Public commenters raise concerns about red lights on Cobb Mountain property and water‑billing practices in special districts

3133972 · April 27, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

During public input, residents asked the board to note red lights on a for‑sale property in Cobb Mountain and requested a board review of Old Long Valley Bridge grants and special‑district water billing and stand‑by policies.

Several members of the public used the meeting’s public‑comment period to raise local concerns about a private property display of red lights in Cobb Mountain and water‑service and billing practices in special districts.

Elaine Brown, identifying herself as a concerned citizen, asked the board to note in the minutes that she believes five distinct red lights on a for‑sale property in Cobb resemble a "red‑light district" display and could create an appearance problem for awareness campaigns about trafficking and exploitation. "I just want that to be known that we don't want to even appear like we're having that thing going on," Brown said. She said she had spoken to realtors who described the lights as an "effect" used by sellers.

On Zoom, Sterling Wellman (identified in the record as Sterling Wellman) asked the board to pursue grants or other resources to address damage to the Old Long Valley Bridge and to the Indian Valley Reservoir spillway, which he described as presenting hazards for residents with limited ingress and egress during fire season. Wellman also asked the board to review how a special‑district manager (named in his comments as "Robin") is handling standby water service and billing; he said residents report being told conflicting information about whether standby service can be turned on and about charges for standby turns.

The board did not take immediate action during the meeting; staff said they would refer commenters to appropriate supervisors or directors for follow‑up and, where appropriate, schedule hearings or additional review.

No formal board decisions were made on these public‑comment items at the meeting.