Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants recommend countywide data hub and explore regional stormwater district to address Hamilton County overland flooding
Summary
Consultants from Raftelis and Voice of Your Customer told Hamilton County commissioners at a March 17 staff meeting that fragmented governance and inconsistent standards hinder responses to overland flooding and recommended a centralized data hub, short-term coordination steps and feasibility work on a regional stormwater entity.
Henrietta Locklear, senior vice president at Raftelis, and Crystal Kendrick of Voice of Your Customer presented findings and recommendations on overland flooding to the Hamilton County Commission at a staff meeting on March 17 (the transcript does not specify the year). Locklear said the review found “there is not a single overarching authority in Hamilton County that is specifically focused or has dedicated funding to address large scale overland flooding,” and that responsibility for related tasks is dispersed across multiple agencies.
The consultants described a four‑milestone project: data collection, program and funding review, consensus workshops and a final report. They said two stakeholder workshops with about 19 staff produced a consensus definition of “overland flooding” and that participants strongly supported cooperation and data sharing. Locklear recommended near‑term steps to centralize complaint and flooding‑event data and create routine communications across jurisdictions; longer‑term options include evaluating an independent regional stormwater management entity and securing sustainable funding.
“Most property owners don’t know and understand their responsibility for maintaining their land and their pipes,” Kendrick said, urging a public education campaign to pair with technical fixes. Kendrick also emphasized that the stakeholder process produced practical near‑ and long‑term actions and praised the collaborative tone among agency staff.
Commissioners pressed for clearer operational representation. Vice President Reese said stormwater staff, Metropolitan Sewer District representatives and other operational personnel should attend such briefings so commissioners can ask technical questions and get immediate answers: “Where’s the people that’s over it? … They should be sitting in here in case there is questions.” Locklear and staff said the study focused on public‑agency representatives and recommended adding additional partners, including development stakeholders, in later phases when appropriate.
Commissioners also asked about cost and timing. Presenters indicated the engagement cost approximately $125,000 and said the group has largely completed the initial consensus work (interviews in 2025 and workshops in May–June 2025, per the presenters’ timeline), but added that defining specific, measurable levels of service will require further, more granular data and stakeholder outreach.
No formal board action was taken on the recommendations during the staff meeting; presenters identified near‑term actions that the board could initiate, including scoping a data consolidation effort and forming focused, facilitated discussions to define community expectations and levels of service. The consultants recommended that the county pursue coordinated governance and dedicated funding if it seeks a sustained, proactive approach rather than the current reactive model.
Next steps: staff and the consultants recommended expanding stakeholder participation for implementation planning, scoping a countywide data hub and further evaluating governance models. The report will inform future budget and policy discussions.
