03-07-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Comm. Minutes--March 7, 1994 1177 district boundaries, plus a representative from the two cities in the county which have a population over 5,000, as stated in the North Dakota Century Code. Mr. Risher asked County Engineer Keith Berndt to verify the figures on the income and expense summary provided by Mr. Ness. Mr. Berndt said he has reviewed the spray logs of the weed control district, and comparing the spray records to the budget came out very close. Mrs. Toussaint asked about a January 26, 1994, letter from Wayne Colberg, Weed Control Officer, to Mark Thelen, City of Fargo Finance Director, quoting a figure of $13,790 being spent for 1993 spraying in the City of Fargo. She said the figure on the 1993 income and expense summary shows that $1,938 was spent for spraying in the City of Fargo. Mr. Ness said he has attempted to find out where the discrepancy is, however, Mr. Colberg has not answered some of his questions, and several members of the Weed Control Board do not believe Mr. Ness should be asking questions. Mr. Ness is concerned about Mr. Colberg spending 60-70 hours per month for the months of November, December, January and February; and he has asked Mr. Colberg to account for the number of hours spent during these winter months. A suggestion was made by Mr. Ness to put this operation under the management of the County Engineer for accountability reasons. Mr. Eckert said if some townships do not get much spraying done, it may be because they have very little leafy spurge problems in their area but they are willing to pay for spraying in other townships to try to eradicate it. He said the City of Fargo did not levy for county weed control and possibly for the reason indicated by Mr. Ness, that they may feel they are not getting their dollar's worth, however, one of the proposals for restructuring the weed board would give Fargo controlling authority. Mrs. Toussaint asked how that would differ from the County Park Board membership and how it works, and Mr. Eckert said that is wrong, too, in his estimation. Mr. Wieland said he does not mind paying for weed control because he believes it is necessary, but he is interested in making sure that it is administered properly in terms of accountability and the need for representation. Mr. Ness referred to a letter from the City of Fargo saying they are willing to put all of their levy into the county weed board and hire the weed officer to follow a procedure which they would establish. The ultimate goal would be for the record title landowner to spray the weeds or else the city would contract the work and bill the landowner. Mr. Ness said Mr. Colberg did not want to do that. Mr. Eckert said that was a weed board decision not to follow the procedure outlined by the City of Fargo. Ken Hejl, member of the Weed Control Board from the northeast district of the county, was present and said the above action was a policy decision of the weed board, obviously based upon a recommendation of Mr. Colberg, but the reason for not doing it that way was because of the time frame involved. He also said Mr. Colberg intends to respond to Mr. Ness in regard to the discrepancy on weed spraying expenditures in the City of Fargo.