Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission accepts fence‑viewer report, orders neighbors to split fence cost
Summary
After public comment, the commission accepted a fence‑viewer’s recommendation and determined both parties are responsible for half the cost of the disputed fence; commissioners debated whether future viewings should be done in‑house to save money.
Douglas County commissioners voted April 8 to accept the fence‑viewer’s report and to require the two parties involved to split the cost of a disputed fence, after discussing a 19th‑century statute governing fence viewings and hearing public comment from one party.
Commissioner Dorsy had pulled the consent agenda item to ask about the historic statute (a statute dating to 1868 mentioned in staff materials) that sets compensation for fence viewers at $7.50 per day. Commissioners said the county has previously engaged outside counsel with specialized knowledge of the statute and process; Deputy or outside counsel involvement has historically translated into fees in the low thousands for prior viewings.
Witnesses and parties: one party who identified himself in public comment (Mr. Moore, 2065 North 700 Road) told the board he had explained the history and that the neighbor had previously agreed to split costs, then reversed. Commissioners heard the account and staff’s recommendation based on the fence‑viewer’s report.
The board moved to accept the fence viewer’s recommendation and to determine both parties are responsible for one‑half of the determined fence cost; the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed whether to serve as fence viewers themselves in the future as a cost‑saving measure but noted the process can require legal expertise and high‑touch documentation; they agreed to table any policy change for future consideration.
