Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County details major capital pipeline: water infrastructure, flood control, landfills and parks
Summary
Mohave County staff reviewed a multi-million-dollar capital program that includes water infrastructure (about $19 million in design/construction), roughly $21 million in flood-control projects (about half from federal/state funds), landfill gas-containment work, and a proposed NEPA assessment for a $4.8 million Sawmill RV Park project.
County finance and public-works staff provided a detailed rundown of capital projects carried forward into FY26 during the budget workshop.
Highlights
- Water infrastructure: Staff reported over $19 million in projects in design or under construction, covering aquifer recharge and flood mitigation work; the Mohave Infiltration Basin item is funded primarily through the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority and ARPA funds, per staff.
- Flood control: The slide presentation listed roughly $21 million in flood-control projects; staff said about $13 million of that total is federal and state funds. The Bank Street drainage project was cited as approximately $3.7 million, including a $1 million congressional designation obtained through U.S. Senator Kelly’s office.
- Landfill: The county is planning roughly $3.6–4.0 million in capital for landfill gas containment and other post-closure systems needed as cells fill and new acreage requires upgraded systems.
- Parks and recreation: The county parks division requested $35,000 for an NEPA assessment for Sawmill RV Park, a project with an estimated total cost of about $4.8 million; staff said the NEPA study is a prerequisite to applying for state and federal grant funds that could fund most of the project.
Funding composition and constraints
Staff said many projects are grant-funded or match-funded; for the flood-control slide the county’s share is significantly smaller than the state and federal portions. For some projects (landfill, certain fleet and equipment requests) the county expects to use special funds or user fees rather than the general fund.
Board discussion
Supervisors asked for more data on cost/benefit metrics for aquifer recharge projects and the revenue payback timelines for parks projects, noting grant funding preferences and the long payback periods on some investments. Staff said they will follow up with additional performance metrics and clarifications of funding sources.
Ending
Staff emphasized that many capital items are grant- or fee-funded; questions from supervisors focused on the best allocation of limited general-fund resources and on sequencing grant applications and NEPA work to maximize external funding.
