Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Weed Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate scope and funding of Treasure County weed-control program
Summary
A prolonged discussion on March 3 centered on what the county’s weed program is required to do, whether to hire contractors, and how to cover a roughly $4,000-plus shortfall between budgeted revenue (~$15,000) and expenses. Commissioners asked staff for clearer responsibility definitions and possible contracting rules.
Commissioners spent much of the meeting pressing for clarity on the county’s weed-control program, saying it is unclear which tasks fall to the weed board, the road department or paid contractors and whether the current $15,000 revenue budget is sufficient.
The discussion opened with a commissioner noting the county’s weed revenue of about $15,000 against expenses approaching $19,070 and saying, “If our sole goal is to actually control noxious weeds, then we have to kind of think outside of the box” (Commissioner, speaker 5). Participants reviewed program history — from a seasonal coordinator and teenage seasonal sprayers to a near full‑time coordinator — and repeatedly flagged the program’s tendency to overspend its available cash in prior years.
Commissioners and staff debated practical options. One line of thought was to hire contractors for defined areas and credential them (commissioners emphasized they must provide applicator licenses and carry contractor liability). Another was to departmentalize certain tasks so each department pays for time spent on weed-control work. A county attorney explained the legal limits: the county can issue notices to private landowners and, if owners fail to act, arrange spraying at the owner’s expense and place the cost on the owner’s tax bill, but routine private-property spraying is not an automatic county obligation.
Several commissioners asked county staff to produce a written memo clarifying: - What the weed department is responsible for (noxious weeds only, roadside mowing, or additional tasks) and how that maps to road and fire services; - The program’s revenue and expense history and where costs rolled forward from prior years; - Options and estimated costs for contracting that would keep the county within a fixed budget.
The exchange included repeated warnings about expectations: commissioners said the department should not be permitted to spend beyond the revenue available without explicit budget action, and staff agreed to research contract terms and the credentialing needed to hire outside applicators. No formal vote or resolution on a new weed policy was recorded in the transcript.
