HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-27-minutes-public-works-study-sessionift
KZTTZTAlS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
%ITTITASCOUNTY Mark Cook, Director
STUDY SESSION MINUTES
March 27, 2017
THOSE PRESENT: Laura Osiadacz, Obie O'Brien (BOCC); Mark Cook, Luke
Huck, Candie Leader (DPW); Doc Hansen (CDS)
GUESTS: None
REQUEST TO APPROVE
AND SIGN THE DIGITAL
SUBMITTAL CERTIFICATION
TO THE COUNTYROAD
ADMINISTRATIONBOARD: Mark presented the digital submittal for the annual
certification for the County Road Administration Board
(CRAB). He stated that all forms have been completed and
this is the last step before sending the information to CRAB.
Board Direction: Commissioner O'Brien made a motion to approve the
digital submittal certification as presented. Commissioner
Osiadacz seconded the motion. Approved. No discussion.
PUBLIC WORKS ROAD
VARL4NCE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
411 N. Ruby, Suite #1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Mark reported that staff is receiving numerous variance
requests lately. The committee is made up of staff from
Community Development, Fire Marshal, Public Works and
(3) three citizens of the county. Mark stated that (2) two of
the members that represent the citizens of the county do not
attend on a regular basis and when they are in attendance they
more often than not have to recuse themselves due to conflict
of interest on some requests. Currently, the variance requests
that are being submitted are in relation to plats and/or short
plats with required improvements. However, developers are
selling lots prior to completion of the road/access
requirements. This is causing the new property owner to
submit a variance from the road/access requirements. With
the current configuration of the committee the decision to
approve and/or deny a request is majority votes. This
overrules any safety concerns that Public Works has in
relation to the requests. Public Works is proposing a new
system where the request is reviewed by the other
departments then to the County Engineer for review and then
submitted to the Public Works Director for the final decision.
TEL (509) 962-7523
FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 2
At that time the decision can be appealed to the Board of
County Commissioners. Mark added that he is trying to raise
awareness of the dysfunction of the committee in its current
state. Commissioner O'Brien inquired as to what other cities
and counties do in processing of variance requests. Mark
replied that it is different across the state but in his experience
the request is given to the County Engineer for review then to
the Director. Commissioner O'Brien would like to address
the topic sooner rather than later and requests to schedule
further discussion at the next study session. Discussion was
held.
Board Direction:
Place topic on the next Study Session for further
discussion and options.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT PROPOSED
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
Mark stated that in 2012 the County adopted the FCZD, a
small county program that levy's about $420,000 to $450,000
a year in levy rates. Since 2012 staff has been very successful
in leveraging that levy money at about 7:1 to generate
additional revenues that we've used to do a host of floodplain
management activities and much of the work has resulted in a
couple of adopted plans including the Lower Yakima River
Reach, Manastash Creek prior to that and currently wrapping
up the Naneum, Wilson, Cherry Watershed Assessment. Out
of each of these plans comes a host of recommended actions.
These actions are typically prioritized by those working
groups prior to the completion of the work. The difficulty
now is that there is a mature and lengthy list of
recommendations all of which cannot be implemented by the
District due to fiscal constraints but more importantly staff
does not have the frame work defined for us to bring to the
BOCC a prioritized project list. Mark is suggesting to the
BOCC that rate payer's need to start seeing things built. We
spent a couple of years getting our minds around the need,
getting the needs assessments done and then build a capital
facilities plan for the District. The question now is how we
build a system that not only allows the BOCC priorities and
interests but also in a way that includes the rate payers. Mark
stated that there are two models he has typically seen in
County Government with utilities of this type. The first is a
strong board model where the Board works directly with the
Flood Control Zone District Administrator and staff brings the
proposals for action or the alternative model is to look at some
sort of a Citizen's Advisory that's primary built from rate
payers and that way they get full representation and they
411 N. Ruby, Ste. #1
TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926
FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 3
Board Direction:
SPARKS LAND ACOUISITION
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT.•
Board Direction:
411 N. Ruby, Ste. #1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
actually own the decisions that come out of that utility.
Discussion was held.
Place topic on the next Study Session for further
discussion and more information.
Mark stated that in 2016 based on the Lower Yakima River
Reach Analysis that the Board adopted identified the need to
recognize the evulsion of the Ringer Loop roadway where the
Yakima River has cut through the road and has repeatedly
inundated a county resident's parcel on the upstream side of
the cast/west road segment of Ringer Loop. Knowing that the
river is trying to find its way to cut through that ox bow, we
had a conversation with the Department of Ecology and the
Yakima Basin Integrated Plan staff and told them ideally we
could acquire this property that is constantly being flooded
and an additional property immediately down river from
River Loop. Both properties have been appraised and are in
the process of acquisitions and final negotiations are currently
being held for the one property and have reached an
agreement on the second property. The second property is
immediately downstream from the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife boat ramp and presume at
some point we are going to want to strategically breech that
east/west road segment of Ringer Loop. Right now it is
essentially acting as a dam. When we strategically breech
Ringer Loop there is a potential for a lot of bed load transport
to result from that breech. We don't want to see the bed load
be deposited onto a county resident's property immediately
downstream. That property was prime for acquisition. We
have an agreement and while the bulk of the acquisition is
funded through the Yakima River Basin Integrated
Partnership monies, however, there is an additional amount
we believe is appropriate to settle for the property that is not
covered by the Department of Ecology grant in the amount of
$20,000. Discussion was held.
Commissioner O'Brien made a motion to authorize the
Flood Control Zone District the additional $20,000
funding to support the Sparks land acquisition.
Commissioner Osiadacz seconded the motion and
discussion was held.
Mark Cook, Director of Public Works
TEL (509) 962-7523
FAX (509) 962-7663
C.A.R.S.
Page 1 of I
Kittitas County
Calendar Year 2017
Digital Submittal Certification
for Forms Due April 1 st
9
The documents checked below are hereby submitted from Kittitas County for the review and acceptance of the County Road Administration
Board.
X 2016 RAP Certification of Road Fund Expenditures for Traffic Law Enforcement
1 hereby certify that the above report is true and accurate and that I have reviewed and approved the report for submission to the County Road
Administration Board in amordance with WAC 136.
Signed: ( q ,- Date: V 151
County Sheriff
Signed:
County j
Signed:
Chair / E
Date: 31 %6117
Date: 2 a r
X 2016 Certification of Road Fund Expenditures for Fish Passage Barrier Removal
X 2016 Annual Certification
I hereby Wary that the Fish Passage Removal and Annual Cerfcations are true and accurate and that I have reviewed and approved the report for
submission to t e Co at ministm U In accordance with WAC 136.
Signed: Date:
Chair/ Execu ve
Signed:
X 2016 Annual Construction Report
X 2016 County Arterial Preservation Report
X 2016 Maintenance Management Annual Certification
Date: r3 2`7
I hereby certify that the Annual Construction Report, County Arterial Preservation Report, and Maintenance Management CemfimbOn are true and
accurate and that I have reviewed, approved, and submitted said reports to he County Road Administration Board in accordance with WAC 136.
Signed: �� p h�Date: 7
https://www.crab.wa,gov/cars/ 2!7/2017
KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Public Works Study Session
Regular Meeting
Monday March 27, 2017 -1:30 PM
Commissioners' Auditorium
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
1. Call to Order
2. Request to Approve and Sign the Digital Submittal Certification to the County Road
Administration Board.
3. Public Works Road Variance Committee Discussion
4. Flood Control Zone District Proposed Management Systems
5. Sparks Land Acquistion - Flood Control Zone District
6. Other business
7. Adjourn
Created on 3/23/2017 12:01:36 PM
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 2017
ACTION REQUESTED: Request to Approve & Sign the Digital
Submittal Certification to the County Road
Administration Board.
BACKGROUND: Kittitas County Public Works Department is
required (WAC 136-04) on an annual basis to
send an Annual Certification to the County
Road Administration Board (CRAB). This
certification is a report required by CRAB that
includes departmental information regarding
Management and Administration, and Policies
and Operations. This digital submittal
certification requires a signature from the
Board of County Commissioners Chair, County
Engineer, Sheriff, and Auditor.
INTERACTION: Public Works; Sheriff; Auditor
RECOMMENDATION: Move to Approve Board Chair signature on the
Digital Submittal Certification to the County
Road Administration Board.
HANDLING: Return 1 original to Public Works
ATTACHMENTS: Annual Certification; Digital Submittal
LEAD STAFF: Mark Cook
Public Works Director
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: March 27, 2017
TOPIC: Public Works Road Variance Committee
ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff Prepare a Code Amendment Amending KCC
12.01.130
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff prepares a code amendment amending KCC 12.01.130 for Commission
review.
BREIFING SUMMARY:
• Currently, a variance committee considers road standard variance requests
• The committee is made up of Fire Marshall's Office, Community Development
representative, County Road Engineer and three citizen representatives
• Recent decisions are being made on simple majority without weight for
engineering considerations from Public Works
• Two of the citizen representatives are regularly recusing themselves from
decisions owing to conflicts of interest (engineering and construction)
• Increasingly, steep terrain in the upper county is prohibiting acquisition of
building lots as developers failed to consider road grade during the platting
process
• Numerous lots exist with non-compliant access issues
• Revising KCC 12.01.130 returns engineering decisions to Public Works
BACKGROUND:
During the past 18 months, numerous requests for variance to County road standards
have been managed by the Roads Variance Committee. On numerous occasions, Public
Works has dissented with the committee on decisions granting variance to our standards.
The committee functions on majority vote. In almost all circumstances, Public Works
has been more likely to adhere to standards than members of the committee.
Increasingly, it appears that emotion is driving committee decisions rather than
engineering science. In one recent example, a request to access a minor collector
roadway was denied by Public Works owing to the lack of safe sight distance. The
committee ruled in opposition to our denial for economic reasons as plead by the
applicate. We now have an access that does not meet minimum safety requirements. The
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
County has accepted ongoing risk at this location. The applicant did have legal access at
another location.
The current variance process is increasingly subject to decision making not supportive of
Public Works standards. Individuals who have purchased lots in steep terrain are
unwilling to spend the money on improved access necessary supporting fire/life/safety
access. Maintaining safe access is a burden for Public Works and should not create a
burden for the fire or law enforcement community.
Public Works prefers amending KCC 12.01.130. We desire altering the variance process
in the following manner:
• Applicant's prepare their variance request
• Applicant meets with County Road Engineer presenting their request
• County Road Engineer evaluates the request and issues a determination
• Unfavorable decisions may then be requested for reconsideration by the Public
Works Director
• The Director may gather additional information as appropriate and issues a final
departmental determination
• The Director's decision may then be appealed to Board of County Commissioners
Public Works believes that this revised process better serves the public interest in that the
variance considerations are based on engineering science and judgement - not based
economics or social considerations. Relief from standards based on non -engineering
rationale is best managed by elected officials. Accepting risk assigned to the department
from a citizen committee seems unreasonable given the amount of pending requests
coming from steep terrain development.
Upon request, staff will return to the Board with a redline mark up of KCC 12.01 .130 for
Board consideration.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
ATTACILMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Current Variance Code (KCC 12.01.13 0)
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 1: KCC 12.01.130
Page 3 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
M1111as Uounry ssoara or c.ounry c,ommtssioners i uounry wue 1 1 iue iz moans aria nria... rage i or i
12.01.130 Variances (Departures from the Standards) and Appeals.
Variances from these Standards may be granted by the Road Variance Committee, comprised of the Public
Works Director, Community Development Services representative, Fire Marshal, or designees, and three
citizens appointed by the BOCC.
The granting of a variance shall be in the public interest When the need for a variance can be identified in
advance, the variance should be proposed at preliminary plat stage and be included for consideration
during plan review and public hearing. Variances from the standards in this title will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Variances will be granted only upon evidence that the variance demonstrates the
following:
A. Unusual circumstances or conditions apply to the property and/or the intended use that do not apply
generally to other property in the same vicinity or district; and
B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
developer possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or district; and
C. The authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located; and
D. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the developer; and
E. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the realization of the Kittitas County
Comprehensive Plan, Long -Range Transportation Plan or this title.
The variance request(s) shall consist of:
A. Variance fee.
B. Variance application.
C. Identification of the standard provision to be waived or varied.
D. Identification of the alternative design or construction standards to be adhered to.
E. A thorough justification of the variance request.
Requests may be prepared by the developer, professional civil engineer licensed to practice in
Washington, or professional land surveyor licensed to practice in Washington. To appeal the denial or
imposition of conditions of a variance decision, an appeal shall be filed per KCC 15A.07 or KCC 15A.08,
based on the underlying land use decision in accordance with Ch. 36.70B RCW. (Ord. 2015-010, 2015)
http://www.co.ldttitas.wa.usfboc/countycode/titlel2.aspx 3/23/2017
nnuras i,ounLy rsoaru ur Uouniy uorrumssiuners i tsoaras, c.urruruaees, ane i,ou=ssions
Kittitas County Boards and Committees
Road Variance Committee
KCC 12.01.130
rage r or 1
The granting of a variance shall be in the public interest. When the need for a variance can be identified in
advance, the variance should be proposed at preliminary plat stage and be included for consideration
during plan review and public hearing. Variances from the standards in this title will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Variances will be granted only upon evidence that the variance demonstrates the
following:
A. Unusual circumstances or conditions apply to the property and/or the intended use that do not apply
generally to other property in the same vicinity or district; and
B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
developer possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or district; and
C. The authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located; and
D. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the developer, and
E. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the realization of the Kittitas County
Comprehensive Plan, Long -Range Transportation Plan or this title.
Members
1.
Mark Cook
2.
Doc Hansen
3.
Josh Hink
4.
Brandon Drexler
5.
Marc Kirkpatrick
6.
(Vacant)
Candie Leader, Clerk
Public Works Director
Interim - CDS Director
Interim - Fire Marshal
Citizen rep., District #1
Citizen rep., District #2
Citizen Rep., District #3
http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/boc/boards/boards.aspx9boaTd=road-variance 3/2312017
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: March 27, 2017
TOPIC: Flood Control Zone District Proposed Management Systems
ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff proceed implementing the selected
management system
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Implement the Board's preferred Flood Control Zone District management system.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• A decision making model is needed to rank/prioritize and implement a Capital
Facility Plan (CFP) for the Flood Control Zone District
• The Board of County Commissioners can act as a "strong Board" or utilize a rate
payer advisory board (a third model may exist but is not considered in this
briefing).
• Each model has advantages and disadvantages.
• An abbreviated summary of pros and cons for each model appears below for
consideration.
Action
Stron Board
Rate Paver Adviso
Develop ranking criteria
Pro: Minimal special
Pro: Maximizes
interest group influence.
inclusion of rate payer
Con: Not inclusive.
interest.
Con: Time consuming.
Apply ranking criteria to
Pro: Only three required
Pro: Insulation for Board
possible projects
to develop consensus.
decision making
Con: Not inclusive.
reflecting rate payer
values.
Con: Time consuming.
Build the CFP
Pro: Quick.
Pro: Insulation for Board
Con: Subject to constant
decision making.
influence from special
Con: Time consuming
interest groups.
process.
Page 1 of 4
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND:
Since creation of the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (District) in 2012,
affairs of the District have been managed by the District Administrator. Prior to 2016,
that duty was managed by the County Road Engineer. Upon hiring Lucas Huck as
County Road Engineer (summer 2016), the duty of District Administrator passed to the
Public Works Director via a written notice to the County Road Administration Board.
Day to day management of the District by the Director has proven successful. The issue
of developing a District Capital Facility Plan (CFP) remains as a key work item in 2017.
Since formulation of the District, numerous District activities have identified multiple
possible projects for CFP implementation. Prioritizing possible District actions is at the
core of defining a preferred decision making structure for the District.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is proposing two alternative management structures pursuing Capital Facility Plan
creation: "Strong Board" or "Citizen Advisory Committee". This briefing provides pros
and cons to each of the suggested management models.
"Strong Board"
This model provides maximum "hands on" ability for the Board defining how projects
are evaluated and selected for implementation. The Board uses significant influence over
the District Administrator directing selection and prioritization of District projects for
implementation. While this model provides efficiencies defining projects, it is subject to
constant and ongoing disruption as priorities are influenced by special interest groups
residing in each commission district. Constituents are expected to lobby individual
Commissioners throughout the year for preferred projects on preferred implementation
schedules. Shifting or changing priorities are expected to create confusion for District
staff charged with CFP delivery. While there are abilities to set expectations within the
model minimizing special interest interference, the model is subject to political process
and affords very little decision making insulation for the Board. Rate payers may also
feel "left out" of the decision making process. The model also increases the opportunity
for special interest groups to claim lack of representation in process when "pet" projects
are not represented in the CFP. A "strong board" provides relatively rapid decision
making and is expected to be the most rapid model developing the District's first CFP.
One unintended consequence of the model is the potential for dividing the Board.
Competition amongst special interest groups will likely compel advocacy for projects
amongst Commission districts. Were a consistent voting block to develop amongst the
Board, an unhealthy decision-making environment could evolve.
Rate Payer Advisory Board
The key advantage of this model is political insulation for the Board_ The advisory board
(AB) develops recommendations regarding all aspects of District operation and CFP
implementation. The District Administrator functions as liaison for Board dealing with
AB recommendations. A wide range of interests are represented developing project
ranking criteria and project prioritization. The AB is expected to develop CFP "Hiles of
procedure" for annual evaluation. In this way, all rate payers have access to a transparent
decision making process annually. Rate payers make decisions about rate payer projects.
The Board is not bound by any decision or recommendation by the AB. The District
Administrator will at times, negotiate for outcomes defined by the Board, recognizing the
Page 2 of 4
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
sovereignty the AB. The AB will likely provide job performance feedback on the
District Administrator to the Board. This system of "checks and balances" provides
confidence in rate payers that their rates are being invested by rate payers. The biggest
down side to the AB model is the time required developing process and defining the
District's first CFP.
The makeup of the AB is critical to District success. Representation from upper and
lower County is a critical consideration. Placement of special interest on the AB is tricky
if the Board desires maintaining a management size for the AB. Solicitation and vetting
of possible AB members will require consideration. Drawing from the entire County
creates a real opportunity to attract expertise in all areas of District operation.
Desired Timeline for Decision Making
The District is facing reauthorization in 2019. Getting a CFP in place for 2018 budget
implementation is critical. Early fail 2017 should provide sufficient time for District
budget inclusion. A draft critical timeline appears below for Board consideration:
• Model defined and operational mid-May 2017
• Ranking criteria defined early July 2017
• Project prioritization complete late August 2017
• Rate payer outreach complete early October 2017
• CFP Board adoption mid-November 2017.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Minor budget impact is anticipated supporting the AB model.
No budget impact is anticipated supporting the "strong board" model.
Costs supporting public outreach efforts are not defined at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Resolution Approving the District Ballot Measure
Page 3 of 4
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 1: Resolution Approving the District Ballot Measure
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
KITTITAS COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. JCI 0 1 Cir'19l
A Resolution Approving A Ballot Measure Establishing A Regular Levy For The
Operations And Maintenance Of The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District
WHEREAS, a notice was published that the Commissioners of said county would
meet on the 7t" day of August 2012, at the Kittitas County Courthouse for the purpose of
making and adopting a budget Fund 107 — Flood Control Fund and giving taxpayers within
the limits of said County an opportunity to be heard upon said budget; and
WHEREAS, the said proposed budget does not exceed the lawful limit of taxation
allowed by law to be levied on the property within the County of Kittitas for the purposes set
forth in said budget, and the estimated revenues and expenditures set forth in said budget
being all necessary to carry on the government of Kittitas County for 2013 and being
sufficient to meet the various needs of said County during said period, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did meet at said time and place,
and approved said budget with an estimate of the amount of the moneys required to meet
the public expenses of the Flood Control Fund for the fiscal year January 1s` through
December 31St 2013, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners directed that the authorization to
levy taxes on behalf of the Flood Control Zone District be put before a vote of the people.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the ballot measure, Proposition #1 shall be
added to the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot and shall read:
Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District
Resolution 2012-081 formed a countywide Flood Control Zone District that is
responsible for carrying out activities related to flood fighting, recovery, and mitigation. The
FCZD will work to lower the flood risk to public and private infrastructure through proactive
floodplain management by working to prevent the creation of new flooding problems and
ensuring that the existing flood protection systems are property maintained. The FCZD will
work to enhance the understanding of floodplain and river systems, through sound
engineering, to provide direction on the best use of County resources and identified
partnerships. This proposition authorizes the District to collect a regular property levy of
$0.07 per $1000 of assessed value for a period of 7 years.
Should this Flood Control Zone District levy be approved?
YES/NO
APPROVED, this 7th day of August 2012.
" l . ........ 19,V
U. A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: March 27, 2017
TOPIC: Sparks Land Acquisition - FCZD
ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize $20,000 in FCZD Funding Supporting the
Acquisition of Sparks Property
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize $20,000 in Flood Control Zone District funds for the acquisition of the Sparks
property at Ringer Loop.
BREIFING SUMMARY:
• 2016 YBIP funding for acquisition managed by Recreation Conservation Office
(RCO)
• Appraisal and check appraisal accepted by RCO at $120,000
• Negotiated price to acquire 20 acres is $140,000
• RCO is good to go providing FCZD pays the additional $20,000
BACKGROUND:
In 2016, staff authorized an appraisal and check appraisal for acquisition of 20 acres at
Ringer Loop owned by Sparks and Stalder. Funding for acquisition is provided by
Yakima Basin Integrated Plan money as administered by Washington State Department
of Ecology.
Using Public Work's acquisition specialist (Faith Rowland), an appraisal and check
appraisal were conducted in 2016. The check appraisal affirms the value of $120,000.
Sparks countered at $152,000 with reservation for development rights. Staff thanked him
and offered $140,000 with no development right reservation.
DISCUSSION.
The Sparks property lies downstream of Ringer Loop and the existing boat ramp
(WDFW). Staff believes the property is essential supporting an eventual breech of
Ringer Loop. The breech has the potential to transport sediment downstream a bend in
the river. The Sparks property is located at the bend in the river. Staff desires acquiring
the property prior to breeching Ringer Loop.
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT '
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The 2017 FCZD budgets $60,000 for repairing the Schaake Levee. Recent Board of
County Commission (BOCC) actions allows for some reprogramming of this expense.
Staff is requested the BOCC authorize $20,000 of the budgeted $60,000 for the Schaake
Levee repair to complete the Sparks acquisition.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Sparks Appraisal
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 1: Sparks Appraisal
Page 3 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT