needs to also take into account that the proposed snow terrain park off of Old Horseshoe Bend Road will be a much larger in size.

This proposed snow terrain park might look good to those that haven’t attended the city council or
BOCC meetings, but the proposed snow terrain park will have its unintended consequences that will be
far more reaching than anybody realizes. The City of Eagle’s officials don’t care about the issues and
potential problems because they have their sights on the prize in the bottom of the cereal box. Well,
Eagle residents, you’re the proud owner of a regional park and all the expenses associated with it.
Better use it and enjoy it, but bring money to buy a ticket to use it and don’t park or step foot into
Ryan’s exclusive areas unless you do buy a ticket. And for everybody else, because it’s not in your back yard, so you’re going to get what you want, so be happy that you got what you’re entitled to at the expense to others.

The group is represented by lawyer Andrew Schoppe–who was active in the Dynamis trash-to-energy opposition last year.

In his complaint, Schoppe lists four alleged open meeting violations by the Eagle Council which involve meetings to discuss purchase of land currently owned by Ada County and leased to Eagle.

Behind the legal maneuvering is a plan by the City of Eagle to create a “concession” agreement with snowboard promoter Ryan Neptune who seeks to build a half pipe and other winter recreation attractions on the county land. Eagle and the county have settled issues over bike trails in the foothills area near the land fill.

Eagle seems to have forged ahead with their plans despite Ada County’s position that commercial use of the leased park land is in violation of the agreement.

Ryan Neptune, an officer of Gateway Parks has told the Eagle City Council the plan can come at no cost to the city. The company would retum 10 percent of lift-ticket revenue to the city.

Eagle has a 99 year lease for a “public park” on about 200 acres of county land near the existing landfill. We hate to be harsh, but this deal has overtones of the ill fated Dynamis waste-to-energy deal and it is in the same area…A promoter wishes to go into a commercial business and conjures up a plan to use public assets for private gain. Politicos are eager to have a legacy to show voters, but they got going too fast too soon.

The GUARDIAN talked to Ada Commish Jim Tibbs who said Monday, “Based on my reading of the contract and what little I know of the proposal, it would appear Ada County previously agreed to a lease for a PUBLIC PARK. A facility operated as a commercial enterprise with no cost to the taxpayer would seem on the face of it to be in violation of our agreement with Eagle.”

Hawk Island Park near Lansing, Michigan has operated for 10 years as a popular county park. It was cited by Gateway as one of its previous efforts, but is not as elaborate as the proposed Eagle operation.

According to a Statesman story, Gateway Parks would make about $1 million in improvements to the 200-acre Eagle Sports Complex off Horseshoe Bend Road. Those would include adding a “magic carpet” lift for tubers, snowboarders and mountain bikers, and a multifeature snowboard park.

Key to the plan is turning a large excavated hole that was intended to be the now-defunct Velodrome cycling facility into a 19 million-gallon reservoir. The reservoir would be used for snow making in the winter and “cable wakeboarding” and fire suppression in the summer.

EDITOR NOTE–For clarification: as we understand it, Eagle is simply offering up the County-owned lease ground for development by a private firm. It appears to the GUARDIAN the developer is dealing with the wrong government entity. The lease was intended to allow Eagle to build a PUBLIC PARK, not provide free land to a for-profit private enterprise.

A LETTER FROM NEIGHBORS to the Eagle Parks Director follows.

Mile Aho
Parks and Recreation Director
660 E Civic Lane
PO BOX 1520
Eagle, ID 83616
August 12, 2013
Dear Mr Aho:
We attended the July 2nd Eagle Sports Complex (aka Eagle Terrain Park and Eagle Terrain Snow Park)
Neighborhood Meeting. Your meeting was informative making it very clear that little to no studies have been done to determine the project’s feasibility nor the impact to the bordering residents. It was a rude awakening that such a complex could be proposed for this area. We enjoy the bikers, hikers, joggers, and dog walkers, but the proposed sports complex is for a very specific target group. We feel that the sports complex would turn our safe neighborhood into a carnival that will destroy the topography, increase traffic, and displace the wildlife.

Although we don’t reside in Eagle City, we as Ada County residents are impacted very much by this proposed sports complex. The bordering residents of the complex would be impacted by the water runoff, traffic, noise, light, mosquitoes, potential loss of water in our wells, and waste pollution.
Ada County, who owns the land, would not benefit from this ludicrous idea. In fact, it sounds more like the Dynamis deal.

TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Increasing the volume of vehicles using Old Horseshoe Bend Road, a dead end road, would increase
congestion, not to mention the increase in the amount of traffic into the Maryglen subdivision. There is no access to Highway 55 on Old Horseshoe Bend Road, yet confused drivers continue to end up lost in our subdivision causing an increase of traffic beyond the current unacceptable level producing a toxic mix of traffic. There have been many accidents at the Horseshoe Bend Road‐ Janie Road curve barrier, some even fatal. Speeding vehicles have caused property damage and are a huge safety concern for our subdivision and all the bikers, walkers, and joggers who use the Maryglen Subdivision roads daily. ACHD is very aware of this current and on‐going problem.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
We urge doing a comprehensive feasibility study before you take any more steps in the execution of this sports complex project. A feasibility study would most certainly bring out that the annual average low temperature for this area is 39o F.1 The science doesn’t support that ice will maintain its physical state at 39o F temperature. An average annual low temperature of 39o F is in no way enough to sustain a base layer for skiing or snowboarding slopes. The snow machines will have to be in production 24/7 in order to attempt to maintain a snow base. The proposal doesn’t even address this issue. Using this area is the most ludicrous thing that has been proposed to date.

WATER
We don’t approve of wasting water for recreational purposes while living in a semi‐arid desert climate.

Particular concerns include the amount of water required and the water run‐off. Where is the water
coming from? Where is the snow melt run‐off going? What kind of mosquito control will be used in the
reservoirs during the summer months? We are concerned because we have no water to spare for such
frivolous misuse. This snow park would become a slush park for most of the winter. Not only would our
property values plummet if we have no water, but our homes would become uninhabitable. Your
proposal squandeis the very water that we are struggling to keep in our wells’ You’ve equated the
amount of water that is needed for this project against the water needed for 29 homes, thus,
minimizing the amount that the sports complex will consume. The approximate 3.1 million gallons of
water per year needed for this sports complex should not be minimized. We strongly believe that
established residences and our need for water trumps this recreational use.

What about the 19 million gallon reservoir2 that is needed to hold the water? What kind of
comprehensive environmental impact studies will be done regarding the reservoir? What kind of health
issues will this create? All of these concerns need to be addressed before any more consideration is
given to move forward with the sports complex.
SNOW MAKING
When nature doesn’t cooperate by providing natural snow, snowmakers take over. Given water,
electric or diesel energy, and temperatures below 32″F (0″C) snowmakers can provide ,no*t'” Oul.
mean low annual temperature for this area is 39″F. This proposal for a snow sports complex is a bad
idea, and a more appropriate environment that can sustain snow should be found’

IN CLOSING
We would support projects for the Ada county land if they benefitted the community as a whole all year round without using a tremendous amount of natural resources such as water, and it is free to all. For instance, how about fitness boot camp structures, or a nature walk with paved siletches that could be utilized during inclement weather times to alleviate erosion. Or how about a horse park, or trails? The target audience for the park should be for the general population of kids and adults, not just for skiers.

Ada county land should not be provided for a commercial operation.
Doing feasibility studies “as you go” through the process is the most unprofessional method of doing
business that we’ve heard from our localgovernment. There is not one federal or state agency that
would get even this far without one, so why is the City of Eagle able to do these projects on Ada CountyLand without a feasibility or environmental impact statement? ls Ada County and Eagle City trying to cut corners that much?
The City of Eagle needs to stop ignoring the bordering Ada County residents. The park projects that the Eagle City office seems to dream up impact those that live in Ada County. Please do the necessary
research and feasibility studies before you progress – before you can’t back up – before the irreparable, permanent damage is done, scarring the landscape, not to mention the relationship that you will have with your “Ada County” neighbors. Please consider the traffic and water impact that this project will have on the Ada County Residents by doing your due diligence on this proposal.

Joyce Bingham will receive the award and accompanying $1,000 prize at
an awards luncheon scheduled for Saturday in Boise.

The Max Dalton Open Government Award has been given each year since
1999 to a citizen or group judged to be an outspoken advocate of
openness in either public records or public meetings on the state or
local level.

In 2012, Bingham, a substitute teacher, made a request under the
Idaho Public Records Law to the Blackfoot School District after
hearing rumors that former superintendent Scott Crane had received a
large payout in exchange for his resignation.

Her request was denied by the school district, so Bingham decided to
take the matter to court. She was later joined in her lawsuit by The
Post-Register in Idaho Falls.

In December, a judge ruled in favor of Bingham, and the documents
subsequently released showed the school district paid $210,000 to buy
out Crane’s contract and then took steps to keep the payments secret.

“Joyce certainly had nothing to gain by taking on the Blackfoot
school district and risking possible retaliation on herself,” INF
Executive Director Tom Grote of McCall said.

“She was willing to devote her energies, and her money, merely
because she thought it was the right thing to do,” Grote said. “That
is the spirit of the Max Dalton award – ordinary citizens who
understand laws exist that give them power to open closed
meeting-room doors and locked file cabinets.”

Other nominees for the 2013 award were:

* Hubert Osborne of Nampa, David Frazier of the public advocacy
website Boise Guardian, and Idaho Citizens for a Safe Environment and
a Transparent Government each were nominated for their pursuit of
information about the Dynamis waste-to-energy project proposed by Ada
County.

* Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf was nominated for his
launching of the statewide public records website Transparent Idaho.

For details of the award and past recipients, go to IDAHO NEWSPAPER FOUNDATION.

In a statement they said, “The plaintiffs in the Idaho Citizens, et al., v. Ada County lawsuit over the Dynamis Project have outlined eleven questions concerning the County’s current positions on the prior Commissioners’ conduct. They hope the (new) Ada County Commissioners will respond to those questions in the near future not only with words, but with actions.”

The attorney also said in a letter to the opposing lawyers, “Notwithstanding their view that these and other issues are by no means moot, the Plaintiffs have a great deal of hope and confidence that newly-elected Commissioners Case and Tibbs will fulfill their commitments make the mechanisms of Ada County’s government more open, honest, and transparent. Their task of rebuilding the public trust in the government of the County will not be an easy or a quick one, but they have already made a good start.”

The list of questions they want the new commishes to address follows:

1. What steps will the Commissioners take to ensure that potential liabilities of up to $70
million cannot be incurred by the unrestrained actions of a single Commissioner, as
appears to have been the case with former Commissioner Ullman? Will the
Commissioners consider, for example, proposals to enlarge the Board to include five
Commissioners instead of just three in an effort to avoid such consequences in the
future?

2. Will the County continue to claim that the one-on-one “serial meetings” which took
place between Commissioners Ullman, Yzaguirre, and Tillman and Dynamis
representatives are legal under Idaho’s Open Meeting Law, even though the Idaho
Attorney General takes the view that they are not?

3. In the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims—a motion filed by the County before
Commissioners Case and Tibbs took office on January 14– the County claims that the
$2,000,000, which the Plaintiffs, Commissioner Case, and Commissioner Tibbs have
all alleged was a constitutionally-prohibited loan, was in fact not a loan and that it was
perfectly legal. Has the new Board of County Commissioners changed its position on
this issue? Either way, will any further transactions of this type be conducted in the
future?

4. In the same motion, the County claims that it had the statutory authority to contract
with Dynamis as it did, such as when it issued a sham “Request for Expressions of
Interest” to other contractors even though Dynamis had already been secretly preselected
for the project and when it sought to avoid any public participation at all in the
project as a whole. Has there been any change in this position, and will the County
operate this way in the future?

5. The motion to dismiss also alleges that the Idaho Local Land Use and Planning Act was
not violated by the County even though deliberate steps were taken to avoid public
participation in major, though deliberately obscured, land-use decisions designed to
accommodate the Dynamis Project. What is the County’s position on this issue, and
will the County plan future projects in a similar manner?

6. The Plaintiffs are happy to have heard that morale among County employees has
already improved since the new Commissioners took office. What will the
Commissioners do to ensure that future Boards or individual Commissioners cannot
unduly override the recommendations of knowledgeable County employees, as was the
case when the Board ignored the concerns and recommendations of engineer Jim
Farrens, who resigned, in part, because of the County’s conduct in handling the
project?

7. The termination agreement between Ada County and Dynamis did not address
Resolution 1863, which “reaffirmed” the use of the name “ARTIC” (“Ada Renewable
Technology Industrial Complex”) and seems to leave in place the designation of the
Landfill as an “industrial park” even though base zoning designations were never
formally amended to permit that. This could lead to future “Dynamis-type” leases at
the Landfill without public auction. What is the County’s position on this issue, and
does the County have any plans to continue to operate the Landfill as an “industrial
park” along these lines?

8. Throughout the course of the Dynamis Project, the County claimed that the placement
of the planned 22-Megawatt powerplant at the Landfill under the guise of Dynamis’
“waste-to-energy gasifier” was permitted as an “ancillary use” by Ordinance 772, an
ordinance adopted over a year after the first contract with Dynamis was signed. Does
the County still take that position? Also, will any action be taken to define what
permissible “ancillary uses” might be, where the County’s current view appears to be
that virtually anything at all might be deemed an “ancillary use?”

9. On November 14, 2012, the Ada County Board of Planning and Zoning wrote to the
Board of County Commissioners after conducting the first-ever public meeting on the
Dynamis Project. Among other things, the Planning and Zoning Commission said that
“the Commission believes that the approval of this project did not afford the public and
affected persons the opportunity to comment publicly as to the effect of the project on
them, and they did not have the opportunity to provide substantive input to the approval
process.” While the Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Dynamis Project could
have been properly approved under existing land-use and zoning laws and ordinances
even through the “conditional use permit” process, they are in full agreement with the
Commission’s conclusion that the public was denied an opportunity to participate in the
project. Does the County agree? If so, what will be done to ensure that the
participation of the public is sought after, rather than avoided, for future similar
projects of this type or scale?

10. As alleged in the Complaint and in the affidavits of several scientists who analyzed
Dynamis’ potential emissions of mercury, dioxins, and other toxins, the Dynamis
Project posed a potential health and environmental hazard not only to those nearest to
it, but also to the entire population of the Treasure Valley. However, the County took
no formal action at all to examine, from either a scientific or an engineering standpoint,
the potential risks of the plant. Commissioner Yzaguirre, for one, repeatedly stated
that the County was relying upon the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) to
ensure the environmental safety of the project, even though DEQ clearly stated that it
does not audit or verify in any way the claims made by its applicants. In the future,
what will the County do to ensure that the health and safety of its people are not
threatened in this manner?

11. Some of the Plaintiffs and other private citizens who sought Dynamis-related records
from the County via Public Records Act requests have said that the County’s
compliance with their requests was often delayed, possibly deliberately, and that
invoices for hundreds of dollars for those records running into the hundreds of dollars
often dissuaded and discouraged those citizens from actually picking the records up and
from making further requests. Part of those high costs are due to the County’s practice
of billing the document-review time of attorneys and other county employees to the
requestors, even though the wages of such employees have already been paid with
taxpayer dollars. Will the County consider changing its policies and procedures in
order to ensure that its citizens have as much access as possible to County public
records, and at as low a cost as possible?