Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mitigation Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee identifies priority projects: greenbelt cleanup, drainage/culverts, Shaffer Lane fixes, backup power and sandbag readiness
Summary
Castle Valley’s committee reviewed its five‑year priorities and emphasized outreach and remediation for the greenbelt, channel and culvert capacity evaluations, completion of Shaffer Lane culvert work, exploring backup generators for public facilities and replenishing sandbag supplies.
Get email alerts on the Mitigation Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the June 24 meeting the Castle Valley Hazard Mitigation Committee reviewed its five‑year priority projects and agreed to carry forward several items from the town’s 2020 priorities while adding emphasis on greenbelt outreach and drainage capacity work.
Top near‑term priorities discussed included: (1) targeted outreach and education for property owners along the town greenbelt and prioritizing mitigation work in that corridor; (2) evaluating and, where needed, increasing stream/culvert capacity across multiple drainage crossings to handle higher flows; (3) completing and documenting Shaffer Lane culvert reinforcement and four‑season road surfacing; (4) exploring backup power for public facilities — including estimates for propane generators and battery systems — and recognizing site‑specific constraints such as three‑phase service requirements; and (5) sandbag readiness for seasonal flooding (members estimated current empty sandbag inventory at roughly 100 and discussed buying another 100–300 to replenish stock).
Committee members discussed permitting constraints for heavy equipment in active streambeds and noted that some greenbelt cleanup options will require permits (state or federal, and possibly Army Corps) and careful project scoping. The group agreed to: rank the priority list for the next meeting, assemble cost estimates for generator and culvert projects, confirm existing MOUs (for example with Grand County and the local fire district), and treat public outreach and education as a cost‑effective first step for greenbelt risk reduction. No binding contracts or grants were approved at the meeting; the discussion produced direction for staff work and a request that specific cost and permitting information be returned at a future meeting.
