Dust control option pitched (5/12/05)

An experiment that could reduce dust on some of Jay County’s stone roads — and perhaps eventually lead to conversion of some of those roads to a chip-and-seal surface — got a warm reception Wednesday from members of the Jay County Council.

First-year Jay County Commissioner Faron Parr, chairman of the county road committee, told the council the committee recently voted to recommend that a maximum of $100,000 in non-tax funds be spent on an experimental dust control program on stone roads.

The county paid for a calcium chloride dust control application on 17 miles of stone roads in 2004, and the committee recommended a second application on the same 17 miles, as well as an initial application on as many miles as possible.

Parr said the committee is recommending that the work be paid out of the county infrastructure fund, which is generated through fees and revenue from operations of the Jay County Landfill.

The recommendations will be taken to the commissioners. If approved, a request for an additional appropriation out of the infrastructure fund would go to the council.

Parr said that a program begun several years ago of converting stone roads to a triple chip-and-seal surface has brought mixed results, with many of those converted roads breaking apart because of an inadequate base.

Sales representatives from companies selling calcium chloride dust mats have told the commissioners that several years of applications can actually harden a surface enough to prepare it for chip-and-sealing.

“We’re looking for something better that we could be doing,” Parr said.

He hopes that the experiment will eventually lead to a break-even point where savings on stone will equal the amount spent on the dust control program.

Parr said Wednesday the county is spending approximately $500,000 annually on maintenance of stone roads, or about $4,000 for each of the approximately 272 miles.

Also Wednesday, members of the council passed a resolution that will allow Jay County Commissioners to pursue the purchase a vacant building at 116-118 W. Walnut St. across from the courthouse. If purchased, the building would be torn down and the lot used for courthouse overflow parking.

The resolution allows the commissioners to obtain two appraisals of the property, as required by law. The purchase price could be no higher than the average of those two appraisals. The resolution does not authorize the purchase, only the appraisals.

In other business Wednesday, members of the council:

•Approved additional appropriations of $18,000 to various Jay County organizations from the Drug Free Fund; and $500 from the Clerk Perpetuation Fund into a clerk office equipment line item. The council tabled action on a request for additional appropriations from two emergency management grant funds to request more information from Jay County Emergency Management Agency director Ralph Frazee.

•Approved tax abatement guidelines recommended by the Jay County Tax Abatement Advisory Committee and chairman Bob Quadrozzi, executive director of Jay County Development Corporations. The guidelines, which mirror current practice, call for creation of one job or retention of 10 jobs, unless the investment exceeds $250,000.

The recommendations also state that the council may approve exceptions.

“You need to stay flexible,” Quadrozzi said. (The guidelines) don’t change what you’re doing a whole lot.”

•Heard a report from Jay County community developer Wayne Bailey, who said that “the communities are still doing planning; they’re still developing projects, and we’re still finding funding.”

He said the total impact of the office, which has been in existence since August of 2000, has been more than $2.2 million in grants awarded and services provided, with another $2 million in grant requests pending.

•Agreed to request that department heads and elected officials request a maximum 5 percent increase in 2006 budget requests for salaries, with the understanding those requests will likely be lowered during the budget approval process.[[In-content Ad]]An effort to soothe tension over a cooperative zoning effort for the county and city of Portland wasn’t an unqualified success.

But it wasn’t a failure, either.

The issue has been simmering since the Jay County Council turned down a request for a transfer in April to pay for new office furniture for the Jay/Portland Building and Planning Office.

Portland Mayor Bruce Hosier and Robert McCreery, chairman of the Jay/Portland Building and Planning Board, talked to the council Wednesday night, making a case that an agreement creating the department in 1998 gives a joint board comprised of city and county representatives sole authority.

“There was no intent to circumvent the legislative body of the council (with the office furniture purchase). We feel like we followed proper protocol,” Hosier told council members. “I think (the inter-local agreement creating the department in 1998) shows the city and county can work together for the betterment of the people.”

But members of the council, including president Jack Houck, said they were hesitant to give up their oversight role over budgetary matters because the budget for the office is run through the county, with half of the costs shared by the city of Portland.

“Who’s holding this in checks and balances? ... We have that with other committees,” Houck said. “I’d like to have an amendment that says that we can do that.”

McCreery, who has been a member of the joint board since its creation, replied, “I guess you’re saying that you don’t trust us.”

Houck said that was not the case.

Houck, Hosier and other representatives from the city and county plan to meet to discuss proposed changes to the agreement governing building and planning.

Members of the council, asked Wednesday to reconsider their vote on the transfer of $2,300 within the building and planning budget for the purchase of the office furniture for the department’s new location, once again denied the request by a 4-3 vote. Voting to deny the request were Marilyn Coleman, Gerald Kirby, Jim Zimmerman and Judy LeMaster — despite being urged to vote for the request by Houck.

Voting to approve the transfer were Todd Wickey, George Meehan and Houck.

Hosier explained Wednesday that he had consulted with Commissioner Milo Miller Jr. about the move of building and planning from the courthouse into the new location with four other entities and that Miller had been in favor of the move.

The furniture was ordered prior to the council’s vote on the matter last month.

George Lopez, the county council’s attorney, said Wednesday, as he said in April when the transfer was first denied, that he does not believe the interlocal agreement prohibits the council from denying a budget request from the department.

Lopez said it is his opinion that the director and administrative assistant are county employees — a point disputed vigorously by McCreery Wednesday.

“(The agreement) says they are ‘considered’ county employees,” McCreery said. “They are not, theoretically, county employees.”

“Who writes the paycheck?” asked Lopez, who will be involved in the discussions regarding possible amending of the agreement.

Kirby, who is a fan of the concept of joint zoning, said the problem with the transfer request was in the presentation by department director Bill Milligan.

“When somebody comes to you with the simple explanation that we need to make it look like everybody else (in the new Community Resource Center), where do you go from there?” Kirby asked rhetorically.