Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aerial Imagery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Benton County supervisors discuss new aerial imagery contracts; decision tabled for more information
Summary
Supervisors heard a detailed presentation on competing aerial imagery proposals — a lower‑cost six‑year option and a higher‑resolution three‑year option — and agreed to gather further cost‑allocation and usage details before deciding; staff noted strong use by land‑use, environmental health and dispatch.
Benton County supervisors on Jan. 30 heard about two competing proposals to update county aerial imagery and delayed a decision to allow staff time to clarify costs and funding splits.
A presenter reviewed options including a six‑year, two‑flight contract priced at about $105,900 and a three‑year package with a higher one‑time cost cited in staff materials as $168,470. County staff and environmental health officials described routine uses for high‑resolution imagery: parcel and septic mapping, locating wells, producing assessor base maps and supporting emergency dispatch. "Having up‑to‑date information for that is definitely useful," an environmental health staff member said during the presentation.
Board members questioned whether the lower‑cost proposal met county offices’ and the public safety dispatch center’s needs and discussed past practice for allocating costs among the county, E‑9‑1‑1 and project partners. Staff noted the county had previously paid imagery from loss‑fund transfers and had, in some years, spread contract payments across multiple fiscal years to reduce budget impact. One supervisor asked staff to check whether regional grants or EDCOG funding might help defray costs for a specific half‑mile project under discussion elsewhere on the agenda.
Rather than vote, the board asked staff to return more detailed comparisons — clarified resolution terms, which product (the '2‑inch' imagery) best met county needs, and proposed cost‑sharing splits — and tabled the decision for future consideration.
The board did not authorize or amend any contracts at the meeting. Supervisors said they want to confirm which flight timing (spring/fall, leaf‑off) and resolution best supports building outlines, well/septic setbacks and emergency response before taking formal action.
