Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Potter Ranch owners, Road & Bridge staff and commissioners agree to work session after complaint over roadside mulching on County Road 23
Summary
At a public comment slot on April 22, Michael Potter asked commissioners to address damage from a county mulching operation on County Road 23; Road & Bridge staff apologized and offered a range of remedies, and the board directed staff to schedule a work session on county rights‑of‑way and vegetation‑management policies.
Michael Potter of Pine Ranch flagged a roadside mulching operation on County Road 23 that removed and damaged brush along a fence line, leaving debris and rutting that he said fell onto his property. Potter told the board the work occurred while family members were temporarily incapacitated and that he was surprised by the extent of disturbance.
Road & Bridge operations staff (Ty) responded, apologized and explained the county uses a mulcher attached to a mini‑excavator for right‑of‑way vegetation control and that the work prioritizes sight lines and safety near intersections. Staff said the county’s right‑of‑way is typically 60 feet and that, based on GIS records, both property fences appeared to encroach several feet into the right‑of‑way in that area; staff offered options including a county‑funded arborist inspection and a survey to pin legal boundaries. Ty offered to coordinate replacement plantings and to cover a survey cost if the fence proved to be correctly located on the Potters’ property.
Commissioners and Road & Bridge staff acknowledged gaps in prior notification practices. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a work session about county rights of way, fences and vegetation-management priorities so the county can establish clearer advance‑notice procedures for affected landowners and a prioritization process for treatments. Staff agreed to bring back a proposed process for segmented, notice‑based treatments and to consult GIS prior to spot treatments where historic fences and ditches create ambiguous boundaries.
The board and staff also discussed that vegetation‑control mulchers do not leave a manicured finish and that some species, such as the Potters’ wild 'mulberry' (squaberry) stock, may not recover without arborist treatment. Road & Bridge offered to plant replacement shrubs from a local nursery and to bring an arborist to inspect the damaged stock if the board agreed not to litigate fence boundary locations at this time.
The consensus of the meeting was to pursue a negotiated remedy for the Potters (survey/arborist/plantings) and to schedule a dedicated work session to clarify vegetation‑management policy, right‑of‑way notification and a county approach to fence encroachments. Staff were asked to include GIS staff and road operations in that work session.
