Mohave County asks staff to work with cities after debate over flood‑control allocation formula
Loading...
Summary
The Board debated a proposed Flood Control District allocation that would weight floodplain area and population alongside assessed value. Lake Havasu officials warned the change would cut their funding; the board directed staff to work with city partners on a revised approach.
The Mohave County Board of Supervisors opened a broad discussion about whether the county’s flood‑control revenue allocation should shift from an assessed‑value only formula to one that weights floodplain area and population.
Director Holtry told the board the current formula, in place since 1999 and updated in 2013, distributes district revenues strictly by assessed property value. Staff proposed a new model using 35% assessed value, 50% floodplain area (special flood hazard), and 15% population to better align funding with measurable flood risk.
Lake Havasu City Mayor Cal Sheehy told the board his city would lose roughly $1.4 million under the proposed change and urged the county to consult with cities before a revision. “We have wash stabilization plans and five‑year capital investment plans,” Sheehy said, adding that reduced funding could delay one planned project per two years.
Board members said the flood tax rate is capped and the district cannot easily raise additional revenue; several supervisors argued that, with the tax levy at its limit, allocation should target public‑safety need rather than rebating based on taxable value alone. “Floodwater does not recognize city limits,” the chairman said, urging a model that directs scarce dollars to areas of highest risk.
Several supervisors recommended a subcommittee or staff process to work with the four affected cities (Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Bullhead City, Colorado City) to design a formula that balances project continuity for cities with greater needs in unincorporated areas. Supervisor Lettman proposed forming a working group with city staff; the board approved a motion instructing county staff to work with city staff on potential formula revisions.
The board did not adopt a new formula at the meeting; members emphasized the need for intergovernmental discussion, transitional protections for city projects and clearer mapping of BLM and undevelopable land before any final change.
