Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Inspection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs who must inspect 640-acre site and whether officer should be paid
Summary
Oliver County’s weed control officer sought board direction about inspecting a 640‑acre parcel tied to the North Plains Connector project and raised compensation concerns for doing on-site verification; members debated whether the county or contractor should bear costs and whether the county commission sets inspection fees.
The board discussed whether a site inspection of a 640‑acre parcel should be completed by the weed control officer and whether the board can charge a fee for that work. The officer (S2) said he had been asked to inspect the property and raised the possibility that the work could require compensation beyond volunteer pay.
S2 described the scope: "That is their purchased area ... there's probably only about 0.333 of it that's been disturbed at this point," and he asked whether the board has authority or a fee schedule for charging for inspection or consulting services. He noted the last consulting fee he saw was "around $325 an hour" versus his volunteer rate of "$28 an hour," and suggested a flat fee as a practical option. Board members discussed that the county commission typically sets fees and that the weed board may need to propose compensation to the commissioners for approval.
Members also debated whether a site inspection is necessary when the landowner or contractor is the primary party responsible for post‑construction control. Presenter (S5) said the company would contract locals for vegetation control and that the landowner accepts ultimate responsibility, but the board left the question of who pays the inspecting officer unresolved and decided to seek guidance from the county commissioners.
