MINUTES November 25, 2014

MINUTES
South Dakota One Call Notification Board
Enforcement Panel Conference Call
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Location:  Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc.
608 W. 14th St., Miller, S.D.
10 a.m. CST, 9 a.m. MST

Roll Call: 
Enforcement Panel Members in attendance: Erin Hayes; Bleau LaFave; Fay Jandreau; John Ward; Kurt Pfeifle. Also attending: Executive Director, Larry Janes.

Other attendees:
Others in attendance: Wade Jutila, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Brad Ficken, Concrete Professionals; Jeremy Nehl, Decorative Concrete Design; Rollie Hoeke, City of Brandon, SD; Todd Chambers, Watertown Municipal Utilities; Steve Lehner, Watertown Municipal Utilities.

Order of Business:
Larry Janes provided a brief description of the Enforcement Panel process, including that this is a legal proceeding and that no comments by either party may be taken during this call. A probable cause determination will be made based only on the written documentation received from both parties in the complaint. Both parties will be given the opportunity to request a hearing before the full South Dakota One Call Notification Board, if either disagrees with the recommendation of the Panel. The request must be received within 20 days of issuance of the recommendation.  If a hearing is not requested, the Enforcement Panel recommendation will be presented to the South Dakota One Call Board of Directors for acceptance at the next Board Meeting.  A final Order will then be mailed to each party. If a penalty amount is assessed, payment must be made within 30 days of the issuance of the Order. In addition to any penalty payments, there may also be other requirements to be met.

(NOTE: For the purpose of continuity, these minutes are not necessarily in chronological order.)

OC14-017 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Lance Wellman, Hill City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on April 16, 2014, at 2451 Emerson Ln., Rapid City, S.D. 

On July 14, 2014, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Lance Wellman (Wellman)  severed a gas line while digging without a locate request.

At the October 9, 2014 Enforcement Panel Meeting, the Panel deferred this complaint to the next Enforcement Panel meeting due to the lack of a correct mailing address for Wellman.  It had been determined by Legal Counsel of the South Dakota One Call Board that it is the responsibility of Montana-Dakota Utilities Company to provide a correct address.  To date, MDU has not provided a new mailing address.

Today shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification board dismiss the complaint against Wellman, or shall the complaint be deferred to a future date?

DISMISS OR DEFER:
Fay Jandreau made a motion to dismiss this complaint.  Erin Hayes seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-022 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Second Nature Landscaping, Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on July 2, 2014, at 2915 Marlin Dr., Rapid, S.D. 
Date Filed: 09/19/14

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Second Nature Landscaping (Second Nature) dug through a 50 psi gas line using an expired locate ticket.
Second Nature did not respond to the complaint.

There have been no previous complaints filed against Second Nature.  

Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Second Nature violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:  
Kurt Pfeifle made a motion that there is probable cause that Second Nature violated 49-7A-5.  Bleau LaFave seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Fay Jandreau said that without a response from Second Nature, it’s difficult to determine intent.  He said there were no responses from the next 4 items to consider today, and he wondered if there is an error in the process.  John Ward stated with no response it has to be called intentional.  He made a motion stating that.  Bleau LaFave seconded the motion.  He agreed by stating that defendants need to respond to complaints.  He said we can look at the process, but he’s unsympathetic to non-responders.  What we do have is a lack of what we don’t have for discussion purposes.  Fay Jandreau mentioned that in each of the complaints the operator did not mention that a complaint would be filed.  Bleau LaFave stated that utilities should be communicating with excavators when a complaint will be filed.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
Fay Jandreau made a motion to assess a penalty of $750 with $500 suspended with the following requirements:  Second Nature must not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Second Nature must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Second Nature must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  John Ward seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-023 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.  (MDU), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against J X T Excavating (JXT), New Underwood, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on July 3, 2014, at 7341 Castlewood Dr., Summerset, S.D.

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that JXT dug through a 50 psi gas line while excavating without a locate ticket.

JXT did not respond to the complaint.

Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that JXT violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:  
There have been no previous complaints filed against JXT.  Bleau LaFave made a motion stating that there is probable cause that JXT violated 49-7A-5.  Erin Hayes seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
John Ward made a motion stating that this was an intentional violation.  Bleau LaFave seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
John Ward stated that he has a problem with all these complaints with no locates.  He made a motion stating that the Panel assess a penalty of $1,000 and suspend $500 with the following requirements:
JXT must not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, JXT must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and JXT must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Bleau LaFave seconded the motion.  Fay Jandreau asked why the amount would be different than the previous complaint recommendation.  John Ward mentioned that he could understand forgetting that a locate ticket had expired, but not getting a locate ticket is different.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-024 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Olson Construction Inc. (Olson), Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on July 8, 2014, at 824 Farlow St., Rapid City, S.D. 

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Olson dug through a 35 psi gas line while excavating without a locate ticket.

Olson did not respond to the complaint.

There have been no previous complaints filed against Olson.

Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Olson violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION: 
John Ward made a motion stating that there is probable cause that a violation of 49-7A-5 occurred.  Fay Jandreau seconded.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
John Ward made a motion stating that this was an intentional violation.  Erin Hayes seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
John Ward made a motion that for consistence the penalty amount should be $1,000 with $500 suspended with the following requirements:  Olson must not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Olson must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Olson must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-025 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) (MDU), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Nelsen Construction (Nelson), Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on July 21, 2014, at 3249 Marvel Mt. Rd., Rapid City, S.D.

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Nelsen damaged a 50 psi gas line while excavating on an expired locate ticket.
Nelsen did not respond to the complaint.
There have been no previous complaints filed against Nelson.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Nelsen violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:  
Fay Jandreau made a motion that there is probable cause that a violation of 49-7A-5 occurred.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Bleau LaFave made a motion that this was an intentional violation.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
John Ward made a motion to assess a penalty of $1,000 and $500 suspended.  Erin Hayes seconded.  Fay Jandreau asked why not $750.  John stated that there was almost a month difference between when the locate ticket expired and when the violation happened.  John Ward then amended the penalty amount to $750 with $500 suspended with the following requirements:  Nelson must not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Nelson must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Nelson must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Erin Hayes agreed to amend her original second and seconded this motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-026 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Concrete Professionals (Professionals), Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on September 3, 2014, at 305 E. Bengal Dr., Rapid City, S.D. 

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Professional augered through a 50 psi gas line while working without a locate ticket.

Mr. Brad Ficken, Professionals, responded on October 8, 2014 by stating that this was not intentional, but was due to a miscommunication between himself and an employee.  Mr. Ficken further stated that in the future he will make sure that every job is located prior to starting work on every job they perform whether they are drilling or not.
There have been no previous complaints filed against Professionals.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Professionals violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:
Fay Jandreau made a motion that there is probable cause that a violation of 49-7A-5 did occur.  Erin Hayes seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Fay Jandreau mentioned that in the complaint MDU stated they believed this to be an intentional violation, and that Professionals stated in their response that it was not intentional, but was due to an internal miscommunication.  Fay said that no one ever damages underground lines on purpose, but the violation can be intentional.  Bleau LaFave agreed and made a motion stating this was an intentional violation.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
Fay Jandreau made a motion stating that with no locate request a $1,000 penalty should be assessed with $500 suspended.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Bleau LaFave agreed with the penalty, but he said that encouragement to respond along with a hope that practices are changed should be considered.  He suggested that the amount be changed to $1,000 with $750 suspended.  Fay Jandreau agreed and amended his motion to $1,000 penalty with $750 suspended with the following standard requirements:  Professionalsmust not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Professionals must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Professionals must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Kurt Pfeifle amended his second.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-027 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU), Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Decorative Concrete Design (Design), Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on September 4, 2014, at 612 Ziebach St., Rapid City, S.D. 

On September 19, 2014 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint alleging that Design damaged a 55 psi gas line while excavating without a locate request.

Mr. Jeremy Nehl, Design, responded on October 9, 2014 by stating that they did not have a locate ticket.  He did not feel they were excavating and that the gas line was too shallow.  Mr. Nehl went on to say that after reading the One Call book he has a better understanding of South Dakota One Call rules and will call in on all any and all jobs that require any type of ground work regardless of the depth or size.
There have been no previous complaints filed against Design.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Design violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION: 
Fay Jandreau made a motion stating there is probable cause that a violation of 49-7A-5 occurred.  John Ward seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Fay Jandreau stated that it appears that Design may have been pushing surface dirt above grade, but dug a few inches into the dirt, while doing so, and unintentionally damaged the gas line.  Bleau LaFave had a different assessment from the other side, however there were no pictures to review.  Fay Jandreau made a motion that this was unintentional.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
Bleau LaFave made a motion to assess a penalty of $500 with $250 suspended with the following standard requirements:  Design must not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Design must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Design must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-028 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by Watertown Municipal Utilities (Watertown), Watertown, South Dakota, Against Hobart Construction (Hobart), Watertown, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on September 15, 2014, at 1155 Fourth St. NW, Watertown, S.D.

On September 23, 2014, Watertown Municipal Utilities (Watertown) filed a complaint alleging that Hobart damaged a 120/240 v electrical line while working without a locate request.  Work continued for another day without a locate request.

Hobart did not respond to the complaint.
There was a previous complaint filed against Hobart in 2011 for excavating without a locate ticket, although none in the last 12 months.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Hobart violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION: 
Fay Jandreau mad e motion stating there is probable cause that there is a violation of 49-7A-5.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Kurt Pfeifle made a motion stating that this violation was intentional.  John Ward seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
John Ward stated that it bothers him that they continued to work without a locate ticket after the damaged occurred.  Bleau LaFave made a motion to assess a penalty of $1,000 with $250 suspended.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  A question was asked of the maximum penalty that could be assessed for an intentional violation.  $5,000 can be assessed per SDCL 49-7A-19 for the first intentional violation within 12 months.  John Ward mentioned that a suspended amount can be an incentive to attend the Spring Damage Prevention meeting and to hold the in-house safety meeting.  Bleau LaFave amended his motion to assess a $1,500 penalty with $750 suspended with the following standard requirements:  Hobartmust not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Hobart must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Hobart must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-030 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by City of Brandon, Brandon (Brandon), South Dakota, Against Krueger Excavating Inc. (Krueger), Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on September 19, 2014, at 0 E. Ponderosa Circle, Brandon, S.D.

On September 25, 2014 the City of Brandon (Brandon) filed a complaint alleging that Krueger began work on a project prior to the start date and time on the locate ticket.

Krueger did respond to the complaint on November 20, 2014 stating they knew where the utilities were.

Both parties provided ticket numbers, but did not provided copies of the locate tickets as evidence.
There have been no previous complaints filed against Krueger.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Krueger violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:  
A question was raised regarding why the locate ticket numbers provided by Krueger could not be looked up by the Panel for consideration.  Larry Janes said that Legal Counsel has previously advised that the actual locate ticket, not just the locate ticket number, must be provided as evidence per SDCL 49-7A-25.  Fay Jandreau then made a motion stating that, looking at the dates provided, there is probable cause that a violation of 49-7A-5 occurred.  Erin Hayes seconded the motion.  Bleau LaFave said the ticket provided by Brandon indicated that Krueger started on September 23rd, which was earlier than allowed.  A vote was called after there was no additional discussion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Bleau LaFave made a motion that this was an intentional violation.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
Fay Jandreau state this was an active work site.  Krueger was plugged into where the facilities were.  Bleau LaFave agreed.  Fay Jandreau made a motion to assess a penalty of $1,000 with $750 suspended with the following standard requirements:  Kruegermust not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Krueger must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Krueger must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Bleau LaFave seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

OC14-031 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by CenturyLink, Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Salzsieder Construction (Salzsieder), Spearfish, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on August 25, 2014, at the Alley between Oliver and Ames North of St. Joe, Spearfish, S.D. 

On October 9, 2014 CenturyLink filed a complaint alleging that Salzsieder sawed off a four foot section of an 1800 pair cable while working without a locate ticket.

Mr. Dave L. Claggett, J.D. responded on behalf of Salzseider Construction on October 27, 2014 by stating that Mr. Salzsieder did in fact have a locate ticket, and took the proper steps to contact CenturyLink. The cable was not properly marked, and Centurylink did not timely respond to Mr. Salzsieder’s phone calls to resolve this matter at the location.
On October 26, 2014 CenturyLink requested that the complaint be withdrawn.  A locate was requested, but due to a misspelling, the locate ticket could not be found under the name Salzeider.
There have been no previous complaints filed against Salzsieder.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Salzsieder violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION:  
Bleau LaFave made a motion that there is no probable cause that any violation occurred.  Kurt Pfeifle seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.  The violation is dismissed.

OC14-032 – In the Matter of the Complaint Filed by CenturyLink, Rapid City, South Dakota, Against Black Hills Septic and Ditching (Septic), Rapid City, South Dakota, for an Incident Occurring on August 27, 2014, at the Rear of 205½ E. Watertown St., Rapid City, S.D.

On October 14, 2014 CenturyLink filed a complaint alleging that Septic damaged 300 pair and 900 pair communications cables while excavating with a backhoe.

On November 10, 2014, Mr. Aaron Olson, Septic, responded by stating that CenturyLink’s cables were not marked prior to excavation, although other lines were marked.
Both parties provided locate ticket numbers, however only Septic party provided a locate ticket as evidence.  There have been no previous complaints filed against Septic.
Today, shall the Enforcement Panel of the South Dakota One Call Notification Board find that there is probable cause that Septic violated any statute or rule under the jurisdiction of the Board, and if so shall a civil penalty be assessed?

PROBABLE CAUSE DISCUSSION: 
John Ward stated the locate ticket was valid on August 25th, and the damage was on August 27th.  Kurt Pfeifle said there was a dispute on when the pictures were taken.  John Ward said that locators are good at documenting locates.  Bleau LaFave made a motion that a violation of 49-7A-8 occurred due to using excavation equipment within 18” of a marked facility.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Kurt Pfeifle mentioned that CenturyLink cited Administrative Rules 20:25:03:05:02 Excavator responsibilities for the preservation of markings and 20:25:03:05:03 Excavator responsibilities when excavating near markings in the complaint.  A vote was called after there was no additional discussion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT: 
Kurt Pfeifle said he did not believe the complaint to be intentional, just careless.  Erin Hayes mentioned there were marks on the ground.  Kurt Pfeifle asked if the marks were there or was the excavator careless.  Erin Hayes said she was leaning toward this being an intentional violation.  Kurt Pfeifle said he was leaning the other way, that when the crews arrive the marks weren’t there or were discernible.  The excavator was careless by not preserving the marks and the crew began digging.  Bleau LaFave said that looking at the pictures it’s hard to understand how can one dig a hole approximately 8 feet from a pedestal and a assume that a cable is not there.  Fay Jandreau said that it looks like they (Septic) dug along the cable and hit it.  John Ward stated this has to be considered as intentional.  Erin Hayes then made a motion stating this was an intentional violation.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Bleau LaFave said they had a valid locate ticket, but maybe used poor judgment when digging.  This has to be considered when looking at intent.  Fay Jandreau stated looking at the picture it shows the damage wasn’t caused by digging with a shovel.  A vote was called after there was no additional discussion.  Motion carried upon a roll call vote, with Kurt Pfeifle voting nay.

PENALTY DISCUSSION: 
Bleau LaFave made a motion to assess a penalty amount of $1,000 with $750 suspended with the following standard requirements:  Septicmust not be found guilty of a One Call violation within 12 months of the final Board Order, the penalty payment must be made within 30 days of the final Board Order, Septic must attend a Damage Prevention meeting in 2015, and Septic must conduct an in-house safety meeting to discuss South Dakota One Call laws. Detail of the discussion material, date and length of the meeting, along with the printed and signed names of attendees will be submitted to the Executive Director of South Dakota One Call within 30 days of the final Board Order. If any of these conditions are not met, the entire amount will be immediately due and owing.  Fay Jandreau seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.
Being no further business Larry Janes asked for a motion to adjourn.  Kurt Pfeifle made the motion.  Erin Hayes seconded. Motion carried unanimously upon a roll call vote.

Minutes of this meeting were prepared by Larry Janes, Executive Director, South Dakota One Call Notification Board.

Larry L. Janes
Executive Director
South Dakota One Call
exedir@sdonecall.com
(605) 339-0529