Fallon County weed district staff told the commission that the district’s summer crew had been efficient but warned of growing problems with poison hemlock and absinthe wormwood on roadway rights-of-way and lagoon edges. The weed supervisor said the district has treated roughly eight landowners’ roads, had crews working driveways and secondary roads, and requested the commission discuss permanently moving road spraying to the county road crew while the weed district would continue to manage pesticide purchasing and training.

The discussion centered on three operational questions: whether spraying could be carried out under the road department’s staffing with the weed supervisor’s license retained by the weed district; who would be liable on a pesticide license if a road crew applicator applied chemicals; and whether the county weed district could ethically and legally compete with private commercial applicators. The weed supervisor said crews prefer to call her when something goes wrong because a licensed applicator’s license can be at risk if work is done without proper oversight.

Commissioners and staff suggested next steps rather than taking immediate action. They asked the weed supervisor to raise the idea with the road board that evening and to return with the road superintendent’s view on day-to-day operations, chain-of-command and emergency notifications. Commissioners also asked staff to confirm the licensing options that would allow road crew employees to spray under supervision without placing the license-holder at unacceptable risk, and to check whether the new road superintendent could be licensed quickly.

Members acknowledged a private applicator has recently begun taking private-land contracts in Fallon County, prompting additional concerns about undercutting the private market if the county were to offer private-land spraying. Commissioners asked the weed supervisor to prepare a detailed winter briefing with cost comparisons, a recommended licensing model (county-held license vs individual applicator licenses), and draft policy language clarifying what the weed district would continue to manage (chemical purchasing, training, safety oversight) and what the road crew would perform (application under county supervision). The commission did not vote on any transfer; rather staff and the weed supervisor will gather legal and operational clarifications before a formal decision.

Ending: Commissioners asked the weed supervisor to bring a written proposal and to consult the road superintendent at the board’s next meeting so the commission can decide whether to adopt a permanent change in operations following a winter policy review.