Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Works topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff outlines temporary-fencing plan for 12 properties; motion to include it in project scope planned

5888182 · October 6, 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

County staff reported preliminary estimates and logistics for temporary fencing at up to 12 properties tied to a property project; staff said they will bring a formal motion to include temporary fencing in the project scope at an upcoming meeting.

County staff told commissioners Oct. 6 they are reviewing temporary-fencing needs for up to 12 properties connected to an ongoing project (referred to in staff comments as “Keats” properties) and will present a motion in a future meeting to include temporary fencing in the project scope.

Jacob Matson, county counsel (staff), said the project team has refined numbers and now estimates there are 12 properties with existing fencing that may require removal or temporary replacement during construction. Staff provided a notated per-property figure in the meeting transcript — stating “about $7.50 each” — and used that estimate to compute a total of about $9,000 if all 12 properties require temporary fencing. Staff acknowledged not all property owners will request temporary fencing and that only one owner has asked so far.

Staff said the project is expected to take roughly a year from construction start and that temporary fencing could be moved from property to property as work progresses. Commissioners were told the work would not occur at all locations simultaneously; some properties might be done in grouped batches while others would be scheduled separately. The county’s consultant and contractor will publish weekly schedules identifying which properties will be worked on a week or two in advance.

No formal vote was taken on Oct. 6. Matson said he would bring a motion for the commission’s consideration at the commission’s next meeting (staff indicated that motion would be presented on Thursday).