Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pest Control And Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brookings County approves DOT joint‑powers pocket‑gopher baiting agreement
Summary
The Brookings County Commission approved Agreement No. 25-32, a joint‑powers agreement with the South Dakota Department of Transportation for pocket‑gopher baiting on state highways in the county; county Weed and Pest staff said the state will reimburse costs and the work is tentatively scheduled to begin April 14.
Brookings County commissioners on April 1 approved Agreement No. 25-32, a joint‑powers agreement with the State of South Dakota Department of Transportation to provide pocket‑gopher baiting services on state highways within the county.
County Weed and Pest staff told the commission the county has done the work annually and will continue under the DOT agreement. The staff member said the state will bill the county for work at the end of the spring run and again in the fall, and the county will be reimbursed for the approved amount. The staff member said the county’s plan is to begin the work “tentatively the April 14.”
The commission voted unanimously to approve the agreement. A roll call recorded “aye” votes from Commissioners Vanderwall, Post, Miller, Hosler and Jensen.
Why it matters: the agreement lets county Weed and Pest apply control measures on state‑maintained roads with the DOT covering agreed costs, affecting maintenance scheduling along state routes inside Brookings County.
Details and discussion: Commissioners asked whether the county had conducted the work previously and whether any private applicators were available; county Weed and Pest staff said the county has done the program for more than 10 years and that no private applicator had requested to perform pocket‑gopher poisoning in the county this year. Staff said the program “includes all the state highways within Brookings County,” and explicitly mentioned Interstate 29; other specific route numbers mentioned during the exchange were unclear in the audio and are not specified in the record.
Staff also clarified the reimbursement process: the state will submit a bill after the spring run and again in the fall, and the county cannot exceed the contract amount that was included in the packet. No dollar amount was stated on the public record at the time of the motion.
Commission action: the motion to approve Agreement No. 25-32 passed by unanimous roll call. The transcript records the motion, a second and the five “aye” votes; no member voted no, abstained or was recorded absent for this item.
Next steps: staff will proceed under the terms of the joint‑powers agreement and schedule the baiting runs subject to weather and operational constraints.
