Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners agree to advertise for a weed-applicator role as county discusses restarting spraying program
Summary
After acknowledging last year’s limited spraying, the commission directed staff to advertise a combined weed officer/applicator job and to return with budget and hours estimates; commissioners debated whether one hire can cover grant administration and seasonal spraying.
Commissioners agreed to advertise for a weed-applicator position and return with a detailed budget and hours estimate at the next meeting, after a wide-ranging discussion about chemical inventories, licensing and whether one person can do both administrative and field spraying duties.
Nut graf: The county has $6,000 budgeted for chemicals and $6,240 for the weed officer salary; officials said those sums are insufficient for a full-time applicator and recommended the board decide whether to reallocate duties, split responsibilities, or find short-term contractors to get spraying started this season.
What was said: The county weed officer (speaker 6) outlined existing funds and past grant activity, noting the county had placed a prior TAG grant and received under $9,000 last year for an equipment attachment. A commissioner said the county owns a pickup and sprayer and proposed giving 20 hours per week over the spraying months to a hired applicator, estimating that at $20 per hour the county could fund several hundred hours of spraying from the existing chemical budget. The county attorney and other commissioners raised management concerns: grant-writing, reporting and complaint handling consume time year-round and may make a single combined position impractical without a clear hourly breakdown.
Licensing and supervision: Commissioners discussed commercial applicator rules and whether the licensed person must supervise spraying within a certain distance; legal staff advised it creates liability concerns if the county lacks a licensed supervisor on site.
Decision and next steps: The board instructed staff to advertise the position, tally how many hours the current weed officer spends monthly on reports and grants, inventory on-hand chemicals and equipment, and return with figures on how the advertised job could be structured (seasonal hours, supervision, pay). Commissioners flagged that hiring could require a formal advertising process and that any hire must meet licensing requirements or be supervised by a licensed applicator.
Quote from the record: The weed officer said: "We have $6,000 for chemicals, $6,240 for salaries" and asked the board to consider whether that funding should be reallocated to create practical spraying capacity this year.
Implementation notes: Staff were asked to prepare a job posting, inventory chemicals and equipment and identify whether existing budget lines can be reallocated or whether the commission needs an additional appropriation at the next budget cycle.
