Commission split over roadside glyphosate use; two competing resolutions proposed

Commissioners spent an extended portion of the work session debating the county's roadside spraying program and the use of glyphosate-based pre-emergent herbicides.

One commissioner described the goal as encouraging Bermuda grass growth and reducing tall, hazardous vegetation while expressing health and environmental concerns about glyphosate: "I believe this stuff's toxic, and I believe it's bad for our health to keep doing it." Another commissioner and county road staff warned that removing glyphosate could lengthen mowing cycles and increase maintenance costs and erosion, and they urged caution about replacing it without a trial.

Participants identified three options: - Fund and buy a substitute product that replaces glyphosate for the February pre-emergent application (which would require a budget increase); - Skip the February pre-emergent spray entirely this year and observe results; or - Adopt a targeted program that eliminates pre-emergent spraying but permits spot treatment for woody brush, Johnson grass and other problem species.

Commissioners said they would place competing resolutions on the next agenda: one to increase the road department's budget to pay for the substitute product, one to skip the pre-emergent spring spray, and another to focus spraying on woody brush and Johnson grass only. Road staff explained operational trade-offs: glyphosate kills grasses but can lead to increased broadleaf weeds later; alternatives may require different timing and moisture conditions.

No final resolution was adopted at the session. Commissioners discussed budget implications and asked road staff and the county attorney to draft resolution language and cost estimates for the next meeting.

Ending: The commission agreed to put multiple, competing resolutions on a future agenda so the full commission can vote; staff were asked to supply cost estimates and draft language.