Board debates $1M convenience‑center grading, compactors and bear problems; adopts revised tire fee schedule

The Board of Supervisors spent extensive time on Aug. 12 discussing solid‑waste operations after staff reported a proposed convenience‑center site that would require substantial earthwork and grading. The planning options presented ranged from about $1.02 million to $1.4 million depending on grading, pond size and export assumptions; the county also reported approximately $678,000 in available funds toward the project. Board members and staff debated whether spending large sums to prepare the current site was fiscally prudent or whether the county should seek flatter land with less grading or pursue compactors and manned convenience sites as an alternative. Supervisors repeatedly cited the county’s bear problem (bears accessing loose trash at green‑box sites), public‑safety liability concerns when bears and unsecured dumpsters attract people and wildlife, recurring public complaints about illegal dumping and the risk of habituating bears to food sources. Staff described recent operational steps: moving some recycling boxes, adding cameras at problem sites, and planning short‑term relocations of boxes to reduce liability. Staff also said county crews would try roll‑offs and temporary rollouts where needed and that they plan to test camera and staffing approaches. The conversation touched on multiple technical options: electric fences at some acceptable sites, purchasing commercially produced “bear‑proof” boxes (some prior purchases were breached or were quickly learned by wildlife), or building locally fabricated boxes (which raised legal and patent‑risk questions staff said they would check with counsel). Several supervisors called for exploring locally fabricated prototypes at small scale to test whether a local solution could work before committing large grading funds. Given the high projected grading costs for the selected site (estimates included: Option 1 ~$1.4M, Option 2 ~$1.2M, Option 3 ~$1.022M; net export line item ~$982,000 and 33,000 cubic yards referenced in staff figures), the board directed staff to continue looking for alternate properties, provide a concrete compactor‑site cost comparison (acreage needs, transformer/three‑phase power, staffing, truck changes and operating cost), and bring compactors’ operating models and references (other localities) back to the board. The board also addressed solid‑waste user fees and tire disposal. After discussion that weighed revenue and operational realities — including residents’ likely responses if fees rose steeply and operational difficulty weighing wet tires — the board moved to a moderated fee increase. The board adopted a revised fee schedule to be incorporated into the solid‑waste ordinance with attorney review and public notice: county staff were directed to advertise the ordinance for public hearing. The approved schedule to be advertised and reviewed was 12¢ per pound for weighed tire disposal (county estimate places that level as a compromise between covering part of program expense and avoiding large fee shocks), a flat $2 charge for four or fewer small tires per visit and $15 for large/tractor tires. Board members asked staff to include consideration for anomalously heavy loads (for example, tires carrying water due to rain) as part of the implementation plan. Board members repeatedly emphasized the county must be deliberate and fiscally prudent in how it spends taxpayer or grant money on convenience centres; several supervisors said they preferred small pilot tests (prototype boxes or a compacted convenience site) and more property comparisons before committing to major grading work. Staff will return with compactor comparisons, other site options and legal analysis of any proposed local fabrication of secured containers. Votes and formal actions recorded during the discussion: - The board approved advertising for the solid‑waste ordinance change and a public hearing process and directed the county attorney to prepare the ordinance language for the 12¢/lb, $2 (4 or fewer small tires), $15 (large tires) fee structure. The vote carried with one recorded no vote on the scheduling motion (recorded as Supervisor Terman opposing one administrative item earlier) and passed on the tire fee adoption with a majority in favor; the record includes named votes in minutes. (See actions array for recorded vote details.)