Dunn County adopts alternating mowing-and-spray schedule; will accommodate no-spray requests

Dunn County Highway Committee members agreed March 12 to an alternating countywide schedule of roadside herbicide spraying and mechanical mowing, a move officials said balances cost, crew workload and resident concerns about herbicide use.

Committee members and highway staff said the decision follows months of public inquiries, including requests from organic farmers and homeowners who do not want herbicide applied adjacent to their property. The committee endorsed “option 3,” a plan to alternate spraying and mowing across different halves of the county year to year and to accommodate specific no-spray requests where feasible.

Highway staff presented four options at the meeting: continue full-width spraying across the county; revert to countywide mowing only; split the county and spray one half while mowing the other half each year; or alternate spraying and mowing countywide year to year. Staff recommended alternating treatment and noted spraying is materially cheaper and less equipment‑intensive than mowing: packet figures showed a per‑mile cost of about $209 when spraying the full 22-foot width versus roughly $145 per mile when spraying a narrower 10-foot strip, excluding equipment maintenance costs. Staff also said brush-control herbicides have multi‑year residual effects and that a reduced brush-control schedule could cut cost further.

Committee members discussed practical and safety tradeoffs. Highway staff and members noted mowing gives better immediate sightlines at intersections but takes longer and increases equipment wear. Several committee members favored alternating treatments and asked staff to accommodate individual no‑spray requests by marking those locations on operating maps and, where reasonable, reducing spray width to 10 feet adjacent to sensitive properties.

Highway staff described a likely operating pattern: spray early in the season before mowing contractors begin work, and schedule mowing passes after the peak growth season. Staff said electronic mapping, flags and driver briefings would be needed to avoid accidental spraying of flagged parcels.

The committee did not adopt a binding ordinance; the decision was recorded as a committee consensus directing staff to implement the alternating schedule for 2025 operations and to develop written procedures for handling no‑spray requests and reduced spray-width accommodations.

Committee members asked staff to provide a map of proposed alternating sectors, an estimate of projected cost savings and a draft written procedure for committee review at a future meeting.

For now, staff will proceed with alternating spraying and mowing in 2025 and develop the administrative steps (maps, driver instructions and outreach) needed to track and honor no‑spray requests.

Ending: The committee’s choice aims to balance operating cost and equipment availability with safety and resident concerns. Staff will return with maps and a proposed written procedure to govern no‑spray accommodations and spray-width limits.