Supervisors split on rescinding dust control fees

OPPOSES HIGHER FEES

We’re looking at $20,000 savings, that was the figure thrown out there, so I think with that being said, I would support the discontinuing of those fees.”

Matt Pflug, Lee County Supervisor

SUPPORTS INCREASED FEES

When I sit back and look at the expense we're charging, I want to ask myself if it’s unreasonable. And if it’s unreasonable now, why wasn’t it unreasonable back in January?”

Garry Seyb, Lee County Supervisor Chairman

FORT MADISON – After a lengthy discussion and some heated testimony from Lee County rural residents, the Lee County Board of Supervisors has decided to stick with a new fee structure on dust control preparation.
A very close vote that was split 2-2 headed to chairman Garry Seyb, Jr. who paused briefly before casting the deciding vote to hold on to added fees for prepping gravel surfaces for chloride treatments to keep dust down.
Shawn Wright, a resident who said he felt the fees were a punishment to rural residents putting down dust control on county-owned roads, said he would no longer pay to have the treatments applied to county roads.
“I’m out,” he said after a motion made by Supervisor Matt Pflug to revert back to the original fee structure was defeated 3-2. Pflug and Ron Fedler voted for the measure, while Chuck Holmes, Tom Schulz, and Seyb all voted against the motion.
Pflug said the county would generate about $20,000 annually with the added fees.
“We’re looking at $20,000 savings, that was the figure thrown out there, so I think with that being said, I would support the discontinuing of those fees,” Pflug said.
County Engineer Ben Hull brought the idea to the board in January as part of budget relief discussions as requested by the board.
The fees installed were $50 up to the first 500 feet of surface preparation, for lengths of 501 feet to 1,000 feet is $100, and then $50 incrementally for each 500 feet thereafter.
Seyb said to undo that at this point would require some untangling within several county departments and one private business doing the applications.
“Bills have already gone out. Some have been paid, some haven’t. There have been a number of people come in and discuss their thoughts on dust control, primarily from one road,” Seyb said.
“I’m not discounting what they had to say, I’ve heard what they’ve had to say,” Seyb said.
He said the auditor’s office, the treasurer’s office, secondary roads would all be involved in resolving the fee issue if it would have been rescinded.
Seyb said the board put the new fees into effect on Jan. 15 and in mid-March residents are asking the county to unwind what was initially a unanimous decision to put the fees in place.
“When I sit back and look at the expense we're charging, I want to ask myself if it’s unreasonable. And if it’s unreasonable now, why wasn’t it unreasonable back in January?” Seyb said.
Holmes said he received a letter from Darin Ranck, who works for Iowa Department of Transportation’s Materials Division.
Holmes read a statement from Ranck that indicated adding salt, or calcium chloride, accelerates the breakdown requiring additional maintenance which increases costs to secondary roads.
“Bottom line -  charging the dust control fees is necessary to defray the additional maintenance costs and this burden should not be placed on all of Lee County residents,” Holmes read.
Fedler said he got the same message, but said all of Lee County residents don’t pay because those costs come from a rural basic fund which is funded by residents who don’t live within city limits.
“With all those people that came in here with all kinds of different reports, I would like to see us return to the policy we had before we approved a policy to charge more for dust control,” Fedler said.
Pflug said the safety aspect is a supervisor responsibility, as well. And keeping dust down should be a priority.
Schulz read a prepared statement that addressed some residents’ claims that maintenance work that was the foundation for the increased fees was not being done.
“At last week’s meeting, representations were made by citizens that the work described by field employees was not in fact taking place at all,” Schulz said.
“Discussions and messages from field employees indicate that this is by no means the case.”
Schulz said at the same meeting, the county engineer was accused of fraud, which he said could be a litigious action.
“It would appear to me that statements like this made in an open meeting against that individual could be subject to extensive litigation.”
Several individuals at last Monday’s meeting agreed that they had not seen the preparation of roads prior to dust control measures taking place at the expense of the landowner. Some of those landowners also asked the county to not maintain the roads to the degree they currently are because that is part of the reason why the applications aren’t as effective as they could be, causing greater degradation of the surfaces.