One notable issue discussed was the approval of a revised fee structure for the county’s solid waste management facilities. The board debated the new fee system, which includes a $50 annual fee for vacant residential parcels and a $100 fee for vacant multifamily and commercial properties. These fees are intended to cover operational costs and future capital expenses. The proposal aimed to ensure that all property owners contribute fairly to the maintenance of county services. Throughout the discussion, several commissioners expressed concerns about the potential financial burden on property owners, particularly those with vacant land that might face environmental challenges like wetlands.

Commissioners examined the classification of properties, debating whether vacant land should be treated as residential or commercial. Suggestions were made to differentiate fees for homestead versus non-homestead properties, as homestead owners, who reside in the county year-round, might warrant lower fees. One commissioner argued that “people that are actually setting down their roots and are here contributing to the community… shouldn’t we cut them some slack if we can.” This sentiment sparked a debate on the fairness of the current proposal, which treats all residential parcels equally, potentially placing a disproportionate burden on non-homestead property owners.

Another topic at the meeting was the ongoing recruitment process for a new County Administrator. The board is seeking to fill the position by April, following the departure of the current administrator. With 41 initial applicants, the board narrowed the field to 10 candidates, evaluating them through video interviews and personality profiles. The importance of adhering to core values during the hiring process was emphasized, with commissioners reflecting on past experiences where values were not consistently applied, leading to unsatisfactory hiring outcomes. It was noted that a recruitment firm is assisting in the search, and candidates will be referred to by number until interviews are conducted to maintain confidentiality.

The board also discussed the need for accountability and transparency in the selection process, with a commissioner highlighting the atmosphere of fear that some staff members felt under previous administrations. The new administrator is expected to improve service efficiencies, provide departmental consistency, and facilitate long-term strategic planning. The commissioners agreed on a points-based evaluation system to rank candidates.

In addition to these main topics, the board entered a closed session to discuss a settlement proposal related to an airport runway extension dispute. The discussion concluded with a motion to authorize a settlement payment of $345,000. This decision came after years of negotiation, with the board acknowledging the potential costs of going to trial. The settlement is expected to be received within 30 days, although a longer timeframe was authorized if necessary.