Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quarry Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Justice Johnson urges geological testing before Marion County expands quarry operations
Summary
At the July 14 Marion County court session, Justice Johnson presented a technical review of the county quarry and newly acquired land, recommending quad‑core drilling and detailed tonnage accounting before expanding operations to avoid potentially large unforeseen costs.
Justice Johnson told Marion County justices on July 14 that the county should complete subsurface testing and a measured production analysis before expanding quarry operations onto recently acquired acreage.
Johnson, presenting during unfinished business, said officials need ‘quad core drilling’ to confirm the subsurface rock quality on the newly purchased 10.9 acres and to estimate remaining usable material at the existing quarry. “You don’t know unless you do quad core drilling, and that needs to be done,” he said, arguing that drilling would prevent costly surprises if the county later encounters unusable clay or cavernous conditions underground.
He urged the court to quantify existing reserves and annual tonnage removed, estimate tonnage available on the new site and model how long horizontal extraction would sustain operations. Johnson warned that if the county assumes continuity between the old and new sites without testing, it could be forced to shift to vertical extraction with much higher costs.
Johnson also flagged equipment and facility issues. Reviewing the county’s rock crusher, he said replacement costs could be substantial, noting in his presentation that used crushers can be unreliable and that “you can get in a half 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 easy” for a replacement. He suggested careful consideration of whether to continue in‑house crushing or outsource if replacement is required. He also recommended comparing the estimated cost of a new maintenance shop (for which he offered a working estimate) against the potential savings and operational benefits.
Johnson recommended the court run cost‑benefit scenarios that include: core drilling results, the crusher’s remaining productive life, daily tonnage capacity, the economics of outsourcing crushing, and the estimated lifespan and payback of a new shop. He said these figures will help avoid “real money problems” if the county builds new facilities and then faces equipment failure.
The presentation concluded without formal action; Johnson said he had provided materials to the judge and planned to bring his information to court and to commissioners so the county can plan rather than react. No ordinance or appropriation related to the quarry was adopted during the session.
The judge thanked Johnson for the presentation. The court did not vote on any quarry expansion at this meeting; Johnson’s recommendations provide the factual groundwork for future policy or capital decisions.
