Board approves countywide road maintenance fees for zones of benefit and places delinquent user fees on tax roll

5498512 · July 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Supervisors held annual public hearings July 15 and voted to adopt the countywide service area fee structure for road maintenance (zones of benefit) and to authorize placing delinquent special district user fees on the 2025‑26 property tax roll.

The Board of Supervisors on July 15 conducted its annual public hearings and authorized placing countywide road maintenance zone‑of‑benefit fees on the 2025‑26 property tax roll, and separately approved adding delinquent special district user fees to the same tax roll.

"This is the annual public hearing that takes place each July in order to authorize the placement of the associated fees for the county zone of benefits on the tax roll," Public Works Director Shanna Hansen told the board when introducing the road maintenance fee hearing.

After a short period for public comment with none offered, Supervisor Poe moved to adopt the fee structure and place it on the tax roll; Supervisor Kaiser seconded. The motion carried; the clerk reported the action passed 3–0 with two supervisors excused.

Hansen also presented the annual public hearing to place delinquent special district user fees on the tax roll. She said all delinquent property owners had been notified and that owners had until July 31 to pay before fees appear on the roll. With no public comment, the board approved the item by motion and second.

During the road fees discussion a supervisor raised a detailed question about disparate per‑parcel fees on Dogtown Road. County administrative staff clarified that fees vary by parcel location within a zone of benefit and by road segment; staff said they would follow up with the caller for parcel‑specific explanations.

Both public‑hearing motions were approved with the same voting pattern: three supervisors present in favor and two excused. The board adjourned after completing the regular agenda.