Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board begins multi‑month process to set long‑term priorities for flood control district projects; staff proposes detailed prioritization criteria
Summary
Coconino County Flood Control Director presented a new, more detailed project‑prioritization framework and proposed work program to guide investments in FEMA special‑flood‑hazard areas. The board agreed to a multi‑month process to finalize weights and priorities and to incorporate Sedona and Tusayan into the study.
Flood Control Director Lucinda Andreani told the Board of Supervisors during the May 27 special session that the county will launch a six‑to‑nine‑month planning process to set long‑term flood‑mitigation priorities. The scope covers FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas under county jurisdiction, with new inclusion of Sedona and a Tusayan assessment.
Nut graf: Staff proposed an expanded, more rigorous prioritization framework — combining mitigation impact, cost, population/properties affected, coordination with other projects, hazard depth/velocity, environmental and community benefits, plus feasibility factors such as land rights and benefit‑cost analysis — and asked supervisors for initial feedback and guidance on next steps and weighting.
Staff showed earlier work (an initial engineering assessment done in 2015–2016) and used Mountain Del as an example of a completed project (concrete channel) that removed structures from the 100‑year floodplain. Andreani and the county’s consultant team (J. Fuller Hydrology, Atkins, CivilTech and others) emphasized: (a) FEMA and federal grant landscapes have shifted; (b) benefit‑cost analysis (BCA) will be required and more rigorous for federal grant competitiveness; and (c) public outreach will be required in affected communities.
Board discussion and next steps: Supervisors asked staff to circulate the prior 2015–16 reports and to convene district‑level outreach (HOAs, fire districts, tribal contacts) while the consultant team refines project feasibility work and the data set for BCAs. Several supervisors emphasized forest‑restoration funding and emergency‑response needs as parallel priorities; staff said the county will continue forest restoration spending while also moving ahead on targeted flood projects as funds allow.
Ending: The board signaled support for a formal work program and a series of follow‑up workshops to define weights for the new criteria and asked staff to provide a schedule for public meetings and tribal engagement. Staff will return with detailed feasibility results and preliminary BCAs for candidate projects.
