Board weighs investment in fencing at Max Mountain site; members split over spending on leased site

County staff presented bids to replace and widen fencing at the Max Mountain site and described additional work needed to make the site electric-ready. Staff noted the current lease for the site was signed March 9, 2021, and runs to March 2031. Members discussed the scope and cost of replacing the entire fence versus focusing on the front section near the entrance.

Several supervisors said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ complaints about nighttime noise and trespass but expressed reluctance to invest significant capital in a site the county does not own. One supervisor said the county should prioritize finding permanent, county-owned landfill or transfer sites in the valley rather than spending large sums on leased property. Another member said security measures such as patrols and signage could be paired with the fence work to discourage late-night gatherings.

A motion was made to proceed with the bid for Max Mountain fencing. The transcript records partial roll-call responses: Miss Cookenbrook voted no; Mr. Phillips indicated yes; Mr. Booth said no; the chair indicated assent and directed staff to intensify searches for other sites. The excerpted record does not capture every member’s vote unambiguously. Members also tasked staff to look actively for alternate county-owned sites in the district and agreed to emphasize searches where the county has not recently visited properties.

What’s next: The board authorized moving forward with the procurement process as recorded in the meeting excerpt and directed staff to continue searching for permanent county-owned sites in the valley. Final contract awards, costs and any required budget amendments were not decided in the excerpted discussion.

Ending: The board did not adopt a new capital appropriation in the meeting excerpt and left open the work of finding permanent sites and refining procurement scope.