My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/11/2014
LFImages
>
County Clerk
>
Board Minutes & Agendas
>
Board of Commissioners
>
Agendas & Minutes
>
Prior Years
>
2014
>
02/11/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2015 12:14:52 PM
Creation date
2/18/2015 12:14:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
County Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
issues and listen to the voters and to please consider these things seriously. <br /> Chairman McFarland called for public participation. <br /> Jim Eriksen 4233 North Road Grand Island stated he would like to make a couple of points <br /> there is real strong need for weed control, several years ago there was the musk thistle issue <br /> and now the weeds in the river beds are even more difficult to solve. There is a need for the <br /> services and he asked how the board would administer this. Now there is an independent <br /> group that over sees the program. The voters made a decision 15 month ago. There needs to <br /> be a sound plan on how you propose to continue the services. <br /> Chairman McFarland called for public participation. <br /> Mr. Quandt stated that this is not about personalities it is about saving taxpayers money and <br /> eliminate duplication of services. He expressed concern that the action that the weed board <br /> takes is duplicated at the regular county board meetings. He also stated that Hall County was <br /> spraying weeds in Merrick County and that is not being responsible to the taxpayers. He also <br /> noted that there has not been any action by the weed board to force someone to spray weeds in <br /> 10 years. Instead of 5 weed board members there would be 7 supervisors the public can call. <br /> We need to move forward and let the public know how the dollars are being spent. <br /> Quandt made a motion and Ziola seconded to close the public hearing. Arnold, Lancaster, <br /> McFarland, Purdy, Quandt, Schuppan and Ziola all voted yes and no one voted no. Motion <br /> carried. <br /> 8. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO PLACE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE HALL <br /> COUNTY WEED DISTRICT BOARD ON THE BALLOT—Mr. Schuppan stated he agrees with <br /> some of Mr. Quandt's comments but it is too soon to bring this issue forward for the primary <br /> election. There needs to be research regarding the request to eliminate the $50.00 salary. If <br /> we bring it forward so soon it makes us look like bullies. <br /> Mr. Arnold stated he appreciated Mr Brown's written appeal. He stated he may know what <br /> musk thistle is but that's all and he is not qualified to determine other noxious weeds. Fifteen <br /> months is not a long time to ask the public to reconsider their vote. He is not willing to put this <br /> back on the ballot this soon. <br /> Mr. Purdy 15 months is too soon he wanta to give this more time <br /> Mrs. Lancaster wants to make sure that there are no misunderstandings. The weed <br /> superintendent has the responsibility to survey the county so that the noxious weeds are kept in <br /> control. We should not be subsidizing other counties. It is the officials job to monitor and <br /> control the weeds and there would still be a weed board it would be no different that the board <br /> of corrections. She stated she is not qualified to identify a noxious weed or to handle inmates <br /> but she can oversee it and make sure the department heads have the necessary tools to do <br /> their job. The public may not have had adequate information to make a good decision. We <br /> have a model in place that serves the county very well. <br /> Mr McFarland he voted against it the last time and he understands the expense to the county if <br /> they can eliminate the cost he would be in favor of that. <br /> Mr Zitterkopf read the state statute that stated the weed board members shall receive no less <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.