Coconino County committee reviews draft comprehensive plan, narrows implementation priorities

A Coconino County planning committee met April 3 to review the near-final draft of the county—s comprehensive plan and its companion implementation plan, hearing staff recommendations on priorities, funding pathways and next steps ahead of public release.

The committee heard that the implementation plan consolidates suggested actions from each chapter into 52 items, of which 17 are listed as ongoing work. "There are 52," Melissa, a Coconino County planning staff member, told the committee while introducing the implementation summary. Staff proposed grouping the remaining items into high-, medium- and low-priority sets and asked committee members to rank the top five items in each category.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan will guide land-use decisions, budgeting and follow-up zoning work for the county. Committee members pressed staff on how priorities should be interpreted, how much work can be done in-house versus requiring grants or consultant budgets, and how the plan should be used during the coming 10-year period.

Committee discussion and key points

- Priority versus timeline: Laura Uniti, a committee member, asked the group to clarify the meaning of "priority," distinguishing high-impact items from those that are simply time-sensitive or quick to complete. "Priority to me means something like highest impact or most valuable," Uniti said, adding that lower-cost, easy items could be advanced sooner even if listed lower in a multi-year timeline.

- Funding and staffing: Staff said some actions can be completed in-house or folded into the department budget, while others—such as a countywide housing needs assessment—would likely require an appropriation or consultant contract. Melissa told the committee the housing assessment would probably be "in the tens of thousands of dollars," and that many larger projects (transportation, flood control) will depend on outside grants or state funding.

- Implementation as a dynamic tool: Staff and several members agreed priorities should be treated as a dynamic list that can be adjusted annually based on funding, events and capacity. Committee members asked staff to add prefatory text linking priorities to timeline and capacity so readers will understand the rationale for ranking.

- Sustainability appendix and separate plan: The agenda included a sustainability and resilience appendix. Staff recommended creating a separate sustainability plan and additional outreach to gather community input before adopting any final sustainability measures. Committee members suggested the appendix be retained as a framework and that the county clarify whether the separate sustainability plan would require its own public engagement and budget.

- Rural growth boundary and maps: Committee members requested that the draft include a map showing rural growth boundaries around existing private lands in places named in the plan, including Belmont, Doney Park, Timberline, Fort Valley and other communities. Staff said such a map will be incorporated; the rural growth boundary is intended to keep new development primarily on private lands rather than expanding onto national forest lands.

- Existing-conditions and population data: The draft relies on county population projections from the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Committee members raised potential undercounts in remote communities, particularly "the Valley," and discussed options for pursuing Census Bureau processes to review local counts. Miranda, a committee member, said she had researched procedures and told the group, "we can do essentially another census recount... we have until 2027 to do that."

Public records and appendices

Staff said the plan—s appendices will include community session reports, background analyses and a glossary, and that the documents and links will be posted on the county website so they remain accessible through the life of the plan. Melissa told members the committee—s edits will be incorporated and that the appendix materials will be linked from the adopted plan so future users can find supporting reports.

Next steps and schedule

Staff said the committee will compile rankings submitted by members (high/medium/low, with a top-five ranking within each band) and use those results to produce a draft for a 60-day public review. Members were asked to submit prioritized rankings before the next meeting; staff said they will circulate divided chapter files ahead of the next convening to make review more manageable.

The committee scheduled a follow-up session to review the initial final draft for additional edits and to record photographs; staff identified that meeting as Monday, April 14. Melissa said she will circulate the edited materials to the committee in advance.

Other attendees and media

A reporter from the Williams Grand Canyon News listened to the meeting online; Calvin Schumacher identified himself as media during the session.