Borough weight-restriction waiver a potentially destructive policy

Spring breakup is here, and so is the crucial time when northern roads are most vulnerable to potential damage from heavy commercial traffic. Unless weight restrictions are posted and enforced, foundation failures during this season can transform a surface that is reliable any other time of year into a money pit of repairs.

The signage restricting axle weights (violations can incur a $1,000 fine) is already up in the Mat-Su Borough, but a new permitting program instituted by the borough assembly earlier this year will allow for over-weight loads during breakup — potentially a “pay to damage” process for borough roads.

Spearheaded by District 6 representative Dmitri Fonov — a contractor — and passed over some assembly objections, this measure further erodes public trust and points to a representative body that just isn’t considering the broader constituency. It’s just bad public policy, seemingly benefiting a few, while any potential cost will be borne by the many.

As written, and for a $100 fee, operators can apply for one round-trip per day per vehicle and must provide vehicle details, start and stop points, date of travel and justification for nondivisible loads, which would primarily apply to heavy equipment like excavators, loaders and dozers that can’t be disassembled. No route of travel or timeframe is required in the permit, which doesn’t seem to help track and monitor these allowed loads.

Borough enforcement of overweight vehicles already is a challenging endeavor. That’s not to fault the Public Works staff -- they have some 1,100 miles of road to oversee. And while each permit is to be reviewed by the borough manager, I don’t envy putting that signature on something that could potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands in the long run.

Also, these loads most likely will have to cross state roads at some point, and DOT inspectors or troopers could potentially pull over an operator. Imagine that scene when a borough permit gets waved around on a state road.

At assembly meetings, testimony on this ordinance has been largely opposed. Road Service Area board members have either been against it or at least asked for some enforcement teeth to be added to the measure. And apparently, some pushback is getting through: at the April 7 assembly meeting, OR 26-045 — a measure adding more restrictions to the permit — was approved for an April 21 public hearing. At the same April 7 meeting, though, Fonov tried to amend the measure to appear on the July public hearing calendar, essentially allowing any potential damage done during this year’s breakup to have no accountability.

Are there unscrupulous operators who violate weight restrictions every year? Without a doubt there are — we’ve all seen them. But why incentivize and sanction the potential destruction of borough roads? And all for $100 a pop, an amount burned in diesel fuel in less than two hours these days.

If the ordinance is to remain, at a minimum, more narrow allowances (approved uses like emergency septic system repairs, etc.) and steeper fines should be added.

Planning and maintenance of borough road infrastructure is incredibly vital now with the region’s exponential growth; this measure seems to overlook that. The shortsighted policy reminds me of an axiom from the late Gov. Jay Hammond, who said (and I’m paraphrasing), “who benefits and who pays?” For an assembly that likes to tout its fiscal hawk bona fides — and there is nothing wrong with that — it sure looks like special interest favoritism and a potential conflict of interest could leave the borough taxpayer on the hook for a lot of money.

Steven Merritt is a longtime Valley resident who lives in Palmer.